Written by:
Omar Khan

How The Next Government Can Reduce Racial Inequality

Category:
Published:
5/3/2015
Read time:
Back

The major political parties have competed very little over how best to respond to ethnic inequalities compared to poverty, for example. Assuming a progressive government is genuinely committed to reducing black and minority ethnic (BME) poverty and inequalities, we should ask: what do effective race equality policies look like? By way of answering that question, we can also examine what the various parties currently proposals are to reduce racial inequalities, and analyse the extent to which those proposals are likely to be effective.

No political party is an advocate of racial inequality. Being called or thought of as a racist is now among the worst insults in British political life. Unfortunately this focus on words and so-called ‘political correctness’ has deflected attention from the ongoing racial inequalities in contemporary British society, and the structural ways in which these inequalities are transmitted generationally. Being a BME person in Britain today means that you have reduced chances of getting into university, getting a job, owning a home, receiving an inheritance, being promoted, and having high earnings. Conversely, your chances of being unfairly treated by the police and of serving a longer sentence in prison for committing the same offence as a white person are increased.

Just because politicians and the wider public insist that racism is wrong, it doesn’t mean they always confront these realities. The suggestion that racism has been overcome, or confined to the private thoughts of misguided individuals, or innocuously converted into mild banter with no ill effects on any black or Asian person living in Britain is prevalent.

In more concessionary moods, parties of all stripes accept or even take up the cause of disproportionate poverty rates and inequalities among BME groups. Typically politicians and policymakers associate ethnicity with disadvantage, and reference their policies to tackle poverty when issues of race arise. Examples of policies that government ministers have suggested reduce racial inequalities include: the minimum wage, the pupil premium and the ‘troubled family’ agenda.

One obvious problem with this sort of framing is the assumption that all racial inequalities are about poverty and that the issues affecting disadvantaged (or ‘troubled’) families generally do not vary by ethnicity. Such a framing risks further stigmatising BME families, but it also fails to respond to the ways in which racism affects people on the street, in the labour market, and in the media, regardless of their poverty or wealth.

Nevertheless, it’s unfortunately true that all black and minority ethnic groups are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. So in principle politicians aren’t wrong to say that policies that disproportionately benefit the worse off are more likely to benefit BME people. Furthermore, more generic ‘universal’ policies and institutions that don’t consider ethnicity at all may also in principle disproportionately benefit BME people in so far as those policies – for example, the NHS – are of greater benefit to the non-wealthy than to the wealthy.

Note, however, that this is only true ‘in principle’. The first policy prescription for the next government is to ensure it collects data on the actual effects of its universal or anti-poverty policies, and to evaluate whether they actually reduce poverty or promote fair opportunities for BME people. This sort of monitoring has reduced under the Coalition, but data has shown that while BME young people are 26% of applicants for apprenticeships, only 10% of those who secure an apprenticeship are non-white. Research also suggests that the minimum wage may not benefit BME people as much as expected, while Labour’s guaranteed job scheme may not equally benefit young BME people because they are less likely to claim Job Seekers' Allowance, the benefit that Labour’s policy will use for guaranteeing such jobs.

A second and related point may seem inappropriate when considering what a progressive government should do, but is necessary given the financial and political reality for the next British government. This is that when a government chooses to reduce expenditure in a particular area or scrap a particular policy, it must better evaluate whether or not these reductions increase racial inequalities. Additionally the Equality Act indicates that governments should identify what measures they propose to mitigate any increase in racial (and other) inequalities. This requirement doesn’t appear to have been fulfilled for recent policies, including the benefit cap (40% of those affected are BME), cuts to legal aid, the immigration act (including landlord checks), voter registration or the comprehensive spending review.

In monitoring the effects of its policies, it is not enough for the government to show that they don’t increase ethnic inequalities or are equally beneficial to white and black and minority ethnic people. They must also address significant inequalities in White British and BME outcomes that we know exist, such as a 12% employment gap (meaning 500,000 ‘missing’ BME workers), higher unemployment rates (even for equally placed Russell Group graduates), and higher required A-levels to get on the same course. If policies merely equally benefit white and BME people, that will mean that the inequalities stay the same.

This leads to a third key policy prescription: a progressive government that is serious about tackling racial disadvantage cannot simply focus on poverty or, e.g., educational attainment among poor BME children. Rather, it must seek to address racial inequalities. Again, some of these could be addressed by more egalitarian policies generally, which are in principle more likely to benefit BME people. But as above, these outcomes need to be evidenced, and policymakers need to be aware that different ethnic groups are positioned differently in the labour market, in terms of benefit uptake, family size, household type, and other demographic features, to say nothing of any cultural or structural reasons why BME people do not currently engage with the state and its various services.

This last point suggests a fourth policy recommendation: that in implementing ‘universal’ policies, even anti-poverty and egalitarian policies, governments need to consider carefully the actual implementation of these policies. This may mean delivering a schools policy differently depending on the demographic features of a local authority or supporting BME- and women-led charities in order to support everyone who experiences domestic violence equally. This might be called ‘targeted universalism’.

A fifth and final policy suggestion is more explicit ‘race targeted’ policies. As an example of such a policy, the next government should set a target that 20% of under 25 employees and 15% of under 40 employees in the public service are black and minority ethnic, and work with the private sector to deliver a similar target by 2020. Such explicit race-based policies have typically been viewed as more controversial, though Labour’s Sadiq Khan suggested quotas in the judiciary and in the last weeks of canvassing, David Cameron indicated the Conservatives would set targets for BME employment in the next parliament.

Such (relatively) strong signalling from Labour and the Conservatives reflects two realities. First is that existing inequalities in the labour market are not disappearing all by themselves. The lesson appears to have settled in that a generic social mobility or fair hiring policy does not result in equal opportunities for BME people. This is unsurprising given the Department for Work and Pensions’ own research shows that even with the exact same qualifications you need to send in twice as many CVs just to get an interview if you have an African or Asian-sounding name. The second obvious reason is numbers: BME people are a rising share of the population, and so a rising share of voters in a Britain of tightly fought elections and hung Parliaments.

Whatever the future electoral calculus, the next government must do much more to address black and minority ethnic inequalities, and not just poverty. Runnymede is a member of a wider coalition of organisations that has identified 8 key asks for the next government, emphasising employment, education, criminal justice, health, housing and immigration, and in each case we have focused on racial inequalities. The background document to these 8 asks outlines the evidence on these inequalities, and their significant effects on BME people, young and old, in cities and in rural areas. This is not only an enormous waste of human potential, and an increasing drag on Britain’s economy, but a failure to offer equal chances to everyone. If the next government wants to increase economic activity and deliver a progressive, better democracy and economy, it must ensure that there are fewer racial inequalities in 2020 than there are in 2015.

Write for us

Why not write for Britain's number one race equality think tank? We are always interested in receiving pitches from both new and established writers, on all matters to do with race.

Share this blog


Copy

Related blogs

No items found.

Join our mailing list

Join our community and stay up to date with our latest work and news.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.