Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity

(1998) - A B Atkinson, John Hills

Journal: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion
Link::
DOI::
Links::
Tags:: #paper #NCDS #Attainment #LabourMarket #Unemployment
Cite Key:: [@Atkinson1998]

Abstract

The principal aim of Section F of the British Association is to show how economic analysis can be applied to illuminate important issues of public concern. The theme for the 1997 Section F Meeting of “Equality and Opportunity” surely satisfied this criterion. The subject matter is highly relevant to key initiatives of the Labour Government elected in May 1997. The first Budget of Gordon Brown was centred on Welfare to Work, seeking to create employment opportunities for the young and the long-term unemployed. Training, education, and the acquisition of skills are central to the Government's programme. In August 1997, Peter Mandelson, Minister without Portfolio, announced that there would be a campaign against social exclusion as a prominent plank in government policy. December saw the establishment of the new Social Exclusion Unit. According to the Prime Minister, this is in many ways “the defining difference between ourselves and the previous government” (The Observer, 23 November 1997).

Notes

“nemployment may cause poverty, but this may be prevented, as in a number of mainland European countries, by social security” (Atkinson and Hills, 1998, p. 5)

“Unemployment may cause social exclusion, but employment does not ensure social inclusion; whether or not it does so depends on the quality of the work offered. “Marginal” jobs may be no solution.” (Atkinson and Hills, 1998, p. 5)

“A key aspect of social exclusion is that of dynamics. People are excluded not just because they are currently without a job or income but because they have little prospects for the future.” (Atkinson and Hills, 1998, p. 6)

“He makes the point that mobility is in part a life-cycle phenomenon. This insight goes back at least to Seebohm Rowntree's study of York in 1899, but he and Karen Gardiner have taken the analysis an important step further by characterising different types of trajectory, such as “rising out of poverty” or “blips into poverty”. Their characterised trajectories account for a much higher fraction of households than would be expected on a random basis.” (Atkinson and Hills, 1998, p. 6)

“Using data from the National Child Development Survey, he finds that the extent of intergenerational mobility is limited in terms of earnings and education, and that there is evidence of asymmetry in that upward mobility from the bottom is more likely than downward mobility from the top. He argues that childhood disadvantage is an important factor in maintaining immobility of economic status across generations.” (Atkinson and Hills, 1998, p. 6)