Thomas Piketty speaks at an IPPR event at King's College in London on April 30. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

You’ve read Piketty, but what to do about it?

We need a strategy to disperse capital ownership and strengthen employee voices. 

The Piketty bubble is now seemingly only matched by London’s property market.  Yet where the latter is worryingly detached from economic fundamentals, the former’s analysis of the dynamic of capital accumulation rigorously underscores what many already feel. The stark inequalities of power, wealth and income that capitalism generates is not an aberration or pathology but rather inherent to its normal functioning.  This power imbalance in our economy underpins the UK’s poor productivity record. When one third of people are afraid in some way at work, a fifth of workers – and growing - earn less than the Living Wage and the bottom half of the country own only 2 per cent of the wealth, it is not surprising that our productivity rate is now 16 per cent below the average of other G7 nations, the widest gap since 1994. These inequalities seriously corrode the potential of sharing a common life together as democratic citizens.

Yet if inequalities of power and reward undermine both the health of our democracy and the vibrancy of our economy, crucially Piketty also shows how public policy, guided by the democratic interest, can tame the inegalitarian tendencies of capitalism and better channel its creative potential. Piketty’s proposed solutions, including a progressive global wealth tax, have been criticised on the grounds of practicality. But the problem is not his ambition – few people know the history of tax policy in advance – but rather that his solution does not address the root of the issue: who owns capital and who has claims on return to capital. What is required instead is a strategy to build new institutions that can disperse capital ownership claims, democratise the workplace and make finance a useful servant not a dominant master. In essence, a step-by-step democratisation of the marketplace to give people a genuine stake and a say in their place of work.

IPPR’s new report - Fair Shares - sets out how to begin dispersing both economic power and strengthening new forms of employee voice. Firstly, a new tax-advantaged profit sharing scheme could ensure all employees share in collectively created success. It would alter the balance of power and reward between labour and capital whilst putting money in people’s pockets. In France, where profit sharing is compulsory for firms with more than 50 people, over €6.7bn was distributed to millions of workers in 2012. Democratic profit sharing, where all employees participate and vote on the levels of the share, has been proven to successfully boost productivity, wellbeing and commitment.

Secondly, how power and profit is distributed is profoundly shaped by how a company is owned and structured. The dominance of the PLC model intent on maximising returns to shareholders should give way to greater pluralism that rewards a much wider range of committed stakeholders. We therefore recommend ways to improve funding and support for the mutual, co-operative and employee owned sector. Corporate governance should also be reformed to account for a wider range of interests. Similarly, firms should be governed more democratically, with strengthened mechanisms for employee engagement and influence at work. Fair Shares therefore sets out new institutions of workplace democracy, such as introducing an ‘employee working life forum’, that would learn from the successful economic democracies of Germany and the Netherlands. We also suggest potential new avenues for collective bargaining in the workplace to help ensure everyone is represented at work.

Finally, deep concentrations of economic power will only be reversed if finance is made to better serve the productive capacity and social needs of the UK. We need new forms of patient, democratic finance, such as new co-operative capital funds, Solidarity Investment Funds as practiced successfully in Canada and a greater role for public financing of companies through a Small Business Administration unit that has proved so successful in the USA, Singapore and Germany. 

For progressives, institutional conservatism tempered by sporadic bouts of what Roberto Unger called "vulgar Keynesianism" cannot achieve the programmatic dispersal of economic power that is required. Instead, a focus is needed on building new institutions of democratic wealth and influence in the economy that can drive innovation, competitiveness and a future of broad-based prosperity for all. While there are of course significant vested interests that would resist the democratisation of the economy, it is a challenge worth pursuing. After all, as Raymond Williams argued, "to be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing".

Mathew Lawrence is Research Fellow at IPPR

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

In focusing on the famous few, we risk doing a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse

There is a danger that we make it harder, not easier, for victims to come forward in future. 

Back in the 1970s when relations between journalists and police were somewhat different to today a simple ritual would be carried out around the country at various times throughout the week.

Reporters, eager for information for their regional newspaper, would take a trip to the local station and there would be met by a desk sergeant who would helpfully skim through details in the crime Incident Book.

Among the entries about petty thefts, burglaries and road accidents there would occasionally be a reference to an allegation of incest. And at this point the sergeant and journalist might well screw-up their faces, shake their heads and swiftly move on to the next log. The subject was basically taboo, seen as something ‘a bit mucky,’ not what was wanted in a family newspaper.

And that’s really the way things stayed until 1986 when ChildLine was set up by Dame Esther Rantzen in the wake of a BBC programme about child abuse. For the first time children felt able to speak out about being sexually assaulted by the very adults whose role in life was to protect them.

And for the first time the picture became clear about what incest really meant in many cases. It wasn’t simply a low level crime to be swept under the carpet in case it scratched people’s sensitivities. It frequently involved children being abused by members of their close family, repeatedly, over many years.

Slowly but surely as the years rolled on the NSPCC continued to press the message about the prevalence of child sexual abuse, while encouraging victims to come forward. During this time the corrosive effects of this most insidious crime have been painfully detailed by many of those whose lives have been derailed by it. And of course the details of the hundreds of opportunistic sexual assaults committed by Jimmy Savile have been indelibly branded onto the nation’s consciousness.

It’s been a long road - particularly for those who were raped or otherwise abused as children and are now well into their later years - to bring society around to accepting that this is not to be treated as a dark secret that we really don’t want to expose to daylight. Many of those who called our helpline during the early days of the Savile investigation had never told anyone about the traumatic events of their childhoods despite the fact they had reached retirement age.

So, having buried the taboo, we seem to be in danger of giving it the kiss of life with the way some cases of alleged abuse are now being perceived.

It’s quite right that all claims of sexual assault should be investigated, tested and, where there is a case, pursued through the judicial system. No one is above the law, whether a ‘celebrity’ or a lord.

But we seem to have lost a sense of perspective when it comes to these crimes with vast resources being allocated to a handful of cases while many thousands of reported incidents are virtually on hold.

The police should never have to apologise for investigating crimes and following leads. However, if allegations are false or cannot be substantiated they should say so. This would be a strength not a weakness.

It is, of course, difficult that in many of the high-profile cases of recent times the identities of those under investigation have not been officially released by the police but have come to light through other means. Yet we have to deal with the world as it is not as we wish it would be and once names are common knowledge the results of the investigations centring on them should be made public.

When it emerges that someone in the public eye is being investigated for historical child abuse it obviously stirs the interest of the media whose appetite can be insatiable. This puts pressure on the police who don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing offenders to slip through their hands.  And so there is a danger, as has been seen in recent cases, that officers lack confidence in declaring there is a lack of evidence or the allegations are not true. 

The disproportionate weight of media attention given to say, Sir Edward Heath, as opposed to the Bradford grooming gang sentenced this week, shows there is a danger the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. This threatens the painstaking work invested in ensuring the public and our institutions recognise child abuse as a very real danger. 

Whilst high profile cases have helped the cause there is now a real risk that the all-encompassing focus on them does both victims of abuse and those advocating on their behalf a fundamental disservice.

As the public watches high -profile cases collapsing amidst a media fanfare genuine convictions made across the country week in week out go virtually unannounced. If this trend continues they may start to believe that child sexual abuse isn’t the prolific problem we know it to be.

So, while detectives peer into the mists of time, searching for long lost clues, we have to face the unpalatable possibility that offences being committed today will in turn become historical investigations because there is not the manpower to deal with them right now.

Operation Midland, which was set-up to check claims that boys were abused in the 1970s and 80s by a high-level group of paedophiles including politicians, military figures and members of law enforcement agencies, has had up to 40 detectives assigned to it and a similar investigation. Admittedly some of these were murder and major crimes officers but that’s still a large contingent.

In fact if such squads were formed for every historical case the Metropolitan Police would be overwhelmed as last year alone it received reports from nearly 1100 adults – many of them well past retirement age –that they were sexually assaulted when children.

So, now the Goddard Inquiry is in full swing, taking evidence about allegations of child sex crimes involving ‘well known people’ as well as institutional abuse, how do we ensure we don’t fail today’s victims?

If they start to think their stories are going to be diminished by the continuing furore over how some senior public figures have been treated by the police they will stay silent. Therefore we have to continue to encourage them to come forward, to give them the confidence of knowing they will be listened to.

If we don’t we will find ourselves back in those incestuous days where people conspired to say and do nothing to prevent child abuse.

Peter Wanless is Chief Executive of the NSPCC.