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 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 120.

    Upward Mobility

    Sir Joseph.
    When I was a lad I served a term
    As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
    I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
    And I polished up the handle of the big front door.
    I polished up that handle so carefullee
    That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

    He polished up that handle so carefullee,
    That now he is the ruler of the Queen's Navee!

  • rate this

    Comment number 119.

    Sir Joseph.
    I grew so rich that I was sent
    By a pocket borough into Parliament.
    I always voted at my party's call,
    And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.

    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

    He thought so little, they rewarded he
    By making him the Ruler of the Queen's Navee

  • rate this

    Comment number 118.

    Perhaps on reflection I'm glad I wasn't born into a privileged background.
    I wouldn't have fancied being send to boarding school or having to contend with the weight of parental expectations.
    "Why haven't you got a good job yet in banking/politics/law/journalism/strategic management/accountancy after us paying huge school fees and your father pulling every string in the puppeteers' handbook?"

  • rate this

    Comment number 117.

    114 I get the impression that some politicians - and I'm thinking of one in particular - feel guilty about the privileges they've enjoyed and as a result tie themselves in knots.
    My reaction is "OK you're privileged; learn to live with it and get over it. I don't resent or dislike you. I only wish I'd been born privileged too".
    116 Me too.

  • rate this

    Comment number 116.

    116 Alan
    Whilst when i was young i got excited at Christmas,my most pleasurable Christmases have been when giving & watching my children receive gifts

  • rate this

    Comment number 115.

    114 Interesting perspective IMO.
    That could be why the lottery is so popular; the chance of winning a lot of money purely by chance and "undeserved".
    I must admit to having a frisson of delight when something good and unexpected has come my way.
    In fact most of my life has been like that; I never expected much and my expectations have been exceeded.

  • rate this

    Comment number 114.

    110 sieuarlu "for privilege to be of value it must be earned"

    Please don't say that. You've fallen into the trap set by the privileged. They want you to believe they get no pleasure from their good fortune.The truth is that there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that lifts the spirits like unearned wealth. Just think back to your unbridled joy when auntie enclosed a fiver with your birthday card.

  • rate this

    Comment number 113.

    So many assumptions.

    How sad to place grammar schools with tower blocks. It would seem that you have little experience of either.

    Has a banker, whose grandfather worked in an iron rolling mill, moved up in the world?

  • Comment number 112.

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

  • rate this

    Comment number 111.

    @107 alan

    As someone once said, "Does a lot of money make you truly happy? No. But it sure creates a better class of life of misery!"

    Hardest job in the world: being a parent and knowing & doing what is best for your child or children.

  • rate this

    Comment number 110.

    107For privilege to be of value it must be earned.There's a satisfaction genuine accomplishment brings that having the mere trappings of success without the substance of it can't begin to match.In my world, what you are is everything, who you are is nothing.That's the difference.The idle rich for all their money don't seem particularly happy.How could they be?Deep down they know they're worthless.

  • rate this

    Comment number 109.

    What a question
    If you want a king with no cloths
    If you want flat earth economics
    If you want immoral & amoral leaders time after time,to spend their lives in power & luxury,at the expense f all others & mankind has a whole
    Then only allowing a gene pool that strives for glorious extinction is the answer,otherwise every effort must be made to allow good humans to rise,before the barbaric do

  • rate this

    Comment number 108.

    I'm the same age as Prince Charles.But my life has been a success.I've built many things that contributed in their own small way to improving the modern world.By contrast Charles with every advantage money, power, connections can confer seems to have contributed nothing of value I can discern.Why is the world better off or different for his having been alive in it? I'm the better between us.

  • rate this

    Comment number 107.

    105 Up2snuff
    I agree.
    IMHO an "unprivileged" upbringing can offer advantages as well as disadvantages such as resilience, the ability to cope with adversity, a will to succeed and a sense of fair play.
    Also perhaps a propensity to let one's children plough their own furrow rather than pull strings for them.
    However I suspect most people would much prefer to be privileged, including me.

  • rate this

    Comment number 106.

    104"Actually in many respects I simply don't measure up to my parents"

    I'd say in all respects.You see people through a distorted prism I'm not burdened with.All men are created equal in the eyes of the law is my view Europeans don't seem to share.I bow before no aristocrats or royals.Instead I view them with contempt for not renouncing their presumptuousness.They're no better than I am.

  • rate this

    Comment number 105.

    @95 alan
    People, parents, wider family & community, can be stultifying in any class or location.

    It's possible to have someone who has known the restrictive life of a small farm on a hillside, rarely travelled any distance (because of a commitment to the farm) yet has read books, listened to music & seen films and appreciated them all.

  • rate this

    Comment number 104.

    101 sieuarlu
    Actually in many respects I simply don't measure up to my parents and I would never succeed in doing so.
    I admit however that social status, self worth and value in the world are of some importance to me.
    I'm not particularly proud of this but that's how I am.
    I've learned to live with it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 103.

    Shakespeare, Swift, Shaw, Dickens, many more wrote of England's preoccupation with social status, class society. Small wonder that such a class conscious entity would have deep buried contempt for a society that was formed from what is mostly the dregs of all other societies and their descendants to rise almost overnight to far eclipse everyone else.And then hope for any sign of weakness in it.

  • rate this

    Comment number 102.

    @99 sieuarlu

    Small-minded, petty, self-demeaning and defeating post there, mate!

    If you did but know.

    Some of the RF work very hard for the benefit of UK PLC. Would rather have them around than some super-annuated, has-been politician as President.

  • rate this

    Comment number 101.

    100 NOOOO!
    "Much as I admired my parents for their hard work, integrity and honesty I found that there was something stultifying and restricting about being part of working class culture."

    You clearly think you're better than your parents were.Their CULTURE was stultifying.In your eyes they were peasants! It's not just about money, it's about social status, self worth, value in this world.


Page 1 of 6



Copyright © 2015 BBC. 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.