Welfare state led to the riots in England?

by philg

England provides a lot more support for poor people than the U.S., so it seems paradoxical that unemployed youths would be rioting over there.

The U.K. provides public housing for about 17 percent of its population compared to perhaps 2 percent in the U.S. (about 4 million in public housing plus another 2 million with Section 8 vouchers). The U.K. provides free medical care without paperwork; the U.S. offers the tangled nightmare of Medicaid. The U.K. has a tradition of generous unemployment benefits that the U.S. has only recently matched (with our 99 weeks of Xbox).

Perhaps the explanation for why the riots occurred in the more generous country is precisely that the U.K. is more generous. If you believe that you are entitled to a house and the government gives you a crummy house, you’d be angry. If you believe that the government owes you a job, but doesn’t give you one, you’d be angry. So the more the government does for people, the more expectations are raised and the angrier people get when those higher expectations are not met.

In a pure free market economy, where each person experiences the consequences of his or her abilities and actions, it wouldn’t make sense for a poor person to be angry at fellow citizens. Does it make sense to say “I’m angry with you because I’m not very organized, reliable, or hard-working”?

Are riots in fact more likely in countries where the government promises a lot to citizens?

29 thoughts on “Welfare state led to the riots in England?”

  1. Lack of gun ownership is probably a bigger reason for the difference. Even many police officers in the UK don’t carry guns.

    Compare local examples of government housing in the US vs UK. Think South Chicago or the Bronx. Crime may be high, but riots? Never…well, except for political conventions.

    What’s the difference? Rioters and looters will surely think twice when they know the shopkeeper is packing heat.

  2. I don’t buy economic arguments for the riots. The majority of the rioters are of school age. You really think school children are angry because the government hasn’t given them jobs?

    I think the causes are more to be found in the realm of criminality (“shopping without cash” is a phrase I’ve heard multiple times), group behaviour and peer pressure, lack of discipline by parents, and boredom during the school holidays.

  3. I don’t know, my understanding is that there’s very little indication that the UK riots are political and protesting in nature, as opposed to merely gangs and opportunists looting anything they can while the understaffed/overcommitted police try to keep up with them. (Of course the riots were *triggered* by the police shooting of one particular man, but it seems clear that their continuation has almost exactly nothing to do with that.)

    You’d think, for example, that if the people were rioting over insufficient social welfare, they might carry some sort of sign broadcasting that, or say something other than “Everyone else is doing it and nobody is getting caught” when interviewed by someone from the BBC asking what they think they’re doing..

  4. I think it is less about the amount paid out but more about the rate of change – the government is in the process of reducing the amount of benefits, while at the same time inflation is further eroding the value of what is being paid out at a rate much larger than people have experienced in recent years.

  5. By that metric, the Nordic countries would be in a constant state of civil war and the rest of Europe would have regular riots. The welfare system in the UK is far in excess of what’s offered in the US but less generous than most of the rest of Europe.

  6. Higher expectations do not lead to these sort of violent protests. I see two main causes: anger over growing economic disparity in England, thuggery and taking advantage of the chaos for theft. Wouldn’t you be angry at austerity measures that further ensure a life of poverty while swank neighborhoods get even richer? See more commentary at http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,779413,00.html

  7. Where are the data and citations? It’s unusual to see such an opinion without supporting numbers. In a pure free market economy, where it is arguable that monopolies will emerge, give rise to power-law distribution of capital distribution, and put the mass of population in poverty, why not a revolution? Those with few practical opportunities could rationally see their only opportunity for advancement would be to overturn the cart, so to speak. If expectations are zero, why not risk all?

  8. From my point of view, your analysis is totally wrong and absolutely biased. Can you give us an explanation why in societies for instance like Sweeden, Norway, Finland, Holand or even Germany, that they have the most powerful welfare system in the world in terms of PIB investment for cohestion and rich spread, they dont have any kind of riots like in England? Could you please give us an objetive analysis? You could say “yes, because they are not experiencing the same intensity of crisis than in England”. I could give you two answers:

    1. There are others countries like Spain, that they have 20% of unemployment, and all their strikes are mostly pacific, not experiencing that kind of violence by far.

    2. Why these societies (Sweeden, etc) are not experiencing that brutal crisis, like England or EEUU? maybe because they have a strong welfare system, rich spread and a “regulated” financial system? Thats the main difference between “pure free market” societies and societies where its main purpose is the welfare of the citizens, that when a crisis hits their economy, they are better prepared.

    “In a pure free market economy, where each person experiences the consequences of his or her abilities and actions, it wouldn’t make sense for a poor person to be angry at fellow citizens.”

    Its obvious that in a pure free market, what rules the society is darwinism. Only the persons that enters the market from a better position (education, health and economical funds), have better possibilities to be more successful than others that they couldnt have education, health care system or family funds. So at the end, only “Lions”, only because born from a “Lion family”, would have much better possibilities to be successul in the jungle, than being a “lamb”.

    Its difficult to make a pure free market person try to understand that the more cohesion, the more rich spread, the more people gets quality education, quality health system, makes a society more educated and health, makes a bigger middle size class, more money to invest, more demand, more offer, more enterprises, better economy, more taxes, more PIB, more money to invest in quality of life, and of course, totally involved in the market. An example? Sweeden.

  9. Pedro: Sweden is a successful country, albeit on a small scale (similar population to the Chicago metro area). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sw.html shows them having a per-capita GDP of about $39,000 per year (compared to $47,000 for the U.S.). However, it is unclear that Sweden’s source of wealth is its Welfare state. It might be the low population density and consequent bounty of natural resources (Sweden has about 21 people per square km compared to 32 in the U.S.). It might be because Sweden has more Swedes (see http://www.newgeography.com/content/001543-is-sweden-a-false-utopia for a comparison of Swedes in Sweden versus Swedish-Americans; the poverty rates are very similar whereas Swedish-American incomes are much higher).

    I’m not even sure that Sweden has a more equal distribution of wealth. As soon as Swedes get rich, they emigrate or push their assets into offshore trusts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingvar_Kamprad for example). http://economics.uwo.ca/faculty/davies/workingpapers/thelevelanddistribution.pdf shows that the top 10% of Swedes had 59 percent of the wealth in 2002, compared to 70 percent in the U.S. If you added in the offshore Swedish billionaires the numbers might be much closer. One notable difference seems to be the propensity of Swedes not to have any wealth at all. The bottom 60% of Swedes had, in aggregate, negative net worth. The bottom 60% of Americans, by contrast, controlled 5.6 percent of the nation’s wealth. Considering that the U.S. has three times as many immigrants (whom you wouldn’t expect to have any wealth), this means a lot more native-born Swedes are living from paycheck-to-paycheck (or government handout-to-government handout) than native-born Americans.

  10. “England provides a lot more support for poor people than the U.S., so it seems paradoxical that unemployed youths would be rioting over there”.

    I don’t think that follows at all. How many instances can you think of where a strictly-brought-up child wound up having more respect for his parents than one who was indulged and allowed to do whatever he wanted?

    “If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a man and a dog”. -Mark Twain

  11. Its actually much simpler than any of the above replies.

    People are essentially chimps. When young bands of male chimps can collectively rip apart a dik-dik they do, and when they can attack rival bands of chimps, they do. When they are part of a bigger cohesive chimp pack, they may be more docile and let the biggest baddest man-chimp call the shots.

  12. As an expat I am saddened to read this article. It has been widely reported that the looters were from ALL backgrounds, including low middle and upper classes. The welfare state is there to support it’s community, of course it is exploited, however having used it for two months when I lost my job while my prematurely newborn son was still on a life support machine meant that they paid my rent, gave us money for food and of course we went home from the hospital having not paid a been for the top notch care he received.

    Without this burden I was able to concentrate on getting a good job rather than flipping burgers, so that I could start paying back into the system with more taxes on a higher income.

    This system isn’t the reason for rioting, yes the UK has a class issue however the issue isn’t as black and white as you make out.

  13. I don’t think that second to last paragraph makes any sense. People are still going to be mad if you fire them or they lose a house in a free market system, or any system – they don’t care – they want a freakin job and house. Farmers rioted in the early years of the 20th century; they sent their kids to get educated because they felt they deserved better and wanted them to work less; factory workers rioted because they felt they deservered better pay and less work, and they were surely bitter at a lot of their other citizens in the process. The only difference is, it’s probably far easier for many different kinds of people to riot against the government than any individual workplace (which is probably why even in the early 1900s workers skipped out on direct striking and lobbied the government instead).

    Also, to Brian Chaim: If the rioters are also allowed to have guns, wouldn’t it be just as easy to walk in, shoot the shopkeeper before he figures out that the kids are up to no good, and no we have another, far bigger, issue on our hands? Also, what’s to stop a trigger happy shopkeeper from shooting some defenseless kid not at all wrapped in the nonsense – a la, poor victims of rich shootings in New Orleans who were just trying to escape the city.

  14. People keep saying that the more-socialistic countries in Europe aren’t having this problem, but they aren’t CUTTING BENEFITS. At least, not yet! First, I can’t help but wonder if the media in England is playing the same game as the media here, namely, referring to reductions of plans for future GROWTH as “cuts.” Second, let’s have a look at the financials of these other countries before we hold them to be the models of human acheivement. I want to see if they’re really sound (as people seem to be suggesting), or if they are also on the brink of financial collapse?

  15. The demographics of those convicted for the violence do not bear out the “poor and dispossessed” argument: there have been teachers and dentists as well as school children. Opportunism created by the police initially being afraid to respond robustly (due to criticism over previous beating of anti-cuts rioters) is a more likely explanation. Once overwhelming force was authorised by the PM (16,000 plod on the streets) the violence soon abated.

  16. Stephen: Aren’t teachers and dentists employed by the government in the UK? I thought that dentistry was covered as part of the National Health Service. And school children are certainly receiving services from the government (i.e., their school). So a group of teachers, dentists, and school children could be angry that whatever it is they are getting from the government is not generous enough, no?

    [Separately, about half of American school kids could be expected to riot too, considering the quality of the education that they are getting and the amount of debt that the current politicians are saddling them with.]

  17. Hi Philip,

    i cannot delve sensibly into the roots of what just went on. I am British born, and live within line of sight from hotspots. I have not seen nor heard anything of racial lines being drawn. I have a great friend who is old enough to have seen genuine racial tension in the projects in America, as a boy, and got his ass out of there. This is an emotional reaction, but one which has nonetheless been considered:

    You are missing the fact that serious felonies go unpunished here. Slap on the wrist. I have now no less than 6 specific death threats – or just short of direct “i will kill you” on my telephone tapes since the beginning of the year. One was even by email. All reported, all with evidential chain intact. Police reaction: ask one identified caller to be nicer in future. All relate to attempted extortion of money.

    I live my life in fact quite publicly, that is a minor pride i take, civic fashion, not vainglory, but i think suddenly i am targeted not for any reason other than i am considered the evil capitalist. I am having to lawyer up, just to get my reports recorded, and move my family. I can barely afford this.

    There is, at least technically, a quid pro quo in life. You are protected from personal bankruptcy as a company director, IF you abide by the laws. (736 pages, IIRC) Corollary: you pay very modest tax if you desire to trade with unlimited liability.

    I think these simple balances are not enforced, and that this is just one example. Company directors here act with impunity, at all levels of social strata. This is not something that a Warren Buffet will see, because he heeds the rules. He does not see the millions of small companies who do not pay tax – i don’t mean offset tax, i mean they do not file accounts – nor do they treat people well.

    There are some 3 million company directors in the UK. I did a turnaround for one little shop not so long ago, and the first thing i unearthed was they were surviving because of false filing or simple non reporting. Charging export tax, not paying it back.

    This was run by a man educated as expensively as me, from the same school as the Prime Minister. I whistle blew. Sure, else i become a felon, too. How many people did that hurt? I think several lives were trashed, by that crime.

    If you want my heartfelt view, and i BS you not that i give a damn about this place: well, people have sussed the system is bent. So, out go their dreams. Every race, every demographic, left leaning Democrat or rightist Republican, they know they are stiffed. From the get go.

    So the rot is deeper. Not just at federal level, credit ceiling and all that. (these analogies do work, localized) but because we have brought up not one, but two generations, to believe honesty cannot work for them.

    In place of plain talk, we may install fascism. Legislature has been suspended here since 2004. There are no courts. State of emergency, our own Lend Lease act. Actually we had the statutory Powers, since about 1920. This benefits no-one. I am Democrat, in that i think unions matter, Republican because i would rather cut government and reduce taxes. However, here in the UK, it approaches 50% of the working population who do not work, and 50% of those who do, directly or indirectly work for the government. Can i say “captive vote” before i am shot down?

    There was a recent union strike, of government workers. I live in the heart of our city, slap bang between the old Corporation and Canary Wharf. It was a ghost town that night. I walked with an attorney friend for three hours, and we never saw a soul.

    Philip, i read your writing since you first were on the net, and i am convinced that unless guys like you get on the case, hard, we are genuinely done for. If you wish any proof of any of what i say here, about my predicament, ‘mail me, happy to do so, but sad i got it. I am otherwise a bit busy talking to our FBI equivalent, and covering my safety. .

    yours,

    – john

  19. I’ve thought about the demographics issue a bit more. I don’t doubt that some middle-aged, female, married, or employed people have been rioting/looting in England. However, I doubt that the problems would have started if not for a core of young men. A large group of unemployed and/or unmarried young men is usually a key ingredient in any recipe for mob violence.

  20. Why do you believe the rioters were angry?

    Judging from witness reports, it seems that their predominant emotion was joy.

    Breaking stuff is fun. Getting free stuff is even more fun. They weren’t angry. They were having a great time.

    The whole mental model that folks who riot must be deprived or furious or oppressed simply does not apply here. You might as well ask if it’s the welfare state’s fault that they like sex. Start over from scratch. Forget about economics and think about morality, socialization, discipline, religion, fatherless homes, and most of all, the disappearance of social ostracism and public shaming.

  21. “In a pure free market economy, where each person experiences the consequences of his or her abilities and actions, it wouldn’t make sense for a poor person to be angry at fellow citizens.”

    True. But this is a magical, hypothetical society. How does it square with society as it actually is?

    In the real world, we just experienced a horrific Great Recession brought about by 30 years of financial deregulation. Allegations of systemic fraud permeate the entire financial system. Capable public servants such as Brooksley Born, who tried to impose a modicum of regulation on derivatives trading, were silenced by free-marketeers like Alan Greenspan.

    We have experienced 30 years of stagnating wages, where an ever-greater chunk of the pie accrues to the wealthy.

    Your hypothetical society

  23. Minty: “Young men without a stake in the system”? These are the young men who live in public housing, receive dole payments from the UK government, and receive free medical care from the UK government? It sounds to me as though they have a much bigger stake in “the system” than the typical American young man.

  24. This is less about economics and more about the demonization of Christianity and the amoral and dissipated youth produced by a totalitarian socialist Nanny State.

    It is one thing to apologize for certain imperial overreaches. (Certainly Britain owes an apology to Irish Catholics.) It is another to reject one’s Christian heritage altogether.

    The Christian mandate of tolerance has turned into a totalitarian suppression of Christianity itself seen as a victimizer. Secular liberalism offers no substantial replacement for Christian morals aside from some fashionable gestures toward recycling and respecting homosexuals.

    Britain has “outgrown” its religious “superstitions” — riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to — cold, brutal paganism. Why not, if everything is relative and there is no God?

  25. Riots would have happened in London with or without the welfare state.

    In America even if it’s corny, everyone can sort of relate to redneck, cowboy, Ted Nugent 2nd-Amendment type people. In the UK everyone can sort of relate to Guy Fawkes and Banksy stencils of dudes throwing molotov cocktails. It’s in the national character and there have been semi regular riots since 1189. If you count football hooliganism as minor riots there are riots on a bi-weekly basis. UK dudes just are waiting for any excuse to wild out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots_in_London

  26. Free?

    I think not.

    SOCIAL SUPPORT – Most people who claim benefits are people who have contributed tax to the government system, some for shorter periods, some for most of their lives. They hit a rough patch, get help, recover. The social system in Britain is set up to protect the vulnerable, the misfortune, the ill. Sometimes it gets exploited, but they are the few that get the publicity, not the majority of normal everyday people doing their best. Governments of my country have permitted the housing prices to rise to a point where significant numbers of normal working people can no longer afford or indeed ever hope to buy a home. Rents are increasing as landlords exploit this. Most assistance is not by ‘giving’ people homes, but by assisting them in renting from private landlords. Most of the government homes were sold off back in the Thatcher era, decades ago and people paid rent towards that housing anyway.

    HEALTH SERVICE – This is absolutely not ‘free’ and never has been. Everyone in the country who has employment has money deducted from their wages to cover national health insurance. This means no one need fear getting sick, not being able to afford treatment, loosing their homes to pay for treatment. We all share the costs, we all reap the safety net of care. People mistake it for being ‘free’ because they have not taken time to understand the system before making ignorant comments about people getting ‘something for nothing’. My grandfather died around 1930 because his family were too poor to jointly pay for his treatment even though they were honest and hard-working people. He was 36. We are lucky in the UK not to live in that hard hearted selfish world any more and to have protection for all from the health service WE PAY FOR.

  27. @Jay, and anyone who supports government sponsored social programs: Regarding your argument about health care, housing, etc. as good social “service” by the government in which everyone in the country pays into and those government services not being “free” — well if you see this as a necessity for a society to prosper, grow and not riot, then why not also include the most basic and essential element that any human being needs into a “social” program as well: food. We ALL need basic food before health care, housing, and a job. If you agree, than how about raising a family (getting married, taking care of the wife / husband / kids)? And how about being self dependent (taking care of the house, going to work, etc)? Is government “God” where we put all of our daily challenges and joys in its hand?

    There is a borderline of what a government can do and should do. That line has been crossed a long time, and we, as a society have been spoiled by free and false promises by our government. Our government has been telling us “ don’t worry, be happy, and we will take care of you”. If I do that to my kids, chances are very, very good that they will grow up spoiled and angry at me when I cannot meet their demand — when the sh*t hits the fan — thus your riots.

  28. No. Frankly you’re looking for evidence that your beliefs tell you should be there. My beliefs tell me that they were caused by an excessive reliance on materialism driving a conceit that possessions are more important than those around us. The nature of the looting at least provides some evidence for that.

    There is a poverty trap cause by benefits, however, due to the withdrawal of benefits to those getting low-paid jobs which makes them poorer than those without jobs.

    The solution that I’ve long argued (and is now agreed with by Ian Duncan-Smith) is that benefits should be phased out incrementally so as not to punish those who are keen to work.

  29. @Brian Chaim
    As a resident of the UK, I would much rather have some, very occasional, street riots than the perpetual slaughter that the US has on its streets owing to its 18th century gun laws.

    So far I think only 4 people have died in the riots. Compare and contrast with 12,632 homicide gun crime deaths in US (2007), or 34 per day.

Comments are closed.