No abstract

We study earnings and income inequality in Britain over the past two decades, including the period of relatively "inclusive" growth from 1997-2004 and the Great Recession. We focus on the middle 90%, where trends have contrasted strongly with the "new inequality" at the very top. Household earnings inequality has risen, driven by male earnings -although a 'catch-up' of female earnings did hold down individual earnings inequality and reduce within-household inequality. Nevertheless, net household income inequality fell due to deliberate increases in redistribution, the tax and transfer system's insurance role during the Great Recession, falling household worklessness, and rising pensioner incomes.

We study earnings and income inequality in Britain over the past two decades, including the period of relatively 'inclusive' growth from 1997 to 2004, and the Great Recession. We focus on the middle 90%, where trends have contrasted strongly with the 'new inequality' at the very top. Household earnings inequality has risen, driven by male earnings-although a 'catch-up' of female earnings did hold down individual earnings inequality and reduce within-household inequality. Nevertheless, net household income inequality fell due to deliberate increases in redistribution, the tax and transfer system's insurance role during the Great Recession, falling household worklessness, and rising pensioner incomes.

We examine the effect of obliging employers to enrol employees automatically into a workplace pension scheme. We exploit the phased roll-out of automatic enrolment, by employer size, in the first country to do so nationwide (the UK), to estimate its effect on pension saving among private sector employees. We find substantial increases in pension participation and a rise in pension saving. Surprisingly, many newly enrolled employees received an employer contribution substantially above the (very low) minimum default level. Automatic enrolment also caused the pension participation of those employees who were not obliged to be automatically enrolled to more than double.

We review the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on inequalities in education, the labor market, household living standards, mental health, and wealth in the United Kingdom. The pandemic has pushed up inequalities on several dimensions. School closures, in particular, disrupted the learning of poorer children, leading to lower attainment. Mental health worsened for those groups (women and younger adults) who had poorer mental health pre-pandemic. Lockdowns and social distancing particularly reduced the ability of younger, lower-earning, and less educated people to work. However, job-support programs combined with the expanded welfare system meant that, if anything, disposable income inequality fell. Rising house prices have benefited people around the middle of the wealth distribution. In the longer term, lower work experience for the less educated and missed schooling could push up some inequalities. Increased rates of working from home seem likely to persist, which may increase some inequalities and decrease others. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Economics, Volume 14 is August 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

How do average levels of income and wealth differ in Britain for those born between the 1930s and 1980s? Those in the 1980s cohort are the first post‐war generation not to have higher median incomes in their early 30s than those born a decade earlier, though they have much higher incomes than those born in the 1960s and earlier. Median wealth for those in the 1980s cohort is 20 per cent lower in their early 30s than it was for those born in the 1970s. This is driven by lower property wealth and homeownership: 40 per cent at age 30 for the 1980s cohort, compared with 55 per cent for the 1970s cohort.

We estimate the impact of increasing the female early retirement age (ERA) on household living standards. Examining the increase in the female ERA from 60 to 63 in the UK, we find increased earnings only partially offset lost public pension income, leaving affected women's household incomes £32 per week lower on average. The proportional effect was substantially larger for women in lower income households. This increased the income poverty rate among affected women by 6.4 percentage points. We find no evidence of an increased inability to afford important material items, potentially suggesting that material deprivation has been avoided through smoothing of consumption.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policymakers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. Neither are the views expressed necessarily those of the other individuals or institutions mentioned here, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has no corporate view. Co-funding from the ESRC-funded Centre for the Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy at IFS (grant number ES/M010147/1) is also very gratefully acknowledged.