Location of Repository

A problem of riches: towards a new social policy research agenda on the distribution of economic resources

By Michael Orton and Karen Rowlingson

Abstract

The distribution of economic resources in society is a central concern for social policy. But research in this area has primarily concentrated on the bottom of the economic distribution, namely ‘the poor’. In this article, we argue that it is time for social policy to move away from a narrow focus on poverty to consider the broader issue of inequality between different groups in the economic distribution and, by implication, the position of better-off citizens. This raises a number of conceptual challenges due to the current lack of consideration of wealth and inequality at a political, theoretical or empirical level. The article discusses the challenges and concludes by outlining a possible research agenda. However, the underpinning argument is that social policy needs to develop a broader understanding of the economic distribution

Topics: HN
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:652

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2005). A More Equal Society? New Labour, Poverty, Inequality and Exclusion, doi
  2. (2001). Assets and Progressive Welfare,
  3. (1991). Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy,N e wY o r k :A r m o n k . doi
  4. (2001). Assets for the people’,
  5. (2005). Attitudes to Inheritance in Britain,
  6. (2005). B l a n d e n ,J . ,G r e g g ,P .a n dM a c h i n ,S .( doi
  7. (2004). Breaking the Cycle: Taking Stock of Progress and Priorities for the Future, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. T a w n e y ,R .(
  8. (2002). Bridging the wealth gap’,
  9. (1993). Budget Standards for the United Kingdom, doi
  10. C r o s l a n d ,A .( 1956), The Future of Socialism,L o n d o n :C a p e . doi
  11. (2003). Changing tax welfare’, paper presentedat
  12. (1999). Class inequality and meritocracy: a critique of Saunders and an alternative analysis’, doi
  13. D e a c o n ,A .( 2002), ‘Echoes of Sir Keith? New Labour and the cycle of disadvantage’,
  14. (1999). D e a n ,H .w i t hM e l r o s e ,M .( doi
  15. (2002). Does inequality matter?’,
  16. (2001). Effect of Assets on Life Chances,
  17. (1991). Equality and Partiality, doi
  18. (1993). Equality of what? On welfare, goods and capabilities’, doi
  19. (2000). Equality,C a m b r i d g e :P o l i t yP r e s s .
  20. (1958). Essays on the Welfare State, doi
  21. (2003). Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market: Final Report, London: Cabinet Office.
  22. (1994). For Richer and Poorer: The Changing Distribution of Income in the United Kingdom 1961–1991,L o n d o n :I F S . Goodman,A.,J ohnson,P .andW ebb,S.(1997),InequalityintheUK,Oxfor d:Oxfor dU niv ersity
  23. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, London: Allen Lane.ap r o b l e mo fr i c h e doi
  24. (2003). Housing, Equality and Choice,
  25. (2000). How Much is Enough? Basic Family Budgets for Working Families,
  26. (2004). Inequality and the State, doi
  27. (2005). Inequality and violent crime: evidence from data on robbery and violent theft’, doi
  28. (1992). Inequality Re-examined, doi
  29. (2000). Is Inequality Bad for our Health?,B o s t o n :
  30. (2003). Is Middle Britain Middle-Income Britain?,B r i e fi n gN o t e ,N o .38,I n s t i t u t e for Fiscal Studies.
  31. (1998). Low Cost but Acceptable: A Minimum Income Standard for the UK, London: Family Budget Unit. Patrick,R.andJacobs,M.(2003),Wealth’sFairMeasure:TheReformofInheritanceTax,London:
  32. (1990). Markets, citizenship and the welfare state: some critical reflections’, in R. PlantandN.Barry(eds),CitizenshipandRightsinThatcher’sBritain:TwoViews,L o nd o n: IEA Health and Welfare Unit.
  33. (1974). N o z i c k ,R .( doi
  34. (2002). New Labour and the evolution of regionalism in England’, doi
  35. (2000). Poverty and Social Exclusion in
  36. (2001). Poverty and social security: what rights? Whose responsibilities?’, doi
  37. (1994). Poverty and Wealth: Citizenship, Deprivation and Privilege, doi
  38. (1993). Poverty: The Facts,
  39. (2004). Preventing poverty in market societies’, paper presented at the ESPAnet Annual Conference ‘European Social Policy: Meeting the Needs of a New Europe’, 9–11 September,
  40. (1999). R o w l i n g s o n ,K . ,W h y l e y ,C .a n dW a r r e n ,T .( doi
  41. (1901). R o w n t r e e ,S .( doi
  42. (2004). Resolving gender pay inequality? Rationales, enforcement and policy’, doi
  43. (2004). Strength in Diversity: Towards a Community Cohesion Strategy and Race Equality Strategy,L o n d o n :H o m eO f fi c e .
  44. T a y l o r - G o o b y ,P .a n dH a s t i e ,C .( 2002), ‘Support for state spending: has New Labour got it right?’, doi
  45. (1979). T o w n s e n d ,P .( doi
  46. (1994). The benefit fault line’,
  47. (2005). The Impact of Inequality,L o n d o n :R o u t l e d g e . doi
  48. (2001). The Kingsmill Review of Women’s Pay and Employment, London: Cabinet Office,
  49. (2005). The New Egalitarianism, Cambridge: Polity Press. Goodman,A.andOldfield,Z.(2004),PermanentDifferences?IncomeandExpenditureInequality in the 1990sa n d2000s,L o n d o n
  50. (1998). The Third Way, Cambridge: doi
  51. (1972). Theory of Justice, doi
  52. (2002). Third way is the only way’, doi
  53. (1993). Understanding Poverty, doi
  54. (1996). Unequal but Fair? A Study of Class Barriers in Britain,L o n d o n
  55. (1996). Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality,L o n d o n :R o u t l e d g e . doi
  56. (2004). We can and should take action if the earnings of the rich set them apart from society’, New Statesman and Society,
  57. (2005). We’ve got to carry this on’,
  58. (2006). Wealth, citizenship and responsibility: the views of better off citizens in the UK’, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.