Verein zur Foerderung des CIub of Rome - Austrian ChapterPost-event report on the ‘Inequality’ turnaround event on March 5, 2024 in Salzburg.
Countries with greater equality achieve better results in areas such as education, social mobility, life expectancy, mental and physical health, and decreasing crime rates. This might be unsurprising from an Austrian perspective. However, even the wealthiest individuals benefit from higher well-being for all, as is the case in Scandinavian countries or Japan.
Why is this the case? What is Austria’s standpoint on this matter? And what measures are needed to further develop a fairer, more equal society?
In the current report “Earth4All” by the Club of Rome, inequality within nation-states is addressed as one of the five central turnarounds. Therefore, lectures and a panel discussion on this topic took place on March 5, 2024 in the Agnes Muthspiel Lecture Hall at the University of Salzburg.
Meike Bukowski from the University of Salzburg and Fritz Hinterberger from the Club of Rome – Austrian Chapter delivered their welcoming remarks to the numerous participants present in the auditorium as well as those who digitally tuned in from their screens, providing a brief introduction to the “Earth4All” project.
Hannes Swoboda, President of the Club of Rome – Austrian Chapter, opened the event with. a plea:
Climate policy, equality, and discrimination-free social policies need to be more closely intertwined. Because even in Austria as a wealthy country, inequality persists: Social housing benefits may not necessarily reach the poorest individuals. People with lower incomes still have poorer access to education and healthcare services. The elites, whether national or international, can still escape climate damage and environmental disasters. These inequalities also need to be reduced and fought against in Austria.
GUEST LECTURE by kate pickett
In the first guest lecture, joining us from the United Kingdom, Kate Pickett, co-author of the Earth4All report from the University of York, discusses the connections between inequality, well-being, and sustainability.
The Spirit Level theory developed by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett posits that societies with lower inequality are better societies because people are less plagued by status anxiety. Previous social research has largely supported this idea.
Pickett is certain: “While low- and middle-income countries need to increase their GDP per capita (and thus their economy) to improve life expectancy and quality of life, there is no longer a correlation between an increase in life expectancy and gross domestic product in wealthier countries.” The transition towards green transformation will face widespread resistance if people “do not feel that the burdens of change and the necessary measures are fairly distributed.” The ecological footprint of the rich is so large that it must be reduced not only for reasons of social justice but also to have another lever in climate protection. At the end of her lecture, she also emphasizes the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration: “Mainstream economists do not talk to sociologists and psychologists. Our universities as centers of learning and research are not necessarily structured to facilitate interdisciplinary work easily. Only (interdisciplinary) collaboration helps us find solutions for a fairer future.”
Guest Lecture by Martin schenk
In the second lecture, psychologist, social expert, and poverty researcher Martin Schenk discusses the relationship between psychological and material poverty.
According to Schenk, the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is psychologically invalidated and therefore incorrect. Poverty is not just a lack of goods, but rather a lack of opportunities and spaces for action. The dimensions of a good life are organically interconnected networks: Our everyday world of relationships is often associated with psychological poverty.
Lonely people often experience a lack of participation and a resulting sense of inefficacy. This often leads to a lack of trust in others or society in general. Therefore, a social-psychological intervention is also needed to effectively lift people out of poverty.
On a concrete level, according to Schenk, many people in the lower middle class do not have friends or relatives who can step in with their money when times get tough. The upper middle class does have these options. The household incomes of the lower middle class are supported by state health and housing benefits. However, their level of prosperity would be destroyed if social welfare benefits were restricted or heavily cut. This is already the case in the USA and UK. In Europe, too, there needs to be a strong civil society and institutional counter-movement to stop this.
GUEST LECTURE BY Andeas Koch
Andreas Koch from the University of Salzburg reports in the third and final lecture on the instrumentalization of poverty. In Austria, income inequality is significantly lower than wealth inequality. However, this is rarely discussed. Instead, there is even a mutual negative reinforcement between politics and society regarding social issues. Social exclusion is sometimes openly propagated, and the suspension of basic human rights is openly discussed.
Koch expresses critical views on the topic of unconditional basic income. He argues that basic income can only be introduced if it does not come at the expense of current social benefits. He discusses promises of emancipation and economic consequences as “not necessarily” positive. The solidarity promise in Austria should not be jeopardized by a basic income.
PANEL discussion
The subsequent panel talk, moderated by Daniela Molzbichler from the University of Applied Sciences Salzburg, facilitated a response and exchange between the panelists, as well as the audience present onsite and on Zoom.
Eva Stöckl from the Chamber of Labour – Salzburg observes that in multiple crises of recent years, many inequalities that existed before “continued to increase, sometimes in a certain form.” “We have winners of crises such as energy companies, but also an increasing middle of society that has had to experience losses in prosperity.” She sees the limitation of excessive wealth in our society, as well as the strengthening of the rights of workers and unions, as a societal task. As a representative of the Chamber of Labour, she emphasized taxation as an important lever.
Peter Linhuber reports from practical experience as a social worker. Linhuber sees a “Giant Leap,” a significant improvement in social issues, both in material and immaterial aspects such as social cohesion: “In a more equal, better future, I believe we would have democratically agreed on basic needs, and that doesn’t just mean bread, but hopefully also roses. However, from the perspective of homeless assistance, even in wealthy Austria, we are not yet at a point where we could relax comfortably regarding material basic needs.”
Georg Reibmayr from the Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection addresses inequality in Austria from the administrative and political perspective. He sees several conflicts of interest between social and ecological policies. These conflicts need to be “resolved.” He notes that there is not only global climate inequality but also within Austria. Different groups are affected by the consequences of climate change “on very different levels.”
In response to a question from the audience, Andreas Koch expresses concerns that the basic income “could even exacerbate the capitalist system.” “If even university professors were to receive a unconditional basic income, redistribution would not be taken into account.”
Stöckl also expresses criticism regarding the topic of basic income: “We have made calculations to determine if we can afford a unconditional basic income. We would have to spend approximately the same amount annually as we currently use for social and healthcare expenses.” Based on 1000 euros per person per month, this would be around 110 billion euros in Austria. However, this would replace all social welfare healthcare services: “From free doctor visits to pensions.” Therefore, she advocates for the welfare state in an expanded form.
From her perspective, there is currently no defined minimum existence level that one could truly live on and participate socially. In comprehensive social support, it is not just about raising standard rates, but about a level at which everyone can participate in a good societal life. Such benefits, from Stöckl’s point of view, are not specifically distributed in a unconditional basic income. Because it also requires basic services in the areas of social infrastructure, health, elementary education, education, which benefit everyone.
Here are all the contents regarding the inequality turnaround :
https://www.clubofrome.at/projekt-earth4all-oesterreich/kehrtwende-ungleichheit/