Talking About Inequality from the Top Down

Beyond a Dark Room Guest post from Professor Gerard McCartney, University of Glasgow

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) recently hosted a discussion at the Royal Society of Edinburgh about the findings of the Deaton Review - funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the ESRC to examine inequalities in the UK. The event brought together economists, policy experts, and leaders from influential think tanks and public institutions to discuss one of the most pressing social and economic challenges facing the UK.

The 6 year review concluded at a significant moment. Inequalities in income and wealth remain among the highest recorded in modern British history, while wealth concentration continues to increase. The key findings presented by senior contributors, highlighted the growth of inequalities during the 1980s and 1990s and noted that these disparities have remained persistently high.

The review also identified positive developments, including reductions in some gender wage gaps.

A central theme of the discussion was the need to move beyond relying on taxes and transfers to reduce inequality. Instead, speakers emphasised “predistribution”: policies designed to improve earnings and opportunities before redistribution occurs.

Proposed measures included encouraging high-productivity firms to locate in disadvantaged areas, supported by training programmes to help local workers access better-paid employment - which sounded remarkably familiar to previous policy approaches.

Economic growth was presented as a necessary condition for reducing inequality, with optimism expressed about the potential of green technologies to reduce environmental impacts while sustaining growth.

While these arguments reflected some of the review’s conclusions, some notable findings received limited attention.

Missing Links

Issues such as austerity, power relations, social class, racism, poverty, and broader structural features of the UK economy were largely absent from the discussion.

Similarly, there was relatively little consideration of economic approaches that emphasise ownership, wealth concentration, labour market power, or redistributive taxation as central drivers of inequality.

This omission is significant because many of the proposed solutions resemble regional development strategies that have been pursued in various forms for decades, including policies focused on attracting investment, encouraging business relocation, and supporting skills development.

Given that inequalities have remained high throughout much of this period, questions arise about the effectiveness of these approaches in the past and the strength of the evidence supporting them.

Controlling the narrative

The event also illustrated the dominance of a particular economic perspective within policy discussions. Although some participants asked questions and one panel member argued for greater use of qualitative evidence, there was broad agreement with the aspects of the review’s analysis and recommendations being highlighted. The discussion relied heavily on experts wedded to established economic frameworks, with less engagement with alternative viewpoints or with people directly affected by inequality.

This matters because the individuals involved occupy influential positions in shaping public debate and policy. Their analyses inform political parties, government commissions, media commentary, and public understanding of economic issues. As a result, the assumptions underlying their work have substantial consequences for policy design.

How should inequality be understood?

The discussion raised broader questions about the relationship between economics and political economy. How should inequality be understood? What role do ownership, taxation, and power play in shaping outcomes? What evidence exists that training programmes and business incentives reduce inequalities over the long term? And how should concerns about environmental sustainability affect growth-centred strategies?

Economics provides valuable tools for understanding inequality, but policy debates would benefit from greater engagement with diverse perspectives, methodologies, and lived experience.

Too often panels discussing the economy are dominated by people with similar perspectives and backgrounds. Broadening participation could help ensure that discussions about inequality are informed not only by established expertise but also by alternative forms of evidence and analysis.

Further reading:

A longer version of this substack is published by on the Sociology Blog of the University of Glasgow

Header image credit: Photo by Mathieu Stern free from Unsplash 22nd July 2026