Do we really want more social mobility?

Most middle class people would like their children to get a leg-up. Most middle class people would like their children to get a leg-up.

What would it take to give every child in the UK a fair chance to succeed? What does that kind of equality of opportunity even look like?

I debated that question on Start the Week with four people who had plenty to say on the subject. What struck me, most, was how little the debate has changed in the past 60 years.

David Kynaston's latest volume of postwar social history, "Modernity Britain" covers the last few years of the 1950s, when the word "meritocracy" was first being heard - along with CND, the Today programme and Bruce Forsyth.

As he reminded us, people were ambivalent about the move to a "meritocracy" even then; an ambivalence flagged up very clearly in Michael Young's classic book on the subject, published in 1958.

Turfed out

But everyone did claim to want greater social mobility, and the confident post-war planners thought they had the answer in the form of tower blocks and the 11-plus.

Disadvantaged families would be turfed out of the slums and put into high-rise flats (as Kynaston writes, usually over the loud objections of the families themselves).

And, those who did well on the day of that crucial exam would get the chance to improve their lot in life with a grammar school education.

Of course, things were not so simple, and by the 1960s, both the tower block and the grammar school were in retreat. But progress on social mobility continued, at least until the 1970s.

Start Quote

The problem is most people - and certainly, most middle class people - only want "equal chances" for everyone else's children. Deep down, they'd rather like their own children to get a leg-up”

End Quote

After that, the evidence suggests that social mobility stalled; a child from a poor background was no more likely to move up the social ladder than in the previous generation. In fact, some of the (mixed) evidence on this suggests that social mobility actually fell.

Comprehensive defence

When you talk about the reasons for that lack of progress, the debate always seems to gravitate to the loss of grammar schools in many parts of the country, and the advent of comprehensives.

But neither Kynaston nor the others on the programme thought the evidence for that was clear-cut. In fact, we had a spirited defence of comprehensives from the Independent columnist Owen Jones and the novelist Zadie Smith.

Smith writes vividly about the way school, background and postcode combine to shape people's life chances in the corner of London she grew up in, in her latest novel NW.

Neither she nor Owen Jones liked the assumption hidden in all the talk about "social mobility" and providing "ladders out" - that the working class was always and everywhere something people should want to escape from.

In NW, the character who has "escaped" her background to become a barrister is pretty miserable. She missed the communal experience on offer in the community in which she grew up.

Talent needed

This gets us to a larger point, which is that when we talk about wanting more social mobility, we are often not really talking about making it easier for some to go up and others to fall. We are talking about what I mentioned at the start: Giving every child a fair chance to realise their potential (whatever that means).

As David Willetts reminded us on the programme, it's not just a problem for society if people are getting trapped at the bottom, it's bad for the economy as well. We need all the talents we can get.

But, it strikes me there is a very good reason we are still talking about this problem so many years after those optimistic social engineers of the post-war era thought they had it cracked.

The problem is most people - and certainly, most middle class people - only want "equal chances" for everyone else's children. Deep down, they'd rather like their own children to get a leg-up.

As Willetts spelled out in his book, "The Pinch", the baby boomers have been especially good at carving out the best opportunities for themselves and their children. They also had an added, structural advantage, that they came of age in an era when the economy was losing low skilled, blue collar work and growing the middle class.

Put simply, there were more people going up than going down.

Fewer opportunities

That is no longer true. In fact, in Britain and many other advanced economies the change is often going the other way. In that sense, it is almost a matter of arithmetic that upward social mobility - narrowly defined as the capacity to move up from one social class to another - should have declined since the 1970s.

Start Quote

There are simply fewer "good" jobs for working class people to move into”

End Quote

There are simply fewer "good" jobs for working class people to move into.

So, there may be structural reasons why social mobility has not progressed as far as people might have hoped, back in the late 1950s.

But one conclusion you might also draw from our post-war history is that British voters and policy makers may care about advancing social mobility, but they care about other things more - particularly the freedom for parents to help their children.

The freedom to send your child to a private school has always been protected. You can also give them a deposit to get onto the housing ladder, and leave them a tidy sum when you die.

Neither Labour nor Conservative governments have messed with those things - for very good reasons. But, as long as families can do all of these things, it's pretty difficult for the government or anyone else to level the playing field.

Less mobility

Successive governments have also encouraged the empowerment of women in this period. Yet, as David Willetts has pointed out, this has probably inadvertently raised income inequality and cut social mobility, because well educated women marry other well educated men and take jobs that might otherwise have gone to upwardly mobile working class men.

That doesn't mean that feminism was a mistake (!) It does suggest that empowering them has had consequences that have partly come through in reduced social mobility.

It's a matter of judgment whether successive governments could or should have done more to increase life chances at the bottom, or improve social mobility.

Clearly there are uncontroversial ways to approach that goal, like investing in early years education, which are supported by all parties and do not get in the way of every parents' desire to help their kids.

But when push comes to shove, in a world of hard choices and competing priorities, the lesson of the past 50 years would seem to be that British voters and policy makers do not have much desire to put social mobility first.

Stephanie Flanders, Economics editor Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 60.

    I'd like to see the country operating a meritocracy - those who try hard and have the ability get to do what they desire. Unfortunately the 'old school tie' (as it used to be called) is too strong for this. If you are neighbours of the PM your kid gets a plum job, if you are mates of the bank manager... if you are just plain brilliant - then nothing.

  • rate this

    Comment number 59.

    Instead of meritocracy and social mobility a more balanced and equal pay is needed across all work. It does society no good to have a big separation of wealth and there really is not much difference in the usefulness of one work to another even though one of them may be very highly paid and the other paid very lowly.

  • rate this

    Comment number 58.


    "...More are born with higher IQ, some with greater drive and others are lucky with their family and support..."


    Though some may be born with a greater aptitude than others for developing IQ, we are not born with a given one. Largely, the thought processes that give a high IQ can be learnt. The former is propaganda to justify denying proper education to the masses.

  • rate this

    Comment number 57.

    What ho Charles!

    You are absolutely right although that is just one major factor and the result of others. There are several 'others'. Interesting to note which country in Europe has done most to economically advantage majority of its citizens & from a low base.


  • rate this

    Comment number 56.

    Perhaps one could start by defining terms a little more narrowly:

    A materially upwardly mobile person has a cellphone; a socially upwardly mobile person knows better than to use it on the train.

    From this, we might conclude that nobody (at least in the UK) really gives a damn about social mobility.

  • rate this

    Comment number 55.

    Do we really want more social mobility?

    Yes - for people that want it.

    - although It says something about the opportunities for social mobility when the Cabinet are mainly ex-Eton

  • rate this

    Comment number 54.

    I would say that the vast majority of people are not interested in 'social mobility' what they are interested in is having a reasonable quality house be able to afford the bills with a little left over to enjoy themselves.
    Until the UK stops building rabbit hutch homes and start building proper family homes that working people can afford we will continue to slip into poverty as a country.

  • rate this

    Comment number 53.

    47. 49. Like I said, faith can be a good thing. I think we both want the same outcome - better prospects for those without. I believe in a data driven, evidence based approach to this problem ... and a little creativity wouldn't go amiss. See Mark Easton's take on the Valleys. No "Plan B." That's half the problem. What is the priority in Government? Doesn't appear to be social progress to me ...

  • rate this

    Comment number 52.

    "Social Mobility" creates a vision (and debate) of hierarchy, up good, down bad.

    Should the vision be social liquidity, and should the debate be social respect?

  • rate this

    Comment number 51.


    Agreed, but how are you defining equality?

  • rate this

    Comment number 50.

    Total equality in any society is impossible as we are not born equal. More are born with higher IQ, some with greater drive and others are lucky with their family and support.

  • rate this

    Comment number 49.


    If it allowed the barrister to take a career break and flip burgers for a bit or the burger flipper to train in law... perhaps then society wouldn't make assumptions about worth based on vocation.

    What's more, imagine doing the job you really like, rather than the one that pays the bills. Wouldn't society be happier?

  • rate this

    Comment number 48.

    The other thing unchanged in 60 years is thinking about the class structure. Upper, middle and working classes are as dated as tower blocks and the “11plus”. This is disappointing. For at least 10 years a USA analysis (by Richard Florida) shows the only three classes (in no particular order) are service, creative and working. Consideration of these results in different conclusions.

  • rate this

    Comment number 47.


    Over-reliance on imagery may have been misleading. I am an athiest and my point was about positive or negative views of what is possible. My faith is in social progress.

    The NHS, universal education, welfare, pensions.... we can produce a more equal society where once there was a rigid hierarchy.

    That didnt bring mobility. It reduced inequality.

    Totally agree with that as a priority.

  • rate this

    Comment number 46.

    @ 41. ComradeOgilvy

    I am with you on that.
    However, even if the pay was equal, between a barrister and a burger flipper, would society except them as social equals?
    Pay grade mobility is not social mobility.
    Only when society gets over this prejudice are we truly socially equal.

  • rate this

    Comment number 45.

    It is amazing that over the last fifty years in trying to provide more chances for social mobility we have actually made UK society more restrictive & limited in opportunity.

    The major cause has been a succession of 'boom & bust', there are others but until we can have a moderated, low inflation, propserity for all economy, opportunity in the UK will be very selective.

  • Comment number 44.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 43.

    Unless you believe that everybody is created exactly the same then it is quite possible that social mobility stalled in the 1970s precisely because it was a success in earlier decades.

  • rate this

    Comment number 42.

    34. Well faith can be a good thing but I'm sorry, the fact that there is variation in people's economic circumstances is inevitable and no matter how society is organised there will be those who benefit and those who suffer. All that ever happens is that things get a bit of a mix up. The priority for Government has to be to mitigate against the factors that entrench people in poverty.

  • rate this

    Comment number 41.


    If the pay were adequate, frankly I would do those jobs. Isn't that the whole point.


Page 4 of 6



  • Baby being handed overFraught world

    The legal confusion over UK surrogate births

  • Bad resultsBlame game

    The best excuses to use when exam results don't make the grade

  • Police respond to a shooting in Santa MonicaTrigger decision

    What really happens before a police officer fires his gun?

  • Child injured by what activists say were two air strikes in the north-eastern Damascus suburb of Douma (3 August 2014)'No-one cares'

    Hope fades for Syrians one year after chemical attack

  • Lady AlbaGoing Gaga Watch

    Social media's use ahead of the independence referendum

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.