Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Critical Social Policy, 36 (4), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Critical Social Policy page: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/csp/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
Accepted author manuscript, 505 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - From wage supplements to a ‘living wage’?
T2 - a commentary on the problems of predistribution in Britain’s summer budget of 2015
AU - Grover, Christopher Geoffrey
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Critical Social Policy, 36 (4), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Critical Social Policy page: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/csp/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
PY - 2016/11
Y1 - 2016/11
N2 - This commentary focuses upon two developments – cuts to wage supplements and an increase in the National Minimum Wage – announced in the first full Conservative government budget in Britain for 18 years. The commentary analyses these through the concept of predistribution and critiques of it. The commentary argues that the two developments can be understood as a weak version of predistribution that will reproduce and deepen class and gender inequalities because of their bases in retrenching collective provision for households living in wage poverty, while increasing the emphasis upon market mechanisms (wages) as the predominate means of supporting such households.
AB - This commentary focuses upon two developments – cuts to wage supplements and an increase in the National Minimum Wage – announced in the first full Conservative government budget in Britain for 18 years. The commentary analyses these through the concept of predistribution and critiques of it. The commentary argues that the two developments can be understood as a weak version of predistribution that will reproduce and deepen class and gender inequalities because of their bases in retrenching collective provision for households living in wage poverty, while increasing the emphasis upon market mechanisms (wages) as the predominate means of supporting such households.
KW - lving wage
KW - wage supplements
KW - male breadwinner model
KW - politics
KW - budget
KW - women
KW - tax credits
KW - universal credit
KW - predistribution
KW - redistribution
KW - Conseratvive party
KW - Labour Party
KW - minimum wage
U2 - 10.1177/0261018316650193
DO - 10.1177/0261018316650193
M3 - Journal article
VL - 36
SP - 693
EP - 703
JO - Critical Social Policy
JF - Critical Social Policy
SN - 0261-0183
IS - 4
ER -