When people worry about the state of the world, or the state of the UK, they often mention the word ‘inequality’. So, it seemed like a good idea for the IFS Deaton Review of Inequalities to think about why people view inequality as a problem. But it became clear very quickly that different people not only worry about inequality differently, but also even mean different things by inequality itself. Economists immediately think about inequality in income and wealth; philosophers think about inequality in relationships or about inequality of opportunity; sociologists think about inequality in status; historians think about inequality and power, or about capital versus labour, and document whether gaps are widening or narrowing; political scientists analyse differences in voting or in influence; and health researchers worry about differences in mortality and morbidity between groups. Everyone is concerned about differences between men and women, and about differences between racial and ethnic groups. Much the same is true for education.

Some kinds of inequality are widely detested—no one argues for slavery, or for the exploitation of the weak by the strong—but others are less concerning, at least to some. Few people argue that income inequality is good in and of itself, though there is a good deal of argument about the instrumental effects of inequality, some arguably positive, e.g. in providing incentives, and some negative, as in corrupting politics, poisoning social relations, or compromising health. Some argue that inequality is less serious than poverty, and it sometimes seems that the two are confused as when people denounce inequality because there is poverty.

An important idea is that it matters how inequality comes about. Inequality through theft is different from inequality through work or business success. Fairness is important—what is sometimes called procedural inequality. Such ideas lead us to worry about children, whose futures are not in their own hands, or about the unequal chances brought by parental wealth and privilege. Even if one generation has equality of opportunity, those who succeed can create inequality among the next generation. There is also great concern about spatial and geographical inequalities in the UK today, where the place that you are born often seems to exert an undue and unfair influence on how well you do. The economic and social consequences of deindustrialization and globalization are far from equally distributed across the UK. Economists have also become more concerned about unfair practices in the economy, about monopoly and monopsony and about corporate influence on politics. In the face of accelerating technical change—e.g. in artificial intelligence—they worry about just how the new technologies will be applied, who decides and to whose benefit. They have done much work on wealth inequality as well as on income inequality, and they have done good work on documenting how inequalities come about.

From the beginning, we knew that we did not have the knowledge to provide anything like authoritative answers by ourselves, even after we had assembled a distinguished multidisciplinary panel. So, we asked others to tell us what they thought, and to tell us what others in their fields have thought and argued about. These articles and commentaries are the result; they provide a remarkable range of evidence and of arguments, and we regard them as the most important output of the Review.

Rather than summarize the contributions here, we note that each section groups together contributions by a broad theme and is prefaced by a brief introduction by a member of the panel, which we recommend as an aid to browsing.

Read on the Oxford Open Economics website here.