『Antisocial Economics』のカバーアート

Antisocial Economics

Antisocial Economics

著者： Sarah Kerr
無料で聴く

このコンテンツについて

 What is wealth? How come so many of us haven’t got any? How does wealth inequality make poverty worse? In the UK and other rich economies, wealth inequality and poverty are at incredibly high levels. A very small number of people are very rich and most other people are not. An increasing number of people live in poverty. Should there be limits to the amount of wealth one person can own? How come so many wealthy people are so dependent on state handouts? Why is it so hard to do anything about it? While we know a lot about poverty, we know a lot less about wealth. Did you know that the UK Office for National Statistics only started tracking wealth and assets in 2006? And Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century broke new ground with its historical wealth data in 2013. This is all remarkably recent. Podcast host Sarah Kerr is a researcher who explores the links between wealth, poverty and power. In this first series of Antisocial Economics, Talking about Wealth, Sarah talks to academics and campaigners about: The role of wealth in the widening sense of economic insecurity and electoral volatility - (with Professor Jane Green, University of Oxford. Which demographics are feeling the most financial distress and why might this matter for future elections? What we mean by poverty and wealth and what the relationship is between them - (with Professor Mike Savage, (London School of Economics,) and Professor Jonathan Wolff, (University of Oxford). Is there something specific about wealth as form of economic resource that should change how we think about poverty? The colonial history of wealth and its implications in the contemporary racial wealth divide, (with Professor Gurminder Bhambra, Sussex University). Who actually paid for the things we think of as ‘ours’ (like the NHS))? Whether there should be limits on wealth (with Fernanda Balata (Political economist at New Economics Foundation) and Luke Hildyard (Director, High Pay Centre). Is there a point at which wealth causes social harm? What is ‘enough’? The hidden world of tax expenditures - (with Professor Emeritus Adrian Sinfield, (University of Edinburgh). Why do we know so little about a huge government expenditure that benefits higher income earners the most? Why is it so hard to do anything about it? (with Will Snell (CEO, Fairness Foundation), Dr Michael Vaughan (Research Fellow, LSE) and Dr Jonathan Mijs (Associate Professor, Boston University)). What is it about public attitudes and perceptions of the economy, of wealth, the wealthy and wealth inequality that makes change hard to achieve? Antisocial Economics is an informed and accessible space for thinking and talking about wealth as a social problem, and specifically, for thinking about the effects of extreme private wealth ownership on social and environmental sustainability. So why is the podcast called ‘Antisocial’ Economics’? The economy isn’t working for most people, and wealth inequality is at the heart of the problem. We all work hard, but the wealth we create together is extracted to enrich a few men at the top. It feels unfair. And that’s because, frankly, it is! This podcast is for anyone who wants to understand our social economy in a more critical way. Whether you are: A student or researcher interested in inequality and social justice A professional working in economics or public policy Or a concerned citizen trying to make sense of rising inequality Antisocial Economics is hosted by Sarah Kerr, a Research Fellow at the International Inequalities Institute. In 2024, Sarah published Wealth, Poverty and Enduring Inequality, Let’s Talk Wealtherty Starting from the premise that continuing to centre poverty encourages researchers and policymakers alike to 'look down' she contributes to a strand of work that asks what happens if we 'look up'? 社会科学 科学
エピソード
  • Episode 6: What and how does the public think about wealth and wealth inequality, and what kinds of narratives make them more or less supportive of change?

    Episode 6: What and how does the public think about wealth and wealth inequality, and what kinds of narratives make them more or less supportive of change?
    2025/09/05
    If we want action on extreme wealth, how we frame it as a problem in the media and in campaigning activity matters. Specific ways of talking about it make the public more or less likely to support re- or pre-distributive measures. In this final, bumper episode we ask, what does the public think about wealth, the wealthy and wealth inequality, and can certain 'frames' increase public support for higher taxes on the rich? (Spoiler alert: Yes they can!) In part 1, Jonathan reflects on over a decade of work on understanding how the public perceives inequality, and the effect of system-justifying beliefs like meritocracy on support for redistribution. He introduces early findings from a recent collaborative project called Wealth Talks (https://www.jonathanmijs.com/wealthtalks), which examines how ordinary citizens in the global south and north discuss wealth and inequality in everyday conversations. In part 2, the focus switches to the UK. Will discusses recent work by the Fairness Foundation (the National Wealth Surplus, and The Wealth Gap Risk Register) and Michael introduces findings from experimental research reported in Talking about wealth inequality. This work raises important questions about how the public makes moral evaluations about wealth and the wealthy, and points towards 'what works' to increase public support for redistribution. The conversations also look at: why the “economy as a household” metaphor entrenches austerity thinking; why property and inheritance are moral flashpoints; how civic spaces shape our perceptions of inequality; and why artists and storytellers may be the ones to ignite public interest and engagement around the era-defining issue of economic inequality. Sarah Kerr speaks with Jonathan Mijs, Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston University, Dr. Michael Vaughan, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the London School of Economics’ International Inequalities Institute, and Will Snell, Chief Executive of the Fairness Foundation. They discuss recent research findings on how the public perceives and makes judgements about wealth, the wealthy and wealth inequality. They think about what the results could mean for the work of economic justice campaigners.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 11 分
  • Episode 5: The social division of tax policy: Who really benefits?

    Episode 5: The social division of tax policy: Who really benefits?
    2025/08/27
    "What do we want?" "Transparency and good data about tax expenditures!" "When do we want it?" "Now!" It's possibly not the rallying cry that 'Tax the rich!' is. But reforming tax expenditures is a wealth distribution lever that could have significant beneficial effects for those at the bottom. It's the less sexy cousin of wealth tax in economic injustice campaigning activity. But should that change? Dr Sarah Kerr speaks with Professor Emeritus Adrian Sinfield about how tax reliefs and fiscal welfare quietly shape inequality in the UK. While politicians often present cuts to social welfare as a “tough choice”, they are much less explicit about what they were choosing between that made the choice so difficult. What was it that the cuts to, say, disability benefit, allowed them to continue to support? Sarah and Adrian look at tax expenditure as one of the things that 'tough choices' elsewhere in the system make it possible to continue funding. Drawing on Richard Titmuss’s idea of the Social Division of Welfare, Adrian explains that welfare does not just mean benefits for worse off, it also includes occupational benefits like employer pensions, and fiscal welfare in the form of tax breaks. These hidden subsidies account for around 8% of GDP, yet they are rarely evaluated or discussed. And they have the effect of funnelling large sums through the tax system to those who are already better off. For example, the richest 10% of taxpayers receive about half of all pension tax relief, while the poorest half receive only one-tenth between them. Other major reliefs include exemptions on capital gains from selling a home, and reliefs on private education. Each of these disproportionately benefits wealthier households, and encourages damaging environmental and social outcomes. And despite their huge cost to the public purse – we’re talking over £200 billion a year - these expenditures are poorly monitored, with little information on who gains by income, gender, or region. Where the US publishes an annual tax expenditure budget, the UK provides only partial data and avoids scrutiny of these hidden forms of welfare. Adrian makes the case that what is needed is greater openness, systematic evaluation, and recognition that tax reliefs are not technical details but powerful policy tools that reinforce inequality. By bringing them into the public conversation, we can more readily understand and evaluate the political choices being made between what (and who) to continue funding, and what (and who) to stop funding.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
  • Episode 4: When does wealth become harmful? Should there be limits?

    Episode 4: When does wealth become harmful? Should there be limits?
    2025/08/20
    When does having “enough” turn into having too much? The richest people on the Sunday Times rich list are 5,000 times as rich as somebody who's already in the top 1%. Do they really need their surplus billions more than society needs money to improve public services and lift low paid workers up to a living wage? Sarah Kerr talks to Luke Hildyard and Fernanda Balata about the idea of limits. Luke is Executive Director of the High Pay Centre and author of 'Enough: Why It’s Time to Abolish the Super Rich', and Fernanda Balata is a political economist with the New Economics Foundation and co-author of Exploring an extreme wealth line. Insights from political figures, policy experts, and millionaires on a threshold for harmful wealth. Together, they think about what the moral, efficiency, and environmental cases are for limiting wealth ownership at the top, and explore the moral and efficiency case for increasing the share of collective wealth, and the levers of corporate and political governance, held by the people who actually produce the wealth in the first place (that is, the workers).
    続きを読む 一部表示
    57 分
まだレビューはありません