Written evidence from Equality Trust [CCI0055]
Organisation introduction
Equality Trust envisions a future where everyone has a good life. Founded in 2009 by experts in economic inequality, Professors Kate Pickett, Richard Wilkinson, and Bill Kerry, following the publication of The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone, our work is dedicated to reducing inequality through a systemic transformation of UK society. We advocate for a fairer distribution of wealth and resources channelled into communities and public services, as well as inclusive, participatory decision-making structures. Through rigorous research, evidence-based advocacy, and grassroots campaigning, we work to challenge inequality at its root and build a more just and equitable UK.
1. What are the primary barriers and threats to community cohesion?
1.1 Inequality is a direct threat to community cohesion
Our research, synthesised in The Spirit Level at 15: The Enduring Impact of Inequality, shows that when income and wealth inequality rise, status anxiety and populism grow, and community cohesion erodes.
Inequality furthers social distance by producing a sense of relative deprivation, creating worries about how others perceive us.[1] This psychological divide fosters a culture of competition rather than collaboration, increasing feelings of insecurity and inadequacy among the less affluent. Economic inequalities also compound social inequalities, namely disability, gender, race, and sexuality, leading to more discrimination and exclusion of people already in the margins, to further damage the fabric of communities.
An examination of inequality plotted against various cohesion indicators reveals that higher levels of inequality are associated with eroded social trust, low confidence in democracy and declining civic engagement, lack of economic mobility, and heightened feelings of othering.[2]
1.2 Inequality erodes social bonds
Inequalities within and between communities erode trust, mutual support, and collective well-being, leading to social fragmentation and a weakened civic life. Social trust is a cornerstone of cohesion, serving as the glue that fosters cooperation and reinforces mutual relationships, enabling people to feel secure and care for one another. However, inequality acts as a profound social divider, negatively impacting trust levels between people (Figure 1). High income disparities fuel an ‘othering’ mentality, making it difficult for individuals to trust those outside their socioeconomic circles and discouraging meaningful interactions across different backgrounds in everyday life—whether in workplaces, schools, or public spaces. This erosion of trust contributes to communities marked by chronic mistrust, diminishing the support systems that are vital to collective well-being.
Figure 1: People in more unequal countries report significantly lower levels of trust in one another compared to those in more equal societies.[3]
High levels of inequality erode consensus-building and collective action. As wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, democratic institutions and the social contract between residents and state are undermined, threatening the civic influence of different social classes. Declining trust in public systems and interpersonal relationships weakens the effectiveness of governance, deepening struggles over shared resources. When inequality is high, political and civic disengagement becomes widespread as institutions—seen either as complicit in breaking the social contract at the national level, or hollowed out by chronic disinvestment at the local level—lose legitimacy. The voter turnout for the 2024 UK general election, for example, was estimated to have been 60 percent, the lowest turnout since 2001.[4] This breakdown of trust and unity gives rise to struggles over government and local communal resources, including critical investments in physical and social infrastructure that sustain community ties and resilience. Without these shared spaces, social bonds fray, exclusionary practices take hold, and the conditions for division and instability grow.
Figure 2: As income inequality increases, the level of commitment to democratic governance decreases.[5]
Inequality also diminishes people’s personal willingness to act for the public good, as people living in unequal communities often feel disconnected from a sense of “shared fate”, and perceive the responsibilities of change as unfairly distributed. Importantly, disengagement further weakens when communities feel their voices are unheard, lacking ownership and decision-making power over resources needed for targeted interventions. While the recent push for devolution is promising after decades of centralised, top-down policies that undermined participatory governance, it must be accompanied by adequate financial investment to enable inclusive, deliberative decision-making that strengthens tailored local interventions and fosters social cohesion.
1.3 Inequality’s role in driving far-right narratives
Threats of 'othering' and far-right narratives remain significant barriers to community cohesion. The UK introduced the community cohesion framework following the 2001 England riots, yet in 2024, another wave of racist riots swept across the country. This ongoing cycle underscores the failure to address the structural drivers of division, particularly economic and racial inequalities. Tackling inequality is crucial to countering the far-right’s divisive narratives, which accelerate community fragmentation and distract from the shared goal of ensuring everyone can have a good life.
Economic inequality fuels the rise of authoritarian and nativist political movements. The disenfranchisement from economic and political structures detailed in Section 1.2 creates fertile ground for populist and far-right leaders to exploit economic anxieties, scapegoating minorities and immigrants as ‘outsiders’ competing for limited resources. This protectionist rhetoric appeals to national pride and symbolic equality, diverting attention from systemic drivers—including the largest pay squeeze in over 200 years and reduced opportunities—while deepening social polarisation.[6]
To effectively counteract far-right narratives, we must explicitly acknowledge and confront the UK’s history of racial capitalism, colonialism, and enslavement, which have shaped its economic structures and continue to sustain structural, institutional, and interpersonal inequalities. Efforts to foster belonging for racialised communities must go beyond superficial inclusivity measures to directly challenge these foundational injustices. Without doing so, community cohesion interventions will remain limited in their imagination, scope, and impact.
Policies that centre income, wealth, and power redistribution are urgently needed to disrupt these structures and rebuild the social fabric towards a truly cohesive society.
1.4 The myth of equal opportunities under unequal systems
The reality is that under unequal systems, opportunities for economic advancement are skewed and unevenly distributed, with ‘sticky ceilings’ linked to opportunity hoarding at the top, and ‘sticky floors’ impeding mobility for those at the bottom. However, equality of outcomes, and not just opportunity, is necessary to deepen community cohesion. Local cohesiveness is damaged when some groups have different experiences or outcomes from others, especially when these differences are connected to a group’s protected characteristics.
The myth of economic mobility under unequal systems undermines community cohesion by perpetuating the illusion that personal effort alone determines success. While equality of opportunity is often championed, personal efforts cannot overcome the structural barriers created by high inequality, where a person’s starting point—shaped by their class, race, gender, or inherited wealth—strongly dictates their life outcomes. This widening inequality is exemplified by the ‘great wealth transfer,’ which has created a new class of billionaires whose fortunes are primarily inherited, further limiting mobility for future generations.[7] While intergenerational mobility serves the rich and uber-wealthy, across OECD countries, children from low-income families require nearly five generations to catch up to national average incomes, reflecting how inequality entrenches social hierarchies.[8]
However the overly promised prospect of upward mobility, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, dangerously reduces support for redistributive policies that could address these disparities as it perpetuates the idea that anyone, regardless of their material circumstances, can climb the economic ladder. True cohesion will necessitate not just providing equal opportunities for advancement, but equality of outcomes through reducing the enormous and widening class hierarchies and creation of an uber-wealthy upper class that perpetuate these disparities in starting points.
2. What can be done at a local and national level to improve cohesion?
2.1 Meaningful commencement of the socio-economic duty (SED) as a legal benchmark
We welcome the government’s commitment to commencing section one of the Equality Act 2010, also known as the ‘socio-economic duty’ in England. Working with our partners through the 1ForEquality Campaign we are engaging with the Office for Equal Opportunities on an ongoing basis in relation to the effective commencement and implementation of the duty.
We believe that the SED, if implemented in an effective and meaningful way could have a lasting impact in reducing poverty and inequality in the UK. A more equitable society will lead to a more cohesive and harmonious society, as we have already outlined in our response to the first question of this consultation. Effective implementation means that public bodies should formally incorporate poverty and socio-economic disadvantage, alongside the existing nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act in equality impact assessments, equality plans, and the broader decision-making process and strategies. We also believe that the duty should be used by public bodies proactively to promote equality and should not be viewed solely as a means of mitigating against bad outcomes.
Another aspect of good implementation of the duty is ensuring strong and visible commitment from senior leaders, as part of a broader cultural shift that embeds the priority to tackle socioeconomic disadvantage at all levels of decision-making within a public body. A good example of this is Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service (MFRS), who voluntarily adopted the duty in 2021. They implemented a range of measures to address inequalities of outcome which stem from socioeconomic disadvantage, such as; introducing driving licence bursaries for applicants from deprived areas of Merseyside, creating a socio-economic disadvantage staff support network and developing stronger links and more robust data-sharing practices with key partners.
The service also introduced ‘Safe & Well Visits’ in deprived areas of Merseyside. The visits go beyond fire safety checks and include falls risk assessment, fuel poverty assessments, alcohol and smoking reduction advice, and help and guidance with loneliness and isolation. This is an example of how the SED can be used by public bodies to foster better community relations. At a time when trust in government and public institutions is at an all time low, it is important for public bodies to demonstrate care and consideration for all members of the communities they serve, to help rebuild a sense of trust. MFRS works with partner organisations in the community to help them identify those who would benefit most from a safe and well visit. The service visits 60,000 households in Merseyside each year.
Effective implementation of the duty should also work hand-in-hand with community led decision making which also involves participatory engagement models. Ensuring that people with lived experience of socioeconomic disadvantage are not only in the room but are active participants in the decision making process. We have held a number of ‘Conversation of Change’ events in Birmingham, where local residents were invited to attend an informal session, with a number of councillors present, and were able to speak to the current challenges they face living in Birmingham and their own personal vision of what a more equal Birmingham would look like. In Derby we have run joint-learning events where we train local residents and staff from the local authority alongside each other so that they share and shape their learning about the principles and potential of the SED to make meaningful and lasting improvements to people in the community.
We are also supportive of participatory engagement methods such as citizens’ assemblies which have been used to good effect in places like Camden, Westminster and Cambridge, and have helped to shape local efforts to tackle the climate emergency. Imagination events and ‘legislative theatre’ are more creative participatory methods. Legislative theatre is a participatory form of theatre that allows communities to engage directly in policy-making and law creation. It was developed by Augusto Boal, a Brazilian theatre practitioner and political activist, as an extension of his Theatre of the Oppressed methodology. People affected by social or political issues create and act in plays that reflect their real-life experiences. Unlike traditional theatre, the audience is encouraged to step in and change the action, suggesting solutions to the problems presented. The discussions and ideas from the audience are translated into practical policy recommendations. Local politicians, councillors, and lawmakers are often invited to watch, listen, and consider these proposals for real legislative change. Some of the advantages of the legislative theatre method is that it gives marginalised communities a voice in decision making and encourages direct democracy and policy co-creation, whilst making the political process more accessible and engaging.
2.2 Introducing wealth taxes
Permanent and progressive wealth taxes must play a strong role in raising the tax base to reduce wealth inequality and fund the costs for projects related to improving community cohesion. Wealth in the UK has been systemically undertaxed and taxes on millionaires and billionaires are a powerful policy lever to improve wellbeing for the majority of the population. According to Tax Justice UK, implementing a suite of wealth taxes could raise up to £50 billion per year, which could be reinvested into community infrastructure, which everyone can benefit from regardless of their socio-economic status. In the UK, the effective tax rate of the richest 0.01% is less than half the rate paid by the bottom 10% of workers. Although the government might baulk at the suggestion, there is overwhelming support from the UK public to tax the rich, with 72% in favour.[9]
2.3 Investing in social infrastructure and community ownership
Community Wealth Building (CWB) is an approach to economic development that aims to retain wealth within local communities by encouraging plural ownership of the economy, progressive procurement, and socially productive use of land and property. In the UK, a growing number of councils have adopted CWB strategies, leading to improved community cohesion through greater local investment, job creation, and empowerment. In turn, when people see investment in their local area, they feel more connected and engaged.
Preston City Council’s adoption of CWB has yielded remarkable results, demonstrating the power of local economic democracy in supporting community cohesion. By prioritising local procurement, worker-owned enterprises, and small businesses, the city significantly increased the amount of money circulating within its local economy. This translated into higher-quality employment opportunities, reduced social inequality, greater civic pride and community engagement. In 2018, Preston was named the “Most Improved City in the UK” in the Good Growth for Cities report. Between 2012 and 2018, procurement spend retained within Preston increased from £38.3m to £112.3m, while the amount retained within Lancashire grew by £200m, reinforcing regional economic resilience. Preston also saw a notable improvement in social mobility, climbing from 143rd to 130th place in the Social Mobility Commission Index. Preston’s success offers a blueprint for other local authorities to follow for rebuilding the local economy in the wake of austerity.
Other examples of effective CWB initiatives in the UK include North Ayrshire Council in Scotland who created a ‘Community Bank’. Offering affordable loans to local businesses and residents as part of a wider strategy to support local supply chains, fair employment practices and social enterprises. Birmingham City Council created an ‘Anchor Institutions Network’, connecting key local institutions such as hospitals, universities, and local businesses to boost local procurement and employment particularly from marginalised communities. Plymouth Council championed worker co-operatives and social enterprises through the Plymouth Social Enterprise Network. Encouragement of collective ownership made people feel more invested in the community , reinforcing a sense of shared prosperity and co-operation. Local businesses are less likely to leave than multinational companies, which helps to ensure long-term stability.
2.4 Community Reporting as a catalyst for change
Community Reporting is a great advocacy tool and way of garnering support for policy initiatives such as the SED and CWB. Community Reporting is a participatory media approach that empowers people to share their personal stories through formats like videos, blogs and podcasts. Unlike traditional public consultation methods, the dialogue-driven model of Community Reporting actively engages underrepresented groups, ensuring diverse voices are heard. By capturing lived experiences, it provides policymakers with authentic insights into systemic barriers and community needs, strengthening the case for policy enforcement and change. It can also highlight success stories, such as the benefits of Community Wealth Building (CWB), building a digital evidence bank to advocate for reforms at a local and national level. Beyond policymaking, Community Reporting fosters trust, ownership, and mutual understanding, strengthening community bonds. By empowering individuals to voice their perspectives, it enhances civic engagement and social cohesion, making public consultation more inclusive, participatory and effective.
January 2025