Fairness between living generations
Dr Huw Evans
Welsh public bodies have a duty to work towards fairness between living and unborn generations but not between living generations. That is wrong, and the duty should include fairness between living generations.
Eighteenth century politician and philosopher Edmund Burke believed in the concept of a societal contract. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), he said: ‘Society is indeed a contract… it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.’
From Burke’s writing, the term ‘societal contract’ has been used and not ‘social contract’. Although connected, ‘social contract’ has tended to be used concerning legitimising state authority over individuals, as explored by the likes of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The societal contract has a different focus.
By enacting the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (FGA), the Welsh Government has expressly embraced the societal contract in part. Under the FGA Welsh public bodies must promote sustainable development: which is defined as meaning the process of improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales by taking action in a manner which seeks to ensure that the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and which are aimed at achieving six ‘well-being goals’. Those goals concern prosperity, resilience, health, equality, community sustainability, the Welsh language, and contributing to global well-being.
The duty to promote sustainable development is owed to future (i.e. unborn) generations. The website for the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales says the commissioner is a ‘voice for people not-yet-born’. There is no parallel duty owed between living generations. Burke’s societal contract is broader than the sustainable development definition, as it is between those who are living as well as between the living and the unborn.
The societal contract between living generations has been described by the Resolution Foundation as encapsulating the ‘principle that different generations provide support to each other across the different stages of their lives… From education for the young, to extra financial help for those bringing up children, to healthcare and a pension for the old…’
If the relationship between different living generations is imbalanced, intergenerational unfairness arises. In 2016 the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee summarised the economic situation between generations: ‘The UK economy has become skewed. Rapid and sustained rises in house prices have concentrated wealth in the hands of those who own property. Far too many young people cannot afford homeownership and instead have to pay costly private rent… As the taxes of working people support the retired, the ageing population places strain on those in work.’ The committee concluded that the contract between living generations was ‘under strain’ and that ‘housing is central to intergenerational fairness’.
In 2023 Daniel Harrison argued that such is the advantage gained by the Baby Boomer generation (1946-64) over other living generations, it amounts to intergenerational theft.
Harrison illustrates his claim by comparing someone born in 1955 (A) with someone born in 1990 (B). The average home price has tripled since A’s time; A could buy a home with a mortgage of about 4–4.5 times their salary, affordable for one average earner. For B, homes now cost around 8 times average salary, requiring two incomes. B and B’s partner may also face childcare expenses and student loan repayments, unlike A’s generation.
While people might disagree about the extent of unfairness, most people would probably agree that there is unfairness and that is not a good thing, from both ethical and practical viewpoints. Fairness is important. Society must also function.
FGA and fairness between living generations
The FGA has been proclaimed as a world leader: ’what Wales is doing today, the world will do tomorrow’ said the United Nations. A UN Declaration on future Generations followed in 2024. First minister, Eluned Morgan, has said that the FGA ‘puts an end to short-term decision making, ensuring Ministers and public bodies consider the long-term impacts of our choices.’
The FGA has had impact. Because Welsh public bodies must promote sustainable development this is something that is considered when deciding what to do. However, in basking in the FGA glory, there is a danger that critical thinking gets suspended.
The societal contract coverage should extend to the relationship between living generations so that there is a pursuit of well-being by Welsh public bodies in a manner which seeks to ensure that the needs of a living generation are met without compromising the ability of another living generation to meet its own needs.
The current well-being goals may need adjusting. But first, this aspect of the societal contract needs to be expressly included alongside the relationship between the living and the ‘not-yet-born’.
If included there is more chance that unfairness between living generations can be challenged as the desired standard will feed into policy formulation in a more coherent way, and as a yardstick against ‘short-termism’. The supply of affordable accommodation is an obvious first candidate against which to apply that yardstick.
Postscript
Burke’s societal contract includes the dead as well as the living and the unborn. This aspect will be considered at another time. This article has been developed from a Substack post by the writer.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Wonderfully ethereal. Also a little silly to accuse boomers of “generational theft” – they just worked hard and reaped the rewards that were available to them, just as anyone else would have done. Regardless, what does this all mean in terms of actual targets, policies, costs etc?
Where did the wealth from house price inflation come from? It wasn’t hard work. It was borrowed from the next generation who’ll repay it with massive mortgages.
The boomers just found themselves in that advantageous market position. It wasn’t some nefarious cross-generational conspiracy planned while they were all sat round watching The Two Ronnies.
I don’t blame individuals for taking advantage of the situation but don’t pretend it involved hard work.
And don’t pretend it wasn’t intentional. Thatcherism had to do something to give the impression of economic success after shutting down the real wealth creating economy.
Of course it involved hard work. What a silly thing to say. Lots of people did the 9-5 for decades, worked hard, paid off their mortgage, reaped the benefits. From miners and steel workers to bank managers and teachers. And don’t forget the women who often sacrificed their careers etc to be housewives – probably the hardest work of all. Odd to accuse boomers of not working hard. Bizarre.
The wealth from house price inflation I suggest goes to the Boomer’s kids when they inherit their parents estate. Dont forget, an awful lot of Boomers also had very hard times to negociate with low wages, long hours and recessions.
One suggestion mentioned for an ‘actual target’ in the article is the supply of affordable living accommodation. I speak as a ‘boomber’ whose entry into the housing market was so much easier/more affordable than the entry for my children – all of whom work and contribute to society. Social contract theory is not ethereal because it has real practical application to how we lead our lives and how society functions. Homily over!
For which you would need to flood the market with housing, break developers, then be nice to developers as you remember that you need them to build the damn homes etc. Though I do see the point that the housing market is terribly unbalanced. Cap prices? No idea. Unsolvable.
Isn’t all this generational vocabulary derived from the Strauss Howe hypothesis, a pseudoscientific cyclical theory of history?
perhaps in wales we should heavily rax those over 50 and remove under 30s from tax altogether?
Or you could actually tax people who have a lot of money rather than for having an arbitrary number of trips around the Sun.
100% IHT should sort it.
It wouldn’t. People would just take their money abroad and the economy would be wrecked. Those unable to do that would simply give up.
Or people would spend their final years blowing their money to stop the state getting it, massively boosting GDP.
And because every new generation would start at zero no-one could accuse anyone of only being successful thanks to inherited wealth. All success would be genuinely hard-earned and well deserved.
The right hate people being given a leg up so they’d love that idea.