The Spirit Level

quote: "This is a book that needs to be read by people in the halls of power."

A friend who is pres. of the local social planning council has given it to the exec. director to read (noting the charts and graphs that adorn just about every page. Residents of the "halls of power" couldn't help but feel guilty...so I suspect it won't appear on their coffee tables.

The foreword by Robert Reich is meant as an introduction to American readers, and anyone who just might follow up by reading his Supercapitalism, explaining, as its subtitle says, "The Transformation of Business, Democracy , and Everyday Life". 

Welcome

The Spirit Level Delusion shines the light of reason onto some of the claims made in favour of big government in the 21st century. In particular, it seeks to dispel some of the myths popularised in Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's book The Spirit Level.
The meat of the argument is, of course, in the book itself-which is available here (UK) and here (USA). The purpose of this site is to share information that didn't make it into the book. Some of this information takes the form of extended footnotes, and can be accessed at the right-hand side of this page.

If you haven't read the book, my articles in the Wall Street Journal and Spiked Review of Books give a brief overview.

"Snowdon picks so many holes in the theory that were it a building it wouldn't be passed as structurally sound by the most crooked of third world local government surveyors... Next time someone starts spouting off about "equality" - a goal that has dug more graves than all the gods in history combined - send them a copy of Snowdon's excellent book and make sure they read it from cover to cover."  - Ed West, The Telegraph

"The Spirit Level Delusion not only successfully and dramatically undermines much of the evidence in The Spirit Level, but also takes on the other fashionable opponents of economic growth... His engaging discussion unpicks the evidence of the anti-growth brigade and demonstrates that it is selective and partial. This book is excellent "tube reading". - Philip Booth, City AM 

"Comprehensive in its demolition...well written, amusingly thorough and easy to digest...You need this book."  - An Englishman's Castle Posted by Snowdon at

Having taken a look at the language of the criticism (why wasn't Singapore, Korea etc. etc included) and the placement of his articles (Wall Street Journal, et al) and the journals that have carried remarks on Snowdon's work i.e. An Englishman's Castle, I don't understand why you would hang a severely cautionary note like "don't hang your case for social justice off this hook..."

Could you explain please why you support Snowdon's "science" over that of the authors? Don't you find his criticisms pikayune and unsupported?

Just asking.

On the last point, Gina Feldberg, a medical historian who just died (her obit the feature in today's Globe) : As one reviewer put it, her work provided a sobering reminder 'that social and political attitudes have at least as much influence on public health as the state of medical knowledge'." Private health care, she said, "impedes access for the poor. And most people who live near the pverty line are women and children."

As for the critic,  I've not read his work, but my shit-detector goes into overdrive for someone who writes for the "Wall Street Journal."  It usually means someone hired to "refute" the evidence offered in an offending liberal/left work.  And as I say, unles you know what the "missing states" would mean, statistically, just noting their absence means diddly squat. 

But perhaps you have some numbers and sources that he used.

When you say that from 2006 data "life expectancy increases with inequality" are you saying that in those societies of greater inequality, the poorer can expect to live longer?  Or is it that by 2006, the poorer folk began to live a little longer than they did in 2004?  Or does the critic say?

Do any of the graphs demonstrate a consistent skewing due to cherry picking (which suggests that the authors were building a political case)? Does the critic prove anything from his own research - does he provide the empirical data to support his critical case(s) ?  Or is he simply "cherry picking" his way through some trouble spots?   Why do you think he wrote it, except as an exercise from the right of Vlad the Impaler... and appearing in the blesses Wall Streat Journal and applauded by An Englishman's Castle? 

I know that anyone who does not see the correlation between place of publication and publication is naive...most famously the Fraser Institute in Canada. Or perhaps you meant something else by "ad hominem argument"  ?

But I'm still puzzled about the empirical support for the critic's position.  Does he apply the missing data to the graph(s) and find that another conclusion is necessary?

And wiith life expectancy decreasing or increasing, there must be some base point which says (i.e.) don't expect to live as long as those wealthy folks if you're poor (and I would really question the methodology if it came out otherwise)...  :)   I'm going to ask to see my friend's copy again.

Will do. And I'll look again at the constancy of Japan on one end of the inequality spectrum (although that is changing a bit under economic duress recently) and the United States on the other end.  

And may I say I've enjoyed the invective-free exchange.  That's a bit of an anomaly  :)