Beyond Income Redistribution: The Case for Redistributing Public Services

By Bamfield, Louise | Renewal, Autumn 2006 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Beyond Income Redistribution: The Case for Redistributing Public Services

Bamfield, Louise, Renewal

From Sure Start to adult literacy, the importance of public services in improving life chances has been a key focus of Labour policy over the last decade. Despite this, recent debates about the policy and political challenges of tackling poverty and social exclusion have tended to focus on the issue of income transfers through the tax and benefits system. Of course, narrowing the gap in life chances may well require a more explicitly redistributive system of taxation, but it also calls for a redistribution of spending on public services to ensure that resources are most effectively targeted at those with the greatest need.

In order to retain the wide public support that exists for services funded through taxation, it will be important that--in any narrative about the role of public services--the concept of need is balanced alongside other values embodied in the ideal of universal services, such as solidarity, inclusion and equal citizenship. Nevertheless, a compelling case can be made for the principle of 'redistributing' public services-one which accords with the principle of progressive universalism, and with basic values of fairness and equitable treatment. Moving to a more needs-based allocation, however, is likely to be resisted by those who may lose out under such a system unless government and progressives are prepared to make this case with conviction.

In education there are strong arguments in favour of redistributing resources from less deprived to more deprived areas and, within schools, to focus on improving the performance of disadvantaged children relative to their peers. Importantly, however, achieving this kind of shift in schools' priorities depends on the wider policy climate--and the pressures and demands on schools that create constraints on teachers and school managers in practice. Implementing any such approach obviously depends on political commitment, which in turn raises questions about public attitudes towards public spending, and about how to make the case for reconciling the fundamental concept of universality with more targeted provision and additional resources for the most disadvantaged.

Recent changes to public spending and the distribution of the social wage

As with income poverty, the government's overall record on redistributing spending on public services is good (and vastly better than the Conservative administration that preceded it), but there is much more it could do. While public expenditure on public services has increased substantially since Labour came to power in 1997, and especially after 1999, some age groups have benefited more than others. Children (especially younger children) and pensioners have been the main beneficiaries: public spending per child grew by almost 20 per cent in real terms between 1996/97 and 2001/02, and by around 13 per cent for pensioners, compared with an increase of just 2 per cent for working age adults (Sefton, 2004).

As well as redistributing income horizontally, from working age households without children to families with children and pensioners, Labour has also redistributed vertically from higher to lower income groups. Public spending has become more skewed towards low-income families and children under Labour, so that, for example, the difference in average education spending per child between the least and most deprived authorities increased from 16 per cent in 1997/98 to 24 per cent in 2003/04. Overall, estimated spending on children from 'poor' families (those in receipt of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance) is, on average, twice as great as on children from non-poor families (Sefton, 2004).

Public spending on some public services is more 'pro-poor' than others: the most strongly pro-poor services being those, such as social housing, which are targeted at the least well-off families, while the benefits of universal services, such as health care and education, are more evenly spread (though the bias in higher education is 'pro-rich' rather than 'pro-poor') (Sefton 2002).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Beyond Income Redistribution: The Case for Redistributing Public Services


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?