Discourse on Inequality in France and Britain

John Edwards, Jean-Paul Révauger

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138311671
• eBook ISBN: 9780429858529
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Published in 1998, this volume consists of 16 edited papers presented at an Anglo-French conference on inequality in France in March 1997. The purpose of this book is to bring together ideas and perceptions of inequality in the two countries across several areas including multi-ethnicity, education, social work, housing and health, presented by experts in these fields and in cultural studies. The purpose is not comparative in the traditional sense, but rather to analyze the different meanings amd conceptions that apply to inequality in France and Britain and to demostrate how these differences affect policies as well as what is considered to be legitimate grounds for policy intervention. This approach to social policy in Europe pays attention to the cultural meanings of concepts like inequality and demonstrates that comparative social policy can only be properly productive when it acknowledges that key words like poverty, inequality, citizenship, social rights and insertion/exclusion carry with them quite different ideological, moral and social meanings in two countries such as Britain and France.

1. Introduction

John Edwards

This book originated in a gathering of French and British academics in Aix-en-Provence in March 1997, The purpose of their coming together was to hear and discuss a number of papers on aspects of inequality in France and the United Kingdom. Whilst it was not the intention that the papers (and the debate) would be 'comparative' in the conventional (and as many students would testify, dry and mechanical) sense, comparison was inevitable. But what emerged from the papers and the debate, was comparison of policy culture, and the different meanings and ideological and moral 'flavours' of the terminology that help make up policy culture in the two countries. Thus, the contributions, a selection of which make up this book, whilst not setting out explicitly to compare British and French policy in a range of areas, stimulate consideration of why it is that so much comparative social policy work has been so unrewarding (at its best) and leaden (at its worst). What they offer may not be as neat and tidy as the 'read across the country columns' style of comparative work but they offer some better insights into and understandings of the often subtle differences between apparently similar policies and the enormous affect that the policy milieu and the very language of policy, can have on the intentions and outputs of policy.

Because inequality is so multi-dimensional, the essays included here range widely and concern themselves not only with substantive areas of policy but also with policy concepts such as 'democracy', 'multi culturalism', the 'underclass', 'solidarity', 'exclusion', and 'rights', that bear on our understanding and treatment of inequality.

These are all concepts that to varying degrees occupy a place in both French and British discourse and policy on inequality and its manifestations but we would be in error were we to think that they carry the same meanings and messages in both countries. And this is not just a matter of linguistic translation; many such terms carry with them ideological baggage so that to talk of 'multi culturalism' for example in Britain is to assume a moral and ideological context that just does not exist in France where its (admittedly infrequent) use will not trigger the same shared understandings. More daunting for transferability, partly because of its more widespread use, is the idea of 'rights'. There are senses in which 'rights' translates quite directly of courseparticularly when theorists in both countries are using the same philosophical groundwork (Paine, Rousseau), but the manner in which the concept is applied and the uses to which it is put in the two countries vary considerably - and not always systematically. This is particularly so in law but it is all too easy to trip over the use of rights in social and public policy as well. Perhaps this is most obviously so when 'rights' is used for partly polemical purposes or when its use is rhetorical as is often the case in debate on social policy in Britain. In these circumstances, the meanings that attach to the word 'rights' in British policy discourse just would not be recognizable to a French policy analyst. This is no more immediately relevant than with the idea of 'group rights' which, deriving from American usage, has obtained at least rhetorical standing in Britain in respect of women, ethnic groups and homosexual groups, but which has gained virtually no purchase in France except to a limited extent in relation to women and which, constitutionally, is without meaning in that country. And even when rhetoric is absent, 'group rights' may sound a strange beast in France.

There is a number of examples of the non transferability of policy concepts between the different political and policy milieu in Britain and France among the essays included here, some emerging from theoretical discussion of inequality, others from analyses of policy in social work and the field of ethnic relations and yet others from discussion of the manner in which inequality and particularly poverty are perceived in the two countries.

The transferability of concepts between countries and between different policy milieu is the principle theme running through these essays (thought it is not the intention of each one directly to discuss transferability) but they serve other purposes as well. Of course, the substantive focus is inequality and the essays collected here serve to illuminate and analyse the debate about inequality and its consequences in Britain and France, but their approaches differ: some analyse policy; some concentrate on the extent and condition of poverty and inequality, and others are better characterized as political or philosophical debates on inequality. They are not, as we have noted, comparative, and the reader will not find Anglo-French comparisons in each and every one. But collectively and with their different mix of approaches, they provide a 'feel' for the different ways in which inequality and poverty are conceived and debated in Britain and France and how the two countries treat them on the political agenda; how widely across the population they apply, and what kinds of policy and policy approaches they adopt to cope with them.

The essays that follow have been divided into four unequal groups - as an aid to the reader - not for sound taxonomic purposes; indeed, several of the essays could, without injury to logic or reason, change group. The first, and largest, group of six essays are theoretical in nature, dealing either with a key concept or with political and ideological debate about inequality. The second group of three essays focuses on ethnic minorities as groups that are more often than most to suffer relative disadvantage. The third and smallest group consists of two essays on the function and effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the social work profession in coping with the costs of inequality, and the final group of three essays is more closely focussed on interpretations of poverty and policies to counteract it.

Other than the group of two essays on social work, each of the groups contains essays by both French and British contributors, by or on, British or French perspectives and it might help the reader therefore if some brief pointers were made about who is writing about what in each group.

The six 'theoretical' chapters each focus on a different component or consequence of, or remedy for, poverty or inequality more generally. Thus, Leydier examines the ways in which the concepts of equality, poverty and equity have changed in content and in use in both France and Britain over the past decade and a half. In both countries, he argues, the growing influence of liberal and new right thought not only pushed questions of inequality (and poverty) off the political agenda but also pushed the fulcrum on which traditional socialist thinking balanced, from equality to a concern with equity and illustrates this by comparing the spirit of the report of the Commission on Social Justice - a seminal document in 'New Labour' thinking - with the 'Mine Report' (La France de I 'an 2000).

Saward's essay on democracy argues a case for the limitation of inequality as a prerequisite for the proper functioning of the democratic process. As a matter of abstract theory, his case applies equally to France and Britain (and indeed, wherever democracy is a mode of governance) but when he argues that a reasoned concomitant of this connection must be the establishment of rights to a certain level of welfare (in particular, the right to a basic income), then the implications of this for policy purposes will be different in the two countries. There may be some level of agreement on the necessity of a right to welfare to the proper functioning of democracy, but how this would be fulfilled, and what the bases of such welfare rights would be, in the two countries, would differ. The goal might be the same but the means to its achievement would probably be quite different 'Rights' as we have noted, strikes different chords in policy (and political) discourse in the two countries. In his critique of'exclusion' and the part it has played in the de-politicization of inequality as a social concern, Révauger, uses a broader European canvas. He traces the history of the idea of exclusion in France (the demise of the radicals, the gradual ascendancy of the enarques and their emphasis on the administrative solutions to social fracture) and then demonstrates how the influence of'exclusionism' has come to infiltrate European social policy more widely. Combatting exclusion (and its counterpart of maintaining social cohesion) have, for Révauger become the anodyne alternative to political debate about, and action on, inequality to the extent that inequality has fallen off the political and policy agenda throughout the European Union. European policy, he argues, seems to have adopted some of the United States model of correcting for harm and disadvantage on just about every front except the most crucial one of wealth distribution.

France and Britain are directly compared in Edye's chapter on the sense of 'community' in the two countries. 'Community' is of course, a multi purpose word but as Edye shows, its uses differ between the two countries (particularly its semi-statutory uses) and in France there is far less recognition of the standing of minority communities for policy purposes. The emphasis on the individual's unmediated connection to the state has tended to exclude 'communities' from recognition as recipients of policies in the way that has occurred in Britain in relation to ethnic minorities and deprived urban communities (although the Zones Franches policy appears to have given some partial recognition at least to some concept of'urban community').

Spicker sets his sights on another concept that plays a key role in policy but in this case, to a much greater extent in France than in Britain (or indeed most other European countries). 'Solidarity' which other than in an outmoded sense, has little meaning content in relation to social policy or the welfare state in Britain. It simply does not 'connect' with any other substantive ideas in policy. In France, on the other hand, the idea or 'sense' of welfare provision relies heavily on the concept of solidarity which, as Spicker notes, is a key to understanding two other important ideas in French welfare policy - those of exclusion and insertion (or re-insertion). If, therefore, we fail to take proper cognisance of the importance of'solidarity' to French welfare discourse, we cannot begin to appreciate the real differences which underpin the superficial similarities between the French and British systems.

In his piece on inequality, property, and community, Poirier casts a sceptical eye at the way that new labour in Britain might approach the question of inequality. His analysis relies upon a backward look at the Labour Party and its attitude to inequality going back to the first world war. If we are tempted to see new labour departing from the hallowed tradition of Labour Party opposition to inequalities that are grounded in property relations, he suggests, then we may be very wrong. The historical record gives little succour to the idea that the Labour Party, through all its vicissitudes has ever embraced a platform of outright opposition to (or even concern about) socio-economic inequalities that derive from property relations. The connection has always been a fragile one but perhaps never more so than now when more anodyne ideas such as 'community' and 'belongingness' find a more welcome place on the policy agenda.

Of the three chapters concerned with ethnic minorities, Dubourdleu's on positive discrimination is the most directly comparative The background assumption (both for the practice of positive discrimination and for the inclusion of ethnic minorities here) is that in societies that are unequal, it is usually the case that some ethnic minority group or groups are more highly represented among the most deprived of the population. Dubourdieu firstly tells the story of positive discrimination (under its various names and guises) in Britain and then goes on to show how equivalent practices would be practically, and legally, almost impossible to implement in France. As a matter of policy practice it would be difficult to implement if only because of the paucity of data available ('ethnic' statistics are far more hedged around by regulation in France) and (though Dubourdieu does not specifically refer to it), the impossibility of collecting data on the ethnic composition of workforces and monitoring changes in workforce composition, both of which are essential prerequisites of preference practice. Furthermore, in common with Eyde, Dubourdieu draws attention to the barriers that exist in France to the recognition of groups as the subject of state policy and the fact that positive discrimination is a group-related rather than an individual-oriented practice. Indeed, it is this characteristic of the practice that sets it apart from most other policy practice in Britain. The message is clear therefore, that ethnic minorities in France cannot, as a group (or groups), be the subject of public policy. That benefit falls only to individuals (of any ethnicity).

Modood s chapter uses data from the latest Policy Studies Institute survey of ethnic minorities in Britain, to chart their changing position in British society. The first, and most important lesson to be drawn from these data, is that debate about the relatively disadvantaged position of minorities in Britain must recognise more clearly than heretofore, the differences between groups such that on some measures, there are greater disparities between minority groups than between some of them and the majority population.

The third contribution on ethnicity takes a more abstract approach to the question of inequality in multi cultural (or multi ethnic) societies. The arguments are relevant in theory at least, to most societies that are ethnically plural but as we have already had cause to note, the wherewithal to test them are absent in a country like France where data of the requisite quality, detail and quantity are not available. The essence of Edwards' chapter is that our understanding of the position of ethnic minorities in relation to the structure of inequality in ethnically plural societies is flawed by the propensity to attribute almost all variations between majority and minority groups to discrimination and 'oppression' both past and present. This, he argues, is inconsistent with the idea of ethical and cultural pluralism itself which must, if it is to have substance, acknowledge that cultural differences may generate different patterns of career, occupation and job choices. Not all variations between groups, he argues, can be attributed to discrimination and in virtue of this be called 'inequalities'; some may simply constitute 'differences' generated by diverse culturally determined choices.

The most deprived and vulnerable not surprisingly have the greatest need for, and make the most use of, the profession of social work. The nature of the relationship between poverty and its associated problems on the one hand, and social work practice on the other is, however, far from clear. And it is this relationship that Dowling, in answering the question 'do the poor need social work?' seeks to elaborate. The context is Britain, though the arguments she adduces are applicable wherever the costs of inequality have to be picked up by social work agencies (whether state, voluntary or religious). Dowling first canvasses some arguments against the poor needing social work from both the ideological left and right. The most telling of such arguments is the one that to the extent that the problems of the poor are a lack of money (and its contingent problems) then this should be a function of the 'financial' welfare system to correct. There will, however, be a continuing need for social work on the part of the poor (and the non poor) because the legacy of problems created by poverty cannot be wiped clean in the short term and there will always be other problems for social workers to deal with (such as child abuse) that are only contingently related to poverty.

Social work must deal with a much broader range of needs and demands than any other part of the welfare state. The scope for discretion on the part of the social worker is greater, and the need to be sensitive to the particularity of clients' requirements is more acute than in other sectors of welfare. One important consequence of this is that in a multi ethnic society, it is often the profession of social work that is in the forefront of recognising and responding to needs that are the product of minority cultures and which cannot adequately be met by procedures and provisions that have been formulated in the context of, and based on the assumptions of the majority society. It is the (partial) failure of social work in Britain adequately to recognise and respond to these circumstances that is the subject of Barn's chapter. It is her contention that the principle of universalism which was influential in welfare strategy from the inception of the welfare state until the late 1970s, enforced the idea of'same treatment' or undifferentiated treatment for all which in respect of ethnic minorities translated into 'colour-blind' provision. There was, in consequence, she argues, little recognition of the different kinds of needs of minorities and, more importantly, little cognisance of different cultures and how problems and needs are interpreted in these cultures. Thus, argues Barn, the needs of minorities have been inadequately recognised and poorly met. Clearly, a parallel can be drawn here between the effects of the doctrine of universalism as Bam portrays them and the barriers erected to sensitive, differentiated needs provision by the French emphasis on individual citizenship and lack of acknowledgement of minorities as having any standing in welfare provision.

The last group of chapters concentrates on poverty and the related and much used (and abused) concept of the underclass.

Capet's essay on Beveridge is included in the 'poverty group' not just because of his analysis of seminal attempts to 'slay' it but also because what he has to say about the Bevendge vision and in particular, subsequent critiques of it, tells us something about how the rhetoric and the vision have changed. His theme is that the vision of slaying the giant of poverty has been turned, by subsequent revisionists into a dry, political correctness, fed off volumes of government statistics. Beveridge believed, in an almost messianic way that poverty could be abolished. Now, there will always be a social statistician or social policy analyst whose livelihood depends on demonstrating its continued existence

It has been a consequence of the nature of the debate on poverty over the past two decades that the idea of an 'underclass' has now become an inseparable component. No doubt the seeming incurability of poverty spawns periodic 'new' explanations for its persistence and it is possible that the 'underclass' is merely the latest in a succession of attempts to lay the blame at the door of those affected. Macnicol is concerned in his chapter to trace the lineage of the underclass idea and the function it has served. The underclass is seen in reality as being less an explanation and more an ideological mallet. The concept, that Britain has imported from the United States (where it has found its most fertile growth) has not yet secured a firm foothold in Europe but there are signs that it is (in different terminology) increasingly in use in France to refer to certain ethnic groups.

In the final chapter in the 'poverty' section, Whitton concentrates on the strategy of the national minimum wage as a means of reducing household poverty. His focus is on Great Britain but he uses occasional asides from the French perspective to point up some of the inconsistencies in some of the assumptions made about the efficiency or otherwise of a minimum wage.

It has been a basic tenet of opponents of a national minimum wage (including, on occasions, trades unions in the past) that its imposition will have a dis-employment effect and thus create more harm than benefit (at least for those with a tenuous hold on the employment ladder). Whitton cites evidence to show that support for this widespread assumption is lacking. There is for example no sound evidence to show that wage deregulation under previous Conservative governments resulted in a reduction of unemployment and any effects that the abolition of the Wages Councils might have had tend to be lost amid the much larger-scale shifts that have occurred in labour markets (such as the increase in job insecurity, the movement from full to part-time, the increase in self-employment and so on). However, Whitton's conclusion is not an unqualified support for a national minimum wage. Given the vicissitudes in the way that household income is now constituted (including the increasing component of benefits) then the arguments for a national minimum wage must depend upon a reassessment of its purpose.

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction
• Part I: THEORY DISCOURSE
• Part II: ETHNIC MINORITIES
• Part III: SOCIAL WORK, POVERTY AND RACE
• Part IV: WELFARE AND CONCEPTIONS OF POVERTY
• Bibliography