Tear down the social ghettos - Ryan Shorthouse

This article first appeared on the Independent Eagle Eye blog on 16 January 2012

Our networks – including our nationality, class and family – are critical in the formation of our character. This is because our actions are heavily determined by the unconscious, which is shaped by social context.

So our chances of success in life are hugely influenced by the networks we belong to. But these networks are becoming increasingly segregated, especially by social class, which is undermining social mobility.

The opportunity to access different networks can be life-changing. New York Times columnist David Brooks says: “If you can surround a person with a new culture, a different web of relationships, then they will absorb new habits of thought and behaviours in ways you will never be able to measure or understand”.

New networks not only help build character, they open doors. A recent Social Market Foundation report, Disconnected, found that the biggest barrier for young adults from low-income backgrounds in accessing internships in the professions was not lack of pay, but lack of contacts in the sector they wanted to work in. Indeed, Professor Ronald Burt’s work reveals that those who sit between many different social networks tend to be the most successful.

Several studies have shown that what matters most to a child’s development is the characteristics and actions of their parents. For those brought up in disadvantage, it is of course right that resources are focussed on supporting parents with the difficult task they face. But escaping poverty also means having the opportunity to learn from and access different networks, throughout the life-cycle.

But recent social trends – some exacerbated by successive government reforms – are eroding access to new networks. The best evidence shows social mobility is already stagnating. It could worsen even further in the future.

Starting in the early years, which are the most critical for shaping a child’s educational development, US evidence shows that formal childcare in a socially mixed environment for children from deprived backgrounds can greatly enhance their future school test scores. But childcare is very expensive in the UK and, unlike any other part of the education system, remains unaffordable for some families. Only 43% of two year olds from deprived backgrounds are experiencing formal childcare, compared to 72% from advantaged backgrounds. As state support is now reducing and costs continue to rise above inflation, the growing private contribution for childcare costs will be too expensive for many more low-income families.

At the other end of the education system, at university, those young people from the poorest backgrounds are much less likely to go. This is a prime reason for stagnating social mobility in the UK, since getting a degree is crucial for advancement in the modern labour market. Too many young people from poorer backgrounds are not accessing an experience that dramatically improves their career prospects, since graduates earn on average £160,000 more over their lifetime than a similarly qualified young person who does not hold a degree. They are missing out on acquiring key contacts for career progression: a quarter of graduates say they got their job through a friend they met at university.

Without the necessary education qualifications, those from the poorest backgrounds could still be socially mobile either through the labour markets or family formation. But accessing life-enhancing networks through work or relationships is now much less likely than in the past.

First, the labour market is more geographically divided, with the expensive London and South East offering the most lucrative careers. Since the 1990s, the mobility of employees between different regions has plummeted. If it’s too expensive to move to areas that contain industries that deliver the most significant returns, there is little hope of social mobility.

Second, partnering is becoming more socially entrenched. People are increasingly likely to partner with people from similar backgrounds. More women are going to university and getting better careers. They, alongside educated men, are deciding to delay marriage and childbirth. The norm in lower-income communities, on the other hand, is to start a family earlier. So the pool of partners people from certain backgrounds can choose from is socially narrower.

Consequently, the UK now has now many more work-rich families with both highly educated men and women. This has dramatically raised household incomes and increased income inequality. International evidence shows there is a strong relationship between high income inequality and low social immobility.

People from different social backgrounds in the UK are much more divided: educationally, geographically, financially and socially. But those from more modest backgrounds need entry to the networks those from more advantaged backgrounds have: to improve their educational levels and open up opportunities. If Government wants to reverse our growing social gheottisation and foster more social mobility, it must improve accessibility to life-changing networks, in particular early years education.

Comments: