Skip to content
IEA InfoIEA Info
  • About Us
    • Who we are
      • Staff
      • Trustees
      • Advisory Council
      • Academic Advisory Council
      • Fellows and Academic Advisors
      • Nobel Prize Winning Economists
    • What We Do
    • FAQs
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
      • Jobs
      • Internships
  • Digital
  • Research
    • Publications
    • Economic Affairs
    • EA Magazine
    • Shadow Monetary Policy Committee
    • Peer Review Protocol
  • Blog
  • Media
    • Media Coverage
    • Press Releases
    • Media Enquiries
    • About IEA Comms
  • Students
  • International
    • Initiative for African Trade and Prosperity
    • EPICENTER
    • Translations
  • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Corporate Partnerships
    • Donate to IEA Projects
    • IEA Book Club
    • Patreon
    • Other Ways to Donate
    • Legacy Gift
    • Donate from USA
    • Contact Us
  • Events
    • Forthcoming Events
    • Past Events
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us

Pre-distribution – the next small idea

Philip Booth
5 October 2012

SUGGESTED ARTICLES

previous
Uncategorized

Resolving the Spanish banking crisis

4 October 2012
next
Uncategorized

Euro project has repeated the bad aspects of German reunification

8 October 2012
latest
Tax and Fiscal Policy

In defence of tax cuts – yes, even now

10 August 2022
One of the leading lights in the current Labour Party policy review is Jon Cruddas. He is a Catholic and no intellectual slouch. Does this mean that Ed Miliband’s new big idea – ‘pre-distribution’ – is a policy influenced by Catholic social teaching?

The idea of pre-distribution is that the government should take pre-emptive action to prevent poverty and inequality developing within the economy. That way, there is less need for the provision of welfare benefits and high tax rates. In other words, ‘pre-distribution’ makes redistribution less necessary.

This questioning of the welfare state is itself important. Though many Catholics on the Left try to justify the welfare state from the perspective of Catholic social teaching, the size of modern welfare states is not something with which most Catholics should feel comfortable. The British government is spending around 50 per cent of national income. The welfare state heavily discriminates against family formation. Saving is strongly discouraged and government interferes in health and education in ways that undermine family autonomy and freedom of conscience. In addition, work is strongly discouraged, especially for families with children. The withdrawal of welfare benefits and the imposition of direct and indirect taxes lead to families over most of the income spectrum losing over 75p of every extra pound they earn.

Presciently, Pope Leo XIII warned against taxes exhausting the wealth of families when they were much lower than today’s levels. And Pope John Paul II warned us that welfare functions had been removed from society and the family and given to the state. The chickens have come home to roost. Politicians of most perspectives, including many Labour politicians, recognise that we have gone too far in the direction of an over-grown welfare state and that more taxes and income transfers are not going to solve the serious problems we see in society today. In that sense, whether implicitly or explicitly, in proposing policies of ‘pre-distribution’ the Labour Party has accepted a message that Catholic social teaching has been promoting for many years: there is a limit to what the welfare state can achieve and should try to achieve. Perhaps if the conditions exist for human flourishing in the economic sense in the first place, we will achieve a better result.

Extra evidence for the ‘pre-distributionists’ comes from comparing our welfare state with that of Sweden. Sweden has been the beacon held up by supporters of social democracy. Often, when debating, I find that Sweden is hailed as the model to copy by Anglican Christian socialists. But the facts tell a different story. Sweden does have a very equal income distribution by western standards. Yet the welfare state in Britain is at least as big as Sweden’s and it also redistributes income to around the same extent as the Swedish welfare state. Sweden’s even income distribution is not caused by its welfare state and high tax rates. There is something about Swedish society that leads to a relatively egalitarian outcome in the first place.

Given all this, the Labour Party needs a new narrative, as do all parties. Whether one is looking at the problem through the lens of Catholic social teaching or from a purely practical perspective, increasing the size of the welfare state has run its course as a policy. One narrative has been provided by Phillip Blond and the Distributists. Distributism is the idea that policies should be pursued in order to ensure that centres of power and wealth are dispersed. This has a long history in Catholic social teaching. Distributism opposes big business, a big state and heavy-handed redistribution. But in my view, distributism does not offer an appropriate way forward. I dislike the local monopolies that it can create which can raise living costs and reduce opportunities for the less well-off. (I am uncomfortable with other aspects too, but that is for another day.)

Does Labour’s proposed ‘pre-distributionist’ policy fit the bill? Will it create the conditions that will enable families to flourish without huge income transfers and redistribution? Part of the policy will be to twist the arms of more firms to sign up to the living wage campaign: a level of wages higher than the minimum wage. A statutory minimum wage, sufficient to support a family, is widely supported by Left-leaning Catholics, often citing Catholic social teaching going back to the 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum or beyond. A more accurate view of Catholic social teaching places the obligation on employers rather than on legislators and makes allowance for whether the appropriate level of wages can be afforded by an enterprise.

Nevertheless, would a more widespread living wage campaign work? I have strong doubts. There are problems with the way in which the living wage demanded by campaigners is calculated: it has a large arbitrary element not related to the cost of bringing up a family. And there is a long history of studies that suggest that high minimum wages leave the most vulnerable frozen out of labour markets. Indeed, at the moment, long-term unemployment in Britain is reaching continental levels not seen in recent years.

Ed Miliband has also called for a better focus on skills training. There is nothing particularly novel – or Catholic – about this. The real debate is about whether this is better done through top-down regulation of the schooling system or by giving parents more freedom. On that issue, it is very clear where Catholic social teaching stands. Certainly, if Miliband is able to prevent private sector cartels from raising prices and preventing economic growth, this would be something to be welcomed, but his proposals for a new industrial policy do not really add anything to the debate. If anything, it is industrial policy that encourages cartels and unhealthy relationships between businesses and the state.

All parties should be uncomfortable with the size of our current welfare state and the way in which it undermines family autonomy. The response should certainly be to try to develop economic policies that promote human flourishing in the first place. To some, this may mean a much more decentralised state, lower taxes, liberalisation of planning to make housing cheaper and more parental autonomy in education. Those on the Left would naturally take a view that involved more government intervention in the economy. The Labour Party’s recognition that redistribution will not solve all our problems is certainly a step forward. But, it is not clear that what is being proposed as ‘pre-distribution’ is especially novel or that it would solve the problems Ed Miliband identifies in such a way that the burden on the welfare state would be eased.

This article was first published in The Catholic Herald.

Philip Booth
Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.


1 thought on “Pre-distribution – the next small idea”

  1. Peter Nicholls
    Posted 21/11/2012 at 00:54 | Permalink

    There are echo’s of thoughts, maybe just questions that need investigating, that I’ve had for some time.

    One being, why give working people ‘tax back’ instead of just not taking it away in the first instance? Collection and RE-distribution is surely costly? Could PRE-distribution (or a more accurate named equivalent) save administration costs?

    Why the former? Is it this idea of ‘deserving causes’? Perceived ‘need’ and various ‘justifications’? Not taking the money means that it becomes universal regardless of need, so some will spend on their needs, other on just their leisure. This leads us to parallels with modern arguments amongst some groups about how benefits are spent by their recipients anyway.

    But is this line of reason justifiable, is it EVEN reasonable? No one tells a more wealthy person what they can or cant spend money on, each makes their own decisions according to the needs, desires and perceptions thereof.

    In essence RE-distribution, in the form of welfare, benefits and tax credits, precipitates political and social control, the subjugation of an economic class of people. Rebalancing the capitalist system to a PRE-dsitributive model would contain the out-of-balance problems of ‘rampant capitalism’ before they occurs, which the current redistributive system attempts to constantly intervene and correct-balance, and thereby reduce the administrative cost borne collectively.

Comments are closed.


SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Follow IEA on Twitter Like IEA on Facebook Connect with IEA on LinkedIn

SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS


The IEA is the UK's original free-market think-tank.

Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of the markets in solving economic and social problems. Given the current economic challenges facing Britain and the wider global environment, it is more vital than ever that we promote the intellectual case for a free economy, low taxes, freedom in education, health and welfare and lower levels of regulation.

Find out more about the IEA Support us by donating
  • About Us
  • Staff
  • What We Do
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Donate Now
  • Publications
  • Media Coverage
  • Press Release
  • Media Enquiries
Newsletter signup
Keep in touch with the IEA
  • Donate
  • Like
  • Follow
  • Watch
  • Follow

Copyright © Institute of Economic Affairs | REGISTERED IN ENGLAND 755502, CHARITY NO. CC/235 351, LIMITED BY GUARANTEE

XWe use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.
Read More
REJECTCookie settings
ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Advertisement

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.

Performance

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Functional

Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.

Uncategorized

Undefined cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.

Save & Accept
Powered by CookieYes