These principles broadly encompass the biggest issues that the third sector comes up against time and again in our work as we support vulnerable people, communities and our environment.
The reality is however we live in a society not an economy and as Martin Wolf said in a recent article for the Financial Times: “… the most convincing argument against the ongoing rise in economic inequality is that it is incompatible with true equality as citizens. […] In a society dominated by wealth, money will buy power”[i]. In a democratic society we must not move from one person one vote to one pound one vote.
These principles should not just be followed for reasons of doing ‘good’. They will also reduce inequality, and reducing inequality will make our economy stronger – as plenty of the research highlighted in this report demonstrates.
This report recognises that broad principles can seem worthless unless they are incorporated into our economy and society, so we suggest how this could be made possible: through increasing the number of employee-owned businesses, by encouraging and promoting ethical trading, by creating a fairer tax system, and by looking beyond Gross Domestic Product when measuring our economic impact. We also consider a couple of more ‘innovative’ ideas – a Citizen’s Income, and a shorter working week.
This paper is a continuation of the work of SCVO and others in the third sector. We will continue this work in the coming months and years, seeking to help create an economy that works for the many, not just the few.
This paper is the second in a series that looks to promote conversation about some of the big issues in the run-up to and period after the 2014 Scottish Referendum, amplifying the voice and ideas of the third sector and the people it supports.
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has been considering the economy in recent years. It is not unusual for people to ask why we are looking at the economy, after all the third sector is all about charities, voluntary organisations, and social enterprises. Shouldn’t we be focussing on charity tax, third sector procurement and water rates?
So why are we focussing on alternatives ways of running the economy?
As we all know, a few years ago an economic crisis hit the UK. Then the Government started a programme of austerity measures and welfare reforms. Whilst unemployment hasn’t grown as much as expected, wages have stagnated and numerous people are underemployed. They are left working fewer hours each week than they would like and in less secure circumstances as self-employment and zero-hour contracts replace once secure work.
The people affected by these changes are the very people that our sector works with every day – at food-banks and in advice centres; attending youth clubs and work programmes; making the most of community groups and support centres.
The third sector has grown as a result but should we be happy with this? Would it not be better if poverty and inequality were actively reduced by the economy, rather than increased by it?
This is where SCVO’s interest in the economy comes in. How can we, as a sector, encourage business and government to create the kind of economy that would prevent people falling into crisis?
How can we make the change from an unbalanced economy to one where people are treated and paid fairly? How do we make the economy do ‘more of the heavy lifting’ and truly work for the many, not just the few?
Economic strategy shouldn’t be an experiment just about growing the economy – we need a solution that considers people, their happiness and their jobs, putting people at the heart of their economy and society. We need a socially just economy.
In this paper we present four principles that could help to underpin a fairer economy, and then consider the various ways we could make this more equitable economy a reality, recognising the realities of the global economy we currently live in.
This report is part of SCVO’s ongoing interest in this area, following the Alternative Economy event at the ESRC’s Festival of Social Science, and the event with economists John Kay and Stewart Lansley, and Oxfam GB amongst others at SCVO’s 2014 Gathering. Both of those events were well attended – demonstrating the growing interest in this topic among the third sector, following on from notable work that Oxfam Scotland, Carnegie Trust, Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Environment LINK, STUC and others have been carrying out in the past few years.
We hope this paper brings this debate to a wider audience, and provokes further discussion, so please get in touch and contribute your views by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org.
SCVO will also be creating more spaces for people to share their views in the future.
The economic status quo has not served the poorest in our society well. People continue to be unable to find sufficient work to make ends meet[ii], to find work that is satisfying[iii] and secure[iv]. And to live safe in the knowledge that they will be able to retain a decent standard of living if the employment circumstances of they or their family take a turn for the worse[v].
There has been nothing in the current Chancellor’s budget to relieve this pressure. Even the recent push to increase the minimum wage slightly more than in previous years still leaves us behind where we were pre-financial crisis[vi].
Poverty and inequality are growing across the world[vii]. Growing inequality is actively bad for our economies, making them more unstable and vulnerable to shocks – something that global players such as the International Monetary Fund are finally waking up to[viii]. As Stewart Lansley demonstrated in his book The Cost of Inequality, and Joseph Stiglitz showed in his work for the Scottish Government, whilst economic inequalities lead to poor economic outcomes, by moving towards a promotion of economic equality we can create a more sustainable and prosperous economy[ix] [x]. As poverty bites across the globe and on our doorsteps the need to change has become even more urgent.
Furthermore – as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have demonstrated in their book The Spirit Level – less inequality within countries leads to improved lives for all, including better health outcomes and lower crime levels[xi]. Employment also positively impacts on a wide range of wellbeing indicators, including health and crime. For example, studies in a number of countries have shown that losing one’s job can trigger problem drinking for 1 in 5 men and 2 in 5 women[xii]. A more equal economy reduces the spend needed across a range of public services, as the ‘failure demand’ of 40% of local government spending i.e. remedial spending due to inequality, highlighted by the Christie Commission indicates.
The world’s physical environment is also changing. We are used to hearing of environmental disasters in far-flung places across the globe, but in recent years it seems that climate change has increasingly affected the UK[xiii]. As well as inconveniencing those affected by flooding in their homes, workplaces or in communities or, at the other end of the spectrum, by drought and water shortages, this also impacts on our country’s agriculture[xiv], changing what we can farm and where, and the pests and diseases that farmers – and, indeed, all of us – have to cope with.
With the poorest in our society always hit first and hardest.
Not only that, but large-scale demographic change is expected in the coming years: the Institute for Fiscal Studies expects that by 2050 almost one-in-three adults in the UK will be aged 65 or over, compared with just over one-in-five in 2007[xv]. This creates a significant challenge with respect to how we engage with and support our changing population. We will need more carers, a strong health service and a way to provide adequate pension. This will in turn impact our current workforce, much of which will require increased flexibility and increased income in order to meet family responsibilities. And some might put-off retiring for longer as the state pension age increases, putting an added pressure on job availability for others.
With all of this in mind, it is clear that we need change. We cannot continue as we were and just expect these challenges to disappear or be solved themselves, or by the market.
To paraphrase the ‘definition of insanity’ quote attributed to Albert Einstein – ‘we are doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results’.
Instead we must move to a more equitable economy where everyone has a real stake in their working life and where the importance of unpaid work, community, society and the environment is the defining feature of how our economy operates. As the research discussed below shows, this will bring clear improvements in health, happiness, democracy, crime levels, the environment and society as a whole.
Really, the question is not ‘should we do something?’, but rather, ‘how can we do something?’.
If we want to change the economic system, we need to know why. Understanding our end-goal will help to ensure that we reach our destination.
So what are we really after? Ensuring the well-being of people across Scotland should be the leading principle behind any vision for Scotland’s economic future. The ultimate aim has to be an economic system that benefits everyone, not just the few. In this section, we discuss in more depth the principles that could shape that vision.
1. The well-being and collective prosperity of people across Scotland must be the end goal
Creating material wealth for its own sake, rather than prioritising how it is shared across our society, cannot continue to be the driving force behind our economy. After a certain level is reached, further wealth has very little impact on our happiness[xvi], as the failure of trickle- down economics has shown. Why, then, do so many of us feel it necessary to earn ever greater sums?
Unfortunately, as we discussed in our Introduction, wealth accumulation in unnecessarily large sums gives people power and influence over society, politics and the economy the world over[xvii].
Instead, we must use the economy, and the wealth it creates, to tackle Scotland’s endemic social, health and income inequalities. As Martin Wolf states in the Financial Times, even the International Monetary Fund, the most economically staid of institutions, accepts that lower net inequality drives faster and more durable growth.[xviii]
And French economist Thomas Piketty recently highlighted that government action can curb excessive inequality[xix]. As a country, we must make the security, health and happiness of people our end goal. By doing this, we can work towards a Scotland that is socially just.
2. All work must be properly valued
We are currently in the situation where, through UK working tax credits, we as a society are subsidising pay that is insufficiently high to meet the cost of living. There are also increasing numbers of workers on zero hours contracts – 1.4 million[xx] which often leads to problems in terms of job security and pay[xxi]. Furthermore, recent changes to regulation have altered various workers’ rights, for example, making it more expensive for employees to bring an unfair dismissal case against an employer[xxii]. Linked to this are issues around participation and control, with workers who perform routine tasks, following detailed instructions and with little autonomy, being more unhappy at work, more likely to be off sick, and tending to perform more poorly than their engaged counterparts[xxiii].
In contrast, what we call ‘properly valued’ work is work which is secure, satisfying, paid at a sufficient level, and that gives workers proper rights. If we are to improve our economy for all, we must value the work that everyone does, and give all workers access to decent work (and insist that those who supply us with goods and services are also treated decently). The nature of work must be at the forefront of our minds when we seek to create jobs, and we should avoid creating low-paid and/or insecure work.
3. The value of people’s voluntary and unpaid contributions must be recognised
There are many people in our society that carry out valuable work day in and day out for no pay. We are not just talking here about people who contribute to the third sector through formal volunteering roles. There are also those, often retired, who contribute to their communities in order to make them better places for everyone to live[xxiv]. And then there are those who are carers: for children, for aging parents, for husbands and wives[xxv]. All of these roles are vital.
If we consider a broader approach to economic modelling – as considered by feminist economists in academic literature[xxvi] – we can quickly understand that the value of a paid worker to an employer has come from multiple different places: the state, education, the family, upbringing, as well as from the employer, through development. To not value the contribution that the family has made to the formation of a citizen does not give proper value to the ‘work’ of that family.
This argument can be extended to consider the role of all carers in society, and all voluntary contributors to society. These people sustain our society, the workers in our society, and the communities that help make our nation a decent place to live. Recognising the role that they play in building a strong economy and a strong community, and ensuring that they are supported in that role, is our third principle for a socially just economy.
4. The economy is a part of our environment and we must use our economy to enhance, not destroy, our environment
At the moment, anything that turns a profit is deemed as ‘good’, with very little regard given to how that profit is made. However, considering an ecological-economic model[xxvii] that acknowledges the contribution that the environment makes to the economy, it is clear that profit is generated by using the resources of the community in which the company and those it works with sits, whether that’s in the UK or abroad (or both). Again this breeds the lie that profit is somehow generated in isolation, and the environment is just an input to the economy, rather than the economy being part of our environment.
The environment is essential to our existence: locally, through the benefit that, for example, green space brings to our mental well-being[xxviii]; and globally, through our world’s climate for example. When either the local or global environment is altered, we alter our society and, at the more extreme end, our ability to survive as a species. We must form an economic system that recognises this fact, whether that be through the method of ‘natural capital’[xxix] (that seeks to ‘price’ the environmental impact of individual businesses) or another way.
Whilst as one part of an inter-connected global economic system we cannot change everything, this does not mean that we should let others’ failures to act be an excuse not to act ourselves. Any serious discussion of reforming our economy must take account of the finite nature of much of the natural environment, and use it in a way that prolongs, rather than damages, the global ecosystem. So our final principle says we must use our economy to enhance, not destroy, our environment, both here and abroad.
We recognise that it is easy to outline what we would like to see and it is harder to show how we can get there. In this section we highlight some of the ways we can, within the global capitalist system that we live in, start acting on the principles outlined above.
1. Different ways of doing business
We live within a system where individual companies that create profit survive, whilst those that fail to do so end up out of business. One way we can immediately improve the economy for the many is to change how businesses are run.
Within the third sector, charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises have all demonstrated that turning a profit (referred to as a ‘surplus’ in such organisations) can be done in a way that can have very positive effects on local and global populations. But what about those businesses that choose not to have an explicit charitable aim, but would rather retain their profit for their owners, shareholders and workers? Is there a way to make private businesses work better for their communities?
Recent research suggests that employee-owned businesses increase the well-being of workers, and have wider benefits to society. Reduction in crime levels, increased social cohesion, greater civic engagement, better health, longer lives – all seem to be benefits of employee-owned businesses[xxx]. Not only that, but they appear to perform better economically too: creating more jobs than their non-employee-owned counterparts; sustaining these jobs better through recessions; retaining wealth within local areas; and spreading wealth more widely across social groups[xxxi]. This has clear positive implications for reducing inequality and for providing stable, sustainable work.
Whether we move to fully-fledged co-operatives or some other form of employee-owned business, making employee-owned business the norm would alter our economy. Shifting ownership and how surpluses are retained and spent and shared would be a radical restructure of how we run the economy. Removing any legislative and regulatory barriers, using tax incentives and levelling the playing-field and helping to spread what works could encourage a move to employee-owned business whenever the opportunity arose.
These changes would have large positive benefits for the entire society.
Globally too, we can have an impact. The Fairtrade mark has demonstrated how doing business ethically in the UK can have a knock-on effect across the world. Small-scale farmers who have the Fairtrade mark enjoy slightly higher and more stable incomes than producers in comparison groups, whilst working conditions can be significantly better than on non-Fairtrade certified farms. Not only that, but the Fairtrade Premium is often used for projects in communities, benefitting the wider population’s education and health outcomes for example.[xxxii]
Continuing to promote such certification schemes and further encouraging the use of globally ethical businesses, perhaps through providing incentives for business to operate in this way, again allows us to improve the economy – this time globally – without radically changing the system we currently live in.
Finally, a higher minimum wage and strong promotion of the Living Wage (currently at £7.65/hr in Scotland) must be part of any serious rethink of the economy. Research by KPMG shows that 18% of Scottish workers are currently paid less than the current Living wage[xxxiii]. If just half of workers in Scotland were to receive the Living Wage who do not currently do so, almost 200,000 people would see increases to their pay packets. With a higher marginal propensity to consume, and consume locally, amongst the low paid, this suggests this multiplier effect will lead to boosts in local economies.
No one should be in the situation of working full time hours but still not earning enough to have a reasonable standard of living. The new minimum wage level of £6.50/hour will from October bring an adult over the age of 21 who works 40 hours a week onto a salary of £13,520 per year before tax, approximately £1020/month net with the new personal allowance announced in this year’s budget. This does not bring people in above the minimum income standard researched by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation – the standard that people across the UK think is enough money to live on in order to maintain a socially acceptable quality of life[xxxiv].
This is despite the fact that the Low Pay Commission has shown that the Minimum Wage has had little adverse impact on employment levels and could rise further[xxxv]. Low pay also has a direct negative impact on public finances through the payment of working tax credits. It is absurd to operate an economy that allows the state to contribute to private profit through the system of working tax credits.
Increasing wages to levels which provide a decent standard of living will remove the need for such support whilst also benefitting public finances through higher tax receipts and boosts to local economies.
With all this in mind, encouraging a higher increase in the Minimum Wage nationally (and perhaps a maximum wage?[xxxvi]), promoting the Living Wage (or perhaps seeking for the Minimum Wage to be brought up to the level of the Living Wage, and Government at all levels pushing to make sure that all business supply lines pay high enough wages for people to have a decent standard of living, is something to continue to push for.
2. Alternative ways of measuring the economy
One of the problems facing any attempts at altering how we ‘do’ our economy is the way that the health of the economy is measured. A focus on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the overarching indicator of success, leads to the pursuit of ‘production’ above all other goals.
The Scottish Government has moved someway against this through its National Performance Framework[xxxvii], but still keeps increases in GDP as its overarching goal. To do so ensures that everyone stays focussed on contributing to this one measurement, regardless of the negative impact that this may have on other areas of our lives. It also ensures that we never question why we are seeking to increase GDP.
What would our society look like if we instead sought to use other indicators to measure the health of our economy? We could incorporate the Gini coefficient[xxxviii] and thereby make reducing inequality the priority; or we could calculate how much environmental benefit (or cost) businesses and projects brought; or levels of happiness recorded.
On this front, the Oxfam Humankind Index (OHI)[xxxix] – which was formed by consulting over 3,000 people across Scotland – sought to value the things that matter to people in Scotland. Oxfam Scotland found that health and housing were the top priorities for people, alongside work satisfaction, job security and having a sufficient income. Actual wealth featured low down on the scale, and when it did emerge, people highlighted the importance of sufficiency and security of income, rather than having large amounts of money.
The Gini coefficient, the OHI, the ‘natural capital’ project that seeks to measure environmental impact[xl]: all of these approaches could alter how we think about our economy, and how we recognise when it’s doing well and when it’s doing badly. Focussing solely on GDP hasn’t led us to a good place – shouldn’t we try something new?
3. Doing tax better
The recent work of pressure groups such as UK Uncut have left us in no doubt that many across the UK and globally want to see better tax policy and see global brands pay what is seen as their ‘fair share’ of tax. So it is important that tax policy here in Scotland – and globally through, for example, the ‘Robin Hood’ tax[xli] and the closure of tax havens – should be fair to all, and that tax owed is collected for the benefit of all.
Given the problems of inequality highlighted above, our tax system should have a redistributive focus, encourage positive behaviour, and be transparent and easily understood. Since taxes can also encourage change and set a precedent for relationships between the individual and the state, the tax system should be designed to encourage positive behaviours that benefit our communities – such as rewarding businesses that pay fairly, or that limit their environmental impact – and discourage those that are less desirable.
How an alternative and progressive system could be created – whether it is biased towards National Insurance[xlii], Income Tax or even wealth taxes – is an important discussion. It is worth asking how, in an ideal world, we design a better tax system. Putting redistribution at the heart of the tax system for individuals and businesses; incorporating rewards for responsible employers and environmentally-conscious ones; making sure that those who can afford to pay, do so; all of these aims can form the basis of a better tax system for us all.
4. Thinking outside the box
There are many different ways that we could structure work and, in doing so, allow more time for unpaid work, improve health outcomes, reduce our impact on the environment, and hopefully move to a society that puts less value on wealth accumulation. Some of these ideas appear quite bold, and we explore them here.
Firstly, the five-day week that so many of us work in is a relatively new construct, and there is no reason why it has to stay the norm. The New Economics Foundation (nef) has explored the possibility of moving to a shorter working week here in the UK, recognising the societal and environmental benefits such a move could bring[xliii]. The suggestion put forward by nef is that as rich countries appear to be unable to grow their economies whilst also becoming environmentally sustainable, they should start preparing for a future with little or no economic growth. To combat the effect that limited economic growth would have on unemployment, nef suggests that we could all move to working fewer hours (as long as wages were sufficient) – and enjoy our extra free time, sharing and contributing to society and family.
Although it is maybe a radical idea, moving to fewer hours – when matched with increased pay for those paid least – could be a solution to many of the issues discussed above. It’s worth noting that previous evidence shows that productivity levels are unlikely to fall significantly by shortening the working week[xliv]. Given the over-work of many, and the attendant impact that has on people’s well-being, alongside the underemployment of others, looking at how we can share work opportunities more fairly amongst our population seems a sensible way forward[xlv].
Another bold idea is that of a Citizen’s Income, advocated for strongly by the late Ailsa Mackay. A Citizen’s Income would replace the majority of benefits and provide everyone with a non-means tested basic grant; any paid work carried out on top of this would simply allow people to top up their incomes[xlvi].
There are a few examples of a Citizen’s Income globally, and such schemes have: kept poverty levels down, improved income distribution and increased equality; improved health and nutrition; and increased school attendance in those countries where attendance is not compulsory[xlvii]. Researchers have also demonstrated that a basic Citizen’s Income is affordable for the UK by converting certain benefits into a Citizen’s Income and by removing some tax loopholes, without the need to change the overall personal income tax structure[xlviii].
Such a scheme would ensure that people were much freer to pursue their own goals in life and those of their family, rather than being beholden to either employers or means testing of the state to get by. Again, like the move to a shorter working week, this would help to resolve many of the issues discussed above, in particular those around recognising the value of unpaid work and care.
We started by looking at the situation we are currently facing in Scotland and globally, recognising that our current economic system has left millions of people in poverty, with all the attendant health, education and societal problems that brings. In order to move away from this system, and to create sustainable, positive lives and livelihoods for all communities, we recognise that we need to alter our economy.
We suggest that the following four principles should underpin any changes we make to the economy here in Scotland:
- The well-being and collective prosperity of people across Scotland must be the end goal of our economy
- All work must be properly valued, decently paid and secure
- The value of people’s voluntary and unpaid contributions to economy and society must be recognised
- The economy is a part of our environment and we must use our economy to enhance, not destroy, our environment
These principles reflect many of the values and ideas of the varied third sector. Following these principles as we work towards change in the economy will help to ensure that we move to our end goal – an economy that works for the many, not for the few. Whatever the outcome of this year’s vote, we should look to ensure that Scotland’s economy becomes one that is beneficial to all.
We recognise, however, that change is often a slow and tricky process, especially when there are so many vested interests in maintaining the status quo. So in the third part of the paper we suggest possible ways forward: altering the ways of doing business, structuring work, and measuring the economy. Some of the ideas are yet to be tested, whilst others have operated here or abroad for numerous years and have demonstrated positive results for communities. Some of them will be very familiar to the wider public, whilst others will be more surprising and take more persuasion to be implemented. Yet others have been championed by our own sector and led by it.
We hope therefore that this paper continues the conversation some organisations and individuals have been having around the economy, and widens it out to those who are yet to enter into the debate. To that end, the report ends with some questions that have come out of this work, which SCVO is confident that the third sector and others will have answers to and thoughts on:
- How can we best encourage employers to value work properly, for example, paying the Living Wage or only offering secure contracts, given the pressures that many feel under in terms of their own finances?
- What are the best ways of ensuring that the environment is properly considered in economic decisions, both here and globally? How do we make sure that we do not just export our low-wage economy abroad as we move to increase wages here in Scotland?
- In Scotland, is there value in having a separate Living Wage standard compared to the Minimum Wage standard, or should the Minimum Wage be brought up to the level of the Living Wage?
- How can we best continue to move the conversation towards consideration of people’s happiness, health and security, as well as income, when looking at the economy? Are we right to do this?
- How can we ensure that the value that everyone puts into society is recognised – whether or not that contribution is through paid work?
The third sector clearly has a part to play in continuing to bring ideas like these to politicians and the public, and to keep demanding change for the communities in which we work. We have already demonstrated our ability to make business work for communities through the use of social enterprises and other such models; we have led the discussion on how we should measure economic success; and we constantly campaign for change where we see inequality and injustice.
We will be continuing this conversation in the coming months – please join us.
SCVO is one of many organisations here in Scotland discussing alternative ways to ‘do’ the economy, all with their own slant and expertise to contribute. We will be continuing this conversation over the coming months, both in the run-up to the Referendum and beyond. We hope to see and hear from any of you who wish to contribute to this agenda. Please get in touch.
John Downie | Director of Public Affairs | email@example.com | 0131 474 8037
Jenny Bloomfield | Policy Officer | firstname.lastname@example.org | 0131 474 8001
Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations
Mansfield Traquair Centre
15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh EH3 6BB
The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is the national body representing the third sector. There are over 45,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland involving around 138,000 paid staff and approximately 1.3 million volunteers. The sector manages an income of £4.9 billion.
SCVO works in partnership with the third sector in Scotland to advance our shared values and interests. We have over 1500 members who range from individuals and grassroots groups, to Scotland-wide organisations and intermediary bodies.
As the only inclusive representative umbrella organisation for the sector SCVO:
- has the largest Scotland-wide membership from the sector – our 1500 members include charities, community groups, social enterprises and voluntary organisations of all shapes and sizes
- our governance and membership structures are democratic and accountable – with an elected board and policy committee from the sector, we are managed by the sector, for the sector
- brings together organisations and networks connecting across the whole of Scotland
SCVO works to support people to take voluntary action to help themselves and others, and to bring about social change.
Further details about SCVO can be found at www.scvo.org.uk.
[i] ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, by Thomas Piketty, review by Martin Wolf, Financial Times, 15th April 2014.
[ii]Underemployment and pay in focus before UK jobs data on Wednesday, Financial Times, 18th February 2014.
[iii]Work and wellbeing, British Social Attitudes 29 (2012), p108.
[iv] Zero-hours contracts, Standard Note: SN/BT/6553, House of Commons Library (2014), p4.
[v] Households below a Minimum Income Standard: 2008/9 to 2011/12, JRF Programme Paper (2014), p6.
[vi] Letter to Vince Cable on the National Minimum Wage from the Low Pay Commission Chair, David Norgrove (2014).
[vii] Crisis squeezes income and puts pressure on inequality and poverty, OECD (2013).
[viii] Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth, IMF (2014).
[ix] The Cost of Inequality: Why Economic Equality is Essential for Recovery, Lansley (2011),
[x] See also Macroeconomic Fluctuations, Inequality and Human Development, Stiglitz (2012).
[xi] The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, Wilkinson and Pickett (2010).
[xii] Unemployment, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption and body weight in young British men, Montgomery, S. et al. (1998); The Costs of unemployment, TUC, 2010 http://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/extras/costsofunemployment.pdf
[xiii] How does climate change affect the UK?, Britain Today, Economic and Social Research Council (2007).
[xiv] Agriculture and Climate Change, Standard Note: SN/SC/3763, House of Commons Library (2012).
[xv] Pensioner poverty over the next decade: what role for tax and benefit reform?, Institute for Fiscal Studies (2007), p4.
[xvi] Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence, Easerlin (1974).
[xvii] WORKING FOR THE FEW: Political capture and economic inequality, Oxfam briefing note (2014).
[xviii] ‘Inequality damages the economy and efforts to remedy it are, on the whole, not harmful’, by Martin Wolf, Financial Times,25th April 2014.
[xix] Capital in the twenty-first century, Thomas Piketty (2014).
[xxi] Zero hours contracts: Myth and reality, CIPD (2013).
[xxii] Why the Government’s introduction of employment tribunal fees has caused controversy, Herald Scotland, 20th March 2014.
[xxiii] Constrained Work? Job enrichment & employee engagement in low wage, low skill jobs, The Work Foundation (2014), p3.
[xxiv] Active ageing in active communities: Volunteering and the transition to retirement, Institute for Volunteering Research (2005).
[xxv] Carers Legislation – Consultation on Proposals – January 2014, Scottish Government (2014), p2.
[xxvi] See, for example, the work of economists Julie A. Nelson and Nancy Folbre.
[xxviii] Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data, White et al. (2013)
[xxix] See http://www.naturalcapitalinitiative.org.uk/
[xxx] Worker ownership as a strategy for community development, Broad and Savory-Gordon, (2006); Cooperative Employment Density, Social Capital and Public Health: evidence from Spain, Gago and Freundlich (2013).
[xxxi] The performance of employee-owned businesses in Scotland: some preliminary empirical evidence, Brown et al (2014); Shared Capitalism at Work, Kruse et al (2011); Beyond the Corporation: Humanity Working, Erdal (2011).
[xxxii] Assessing the Impact of Fairtrade on Poverty Reduction through Rural Development: Final Report, Center for Evaluation (CEval) at Saarland University (2012).
[xxxiii] KPMG (October 2012) Current Trends in Household Finance and Structural Analysis of Hourly Wages
[xxxiv] A Minimum Income Standard for the UK in 2013, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2013).
[xxxv] The Future Path of the National Minimum Wage, Low Pay Commission (2014), p12.
[xxxvi] See, for example, Scotland’s Economic Future Post-2014 Submission to the Scottish Government from Oxfam Scotland, p5.
[xxxviii] See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI.
[xli] See http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/.
[xliii] Time on our side: Why we all need a shorter working week, nef (2013).
[xliv] 21 hours: Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century, nef (2010), p11.
[xlv] Ibid., p18.
[xlvi] Citizen’s Income: A brief introduction, Citizen’s Income Trust (2013).
[xlvii] Evidence submitted to the Scottish Parliament’s Expert Working Group on Welfare, Miller, (2013).
[xlviii] Citizen’s Income: A brief introduction, Citizen’s Income Trust (2013), p8.