Why personal capability and a fairer economy belong in the same conversation.
By Steve Conley, Founder, Academy of Life Planning
We tell people to take responsibility for their lives. Save for the future. Develop their skills. Make better decisions.
But what happens when someone makes careful decisions and still cannot afford a secure home? When they want to work but cannot obtain the healthcare or care support that would make it possible? When their experience is valuable, but they cannot find a practical route to earning from it?
At what point does the language of personal responsibility become a way of avoiding institutional responsibility?
Prem Sikka’s recent commentary on inequality, public services and taxation raises an important question. At the Academy of Life Planning, we approach it through the lens of human agency: people’s practical ability to understand their situation, choose their direction and act.
Freedom means little if there is no realistic way to exercise it.
The difference between having a choice and being able to choose
Imagine an experienced worker who wants to change direction. They have skills, ideas and something useful to contribute. But rent absorbs their spare income, a health problem remains untreated and caring responsibilities leave little time to retrain.
Telling them to become more confident addresses only one part of the problem. Telling them to start a business may simply add risk to an already precarious life.
They need capability. They also need conditions that make action possible.
This is why the Academy’s commitment to agency must include both personal support and scrutiny of the systems surrounding people. Education cannot substitute for affordable housing. Confidence cannot substitute for healthcare. A financial plan cannot conjure income that does not exist.
We should help people act where they have influence, while making visible the barriers they cannot remove alone.
The evidence concerns dignity as well as income
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Minimum Income Standard asks what the public considers necessary for a dignified minimum standard of living. Its report published in February 2026 examines households below that benchmark between 2008/09 and 2023/24. This is a distinct measure, rather than another name for the conventional relative-income poverty threshold.[1]
The distinction matters. An economy should enable participation in ordinary life, as well as physical survival.
Wealth is also highly concentrated. The Office for National Statistics estimated that, in Great Britain between April 2020 and March 2022, the wealthiest 1% of households held 10% of household wealth—the same share as the least wealthy half combined.[2]
That is a dated estimate, not a claim about the precise distribution today. But it illustrates why we should ask how ownership affects people’s room to manoeuvre.
Someone with reserves can take time to recover, refuse unsuitable work or test an idea. Someone without reserves may have to accept the first available option. The formal freedom to choose can conceal very different degrees of practical freedom.
Wealth creation and wealth extraction
Sikka proposes changes to taxation and public investment. Each proposal deserves examination on its own merits, including implementation, behavioural responses and who ultimately bears the cost. A projected revenue figure is not money already available to spend.
But beneath the individual proposals lies a useful distinction: wealth creation and wealth extraction.
Wealth creation expands useful capacity: better homes, healthier people, productive businesses, stronger skills and services that improve life.
Wealth extraction generates returns by taking advantage of dependence, restricted alternatives or unequal bargaining power.
Profit alone does not tell us which is happening. A profitable business can create substantial public value. A publicly funded institution can waste resources or diminish people’s control. We need to examine the activity, its incentives and its consequences.
The question is: does this arrangement increase people’s ability to live well, or make them pay more because they have little choice?
That is a useful test for financial services, housing, essential utilities and public procurement alike.
Redistribution and capability belong together
It is tempting to divide the debate into two camps. One says people must help themselves. The other says government must change the system.
People need both.
Secure foundations can give someone the breathing space to learn, recover or change direction. Education and practical support can help them turn that breathing space into greater control over their life.
Neither should become an excuse to neglect the other. We should not withhold support until people prove they are sufficiently capable. Nor should we design support that leaves them permanently dependent on whoever administers it.
At the Academy, our principle is simple: support should increase your capability, not replace it.
That principle applies to a planner, an AI tool and a public institution.
Recognising wealth beyond the portfolio
For someone with little financial capital, another invitation to invest can miss the most immediate opportunity: their existing skills, experience, relationships and knowledge.
These are part of their total wealth. They may provide a basis for employment, collaboration, enterprise or meaningful contribution. They also have value beyond their ability to generate income.
Our free Get ICE app helps people explore their experience as an asset, possible entrepreneurial opportunities and routes towards a sustainable livelihood.
Exploration is the key word. An idea still needs testing against demand, health, caring responsibilities, costs and risk. Self-employment should be a considered option, not a substitute for decent employment or adequate social protection.
The purpose is to widen realistic choices and help people decide for themselves.
A practical test for an agency-building economy
We propose three questions for judging policies, institutions and services:
- Do people have secure foundations? Can they meet essential needs and participate in everyday life?
- Can people develop and use their capabilities? Are learning, tools, healthcare and appropriate support accessible?
- Can people exercise meaningful choice? Can they question decisions, change provider, seek redress or refuse an unsuitable arrangement without unacceptable consequences?
Together, these questions connect material security with personal capability and institutional power.
They also give life planners a clearer role. Help people understand their whole situation. Recognise constraints without blaming them. Identify workable options. Bring in expertise when needed. Keep ownership of the plan and decisions with the person whose life is at stake.
Sikka is right to invite debate about political choices. The Academy’s contribution is to ask what those choices enable people to do.
When we say the economy is growing, we should ask: whose ability to live, choose and contribute is growing with it?
Human agency needs both capable people and conditions in which capability can flourish.
Sources
- Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Households living below a Minimum Income Standard: 2008–2024, published 18 February 2026: https://www.jrf.org.uk/income-savings-and-debt/households-living-below-a-minimum-income-standard-2008-2024
- Office for National Statistics, Household total wealth in Great Britain: April 2020 to March 2022, published 24 January 2025: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2020tomarch2022
This article responds to Prem Sikka’s commentary and the accompanying article supplied by the reader. It develops the Academy’s perspective rather than endorsing every numerical estimate or policy proposal in that material.
