Richard G. Wilkinson

I am five years behind the curve in reading this book. I’ve put it off because I don’t need convincing of its thesis; I already thought that more unequal societies were worse. Still, it’s well known and much-cited, so I’ve finally got round to it. Needless to say, I found its arguments convincing and was impressed with the range of evidence marshalled. As always with such books, accessibility has resulted some slight sacrifice in academic rigour - I would have liked to see some show more p-values for the regressions. They could have stuck them in the notes & references for social science nerds like me. I also wondered at all the strictly linear correlations - no polynomials? These are mere nitpicks, though.

I was initially surprised and slightly baffled by the book’s claims to be apolitical and evidence-based, whilst presenting a very strong argument against capitalism in general and neoliberal capitalism in particular. You can protest neutral objectivity all you like, but in social science there is absolutely no such thing. This is a political book and there is no point in denying it. In chapter 13, the writers comment on alternative explanations to income inequality for their findings. One of them is neoliberalism, which is dismissed because although it may well have caused increases in inequality, it did not intend to! I found this astonishing. Income inequality probably didn’t intend to cause worse health, education, and crime outcomes either. The key point here is that it’s incredibly naive to assume that evidence of negative implications is sufficient to get neoliberal policies changed. Such a view ignores power relations, institutional structures, and the nature of neoliberalism as an ideology. Neoliberalism sees high levels of inequality as an inevitable and acceptable part of economic activity.

This professed apolitical stance is then tossed aside in the final two chapters, the former of which deals with climate change. It includes a graph I’ve seen before, comparing Human Development Index (HDI, which measures Gross National Product, life expectancy, and education levels) scores with ecological footprint per capita. One country in the world manages to reach the threshold of ‘high’ HDI whilst remaining within the average world biocapacity. Guess which one! It’s Cuba, which has been governed by a Communist dictatorship since 1965. Infant mortality rates and life expectancy there are almost identical to those of the USA. This fact causes me a certain morbid amusement. Costa Rica also does well for good reasons.

The climate change chapter was serviceable overall but inevitably superficial. The final chapter, titled 'Building the Future', was the most interesting to me. It faced up to the difficulties of creating more equal societies, noted that various policy approaches exist, and suggests some specific examples. I was pleased by the admissions that economic growth is a substitute for equality and that a steady-state economy is key to tackling climate change. The discussion of employee-owned firms was interesting, however it is unclear to me how massive multinational corporations could ever transition to such a model. As the writers concede, the ‘basic amorality of the market’ is a critical stumbling block to reducing consumerism, protecting the environment, and prioritising equality over economic growth. I also couldn’t help noting a certain contradiction in the commentary on rich countries that are already relatively equal, such as Sweden and Japan. In each case, the political impetus for pursuing equality was some sort of massive upheaval; in several cases, a world war. Despite this, the writers state hopefully that a transformative reorientation towards equality can be achieved incrementally, without revolution. I wish this was the case but find it hard to believe, especially considering the scale of change needed to reduce carbon emissions.

I am being critical of this book, but not because I didn’t like it or don’t agree with what it’s saying. It’s because I wish there was a simple answer to the acute and entrenched problems of inequality and climate change. There isn’t and a plausible complex answer hasn’t yet emerged either. (If it has, let me know ASAP!) ‘The Spirit Level’ is an excellent introduction and very useful contribution to the debate, though. I think it is a lot more anti-capitalist than it dares to admit. Presumably this is elided in order not to cause undue alarm. I was pleasantly surprised by the importance placed on climate change and the eventual recognition of vested interests as a serious barrier to change. Sadly, I can’t help feeling that since 2009 equality has receded further. In the UK, certainly, the Coalition government has worsened the situation - here’s a paper on that. ‘The Spirit Level’ is well worth reading, I just wish it had left me in a more optimistic frame of mind. show less

This is a must read book for everyone hence the rating. I would like to unreservedly recommend it but I cannot. It is a hard read, I kept having to put the book down because my head was hurting too much from all the blows. To say it is evangelical would be an understatement. The authors have their soap box and they are single minded in ensuring the message does not escape anyone. But what an important message, the greater the income inequality the more symptoms of a sick social malaise there show more are. You name it, violence, mistrust, totalitarianism, obesity, suicide, prison population, under performing children and more much more are all shown to increase the more unequal a society becomes. Contrary to common presumptions, egalitarianism is not a cranky far left fantasy but a very central core community spirit we all aspire to.

Right, got the message but the book bangs on and on, showing more and more statistics that prove incontrovertibly their message. This is where I begin to lose it. When evangelicals thump I tend to get wary and start to look for alternative scenarios. I am not in a position to query let alone challenge their presentation of statistics, it all looks so overwhelming convincing. I not able to nitpick about data spreads, median lines, angles or scale but have to leave that to those that understand. When data is so overwhelming then there just has to be an alternative view. None is offered. There has to be a counter approach, there has to be historical evidence that gainsays their gospel, there has to be recent changes that run counter to their all encompassing answer, inequality. It is human nature to screw up and overlook the alternate view point.

Nethertheless the message is highly important with significant implications for our society, where it is and what has to happen. We should all get our minds around the issues raised. It was with some relief when three quarters of the way through the book suddenly changed tack and began to widen its view and looked in a more expansive way as to how their findings work and are relevant. Great, I could begin to enjoy the read again. Unfortunately they found a new soap box, climate change and began again to thump away. Well meaning, earnest, very serious in intent and purpose. Maybe just not gifted writers for the masses. Yet clearly that was their intended audience with a book having scholarly origins but dumbed down for an all to read. Pity and equally well-done. At least they have made digestible the indigestible and in doing so given access to highly significant findings. Inequality damages us all, poor and the rich alike.

In their new edition postscript they do try to respond to all the criticisms aimed at their studies. But for me it is too much of the converted cherry picking what they choose to respond to, what to ignore and appeals to overwhelming numbers supporting the cause. Despite all of what I have said, I urge you, do please read this book. Put it down and then reflect. You may well find it to says deeply significant things about our society and the problems you feel but cannot isolate and expound. It did for me. show less

The evidence and argumentation is strong in this one. The core idea is simple and powerful, it reveals itself in many aspects of many different societies with very different institutional systems. The core idea is that humans long for better conditions, not only in the sense of absolute material conditions (so, please stop repeating "but hey, global poverty levels are down, time to celebrate!", because nobody is arguing against that), but in the sense of relative psychological and show more sociological security, solidarity, and trust, achieved by low level of inequality.

The question is simple: if you really had the choice, what kind of society would you like to live in? A society where there's more trust, more solidarity, better mental and physiological health, less crime, and less depression and anxiety, or a society that is worse in those aspects? It is not very difficult to come up with an answer.

The authors take a lot of data sets and many different countries, after which they proceed to show the relationships between the aspects above and inequality levels. Their conclusion is clear: having huge levels of inequality does not lead to very healthy societies. Correlation is of course not causation, and the book has a separate chapter discussing finer points that lead to its conclusions.

Taken together with another book, "Inequality: What Can Be Done?", the time is overdue to focus our perspective on helping each other and ourselves to have healthier environments, both mentally and physically, worth living in.

Many great accomplishments start with a small, simple, and powerful idea; and if we'll have a better future, then this book will be among the valuable few that put forward the idea of "less inequality, healthier society". show less

The thesis of this book is that greater equality creates a better society is a no-brainer for me. But we live in an age where there are some who promote greater inequality and deny the need for society at all. The authors richly illustrate the advantages of equality and the disadvantages of inequality in our world. This is probably not a work to listen to as an audiobook as I think for my mind it requires greater attention and study.