Anita Sangha is an MSc Psychology student at the University of Exeter and a Research Assistant at the Fairness Foundation. Her work focuses on long-term thinking in government policy, wealth inequality, and the social determinants of mental health. She also has an MSc in Social Cognition and a BA in Politics, Sociology & Eastern European Studies from University College London. Her research interests include moral development, risk perception, and the social determinants of mental health.

This report was produced in partnership with the Discovering Liveability Project. This brings together researchers from the University of Edinburgh, University of Lincoln, and Mind in Camden, to investigate how we can shift the focus away from suicide prevention towards making lives more ‘liveable’. The project centres lived and living experiences of suicide and suicidality (suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts), working with researchers, activists and collaborators from across the world and exploring what lived experience really means in practice.

Introduction

What are the conditions of life that make possible the desire to live? …And in some cases, the very desire to live is extinguished, and people do take their lives, or submit to slower forms of death dealt by slower forms of violence. Judith Butler, 2022

In 2023, 7,055 deaths by suicide were recorded across the UK - a 7.1% increase on the previous year. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that over the 1980s to early 2000s suicide rates in England and Wales had declined, but that they started to increase again after 2007.

There is never a single causal explanation behind suicide, but rather several interrelated factors that contribute to the risk of someone attempting to take their own life. We have to consider these factors holistically, taking into consideration the broader socio-economic and political context in which suicide occurs and how these forces may shape people’s experiences. When taking this context into account, it opens up a far broader range of structural measures that can reduce and mitigate the psychological, social, political, economic, and environmental harms that can make life 'unliveable' and contribute to people’s risk of suicidal ideation and attempts.

However, this is not generally how suicide prevention policy in the UK frames, or acts upon, the problem. The social determinants of health are often acknowledged, but the measures taken to enhance suicide prevention can have a different focus. Actions concentrate on increasing access to mental health services, training staff on frontline services, or increasing surveillance of suicide deaths and trends. These measures, while important, are rarely paired with structural reforms that would address the broader drivers of suicide.

Extensive research has linked socio-economic inequalities and deprivation to increased risk of suicide. Housing insecurity, unemployment, insecure work, income inequality, income deprivation, economic uncertainty, debt and area-level deprivation have all been connected to an increased risk of suicidal ideation and behaviour. 

The impacts of wealth inequality can clearly make life less 'liveable' and increase the risk of suicide. This is a particular problem in the UK, where the absolute wealth gap has increased dramatically in recent years. The UK's absolute wealth gap between the top and bottom deciles of the wealth distribution is estimated to be £11.5 trillion, and is now second only to the USA among OECD countries . 

Liveability broadly reflects whether an individual or community can 'live' in a given environment, considering the social, political, economic, and environmental context. A shift in focus to the impact of wealth on liveability and suicide would allow us to consider suicide as not merely a product of mental illness requiring an exclusively medicalised approach to 'fix', but a social justice issue to understand and address. 

The existing public policy framework must be made more effective. The current approach to suicide prevention is unfair, due to its failure to take seriously and address the structural causes of people’s distress. The government must more fully address the impact of economic inequalities on liveability and suicide, integrating this into the goals of its suicide prevention policy.

Take me back to the top

Suicide and wealth inequality in 2025

Suicide statistics

While the suicide rate in England declined since the 1980s, in recent years it has begun to increase again. The suicide rate in Wales fluctuates but has increased since 2010, while the rate in Scotland has been consistently higher than in any other part of the UK. A recent review of suicide statistics in Northern Ireland means that figures since 2015 are not comparable with previous years, but research has shown that rates of mental ill health are between 20-25% higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK.  

Rates of suicide deaths are highest amongst men, who account for approximately ¾ of all suicides across the UK and Ireland. However, research shows that women are more likely to self-harm and attempt suicide. Research has also shown that the suicide rate in the 10% most deprived areas in England in 2017-2019 was approximately double the rate in the least deprived 10% of areas.  

People with physical illnesses or disabilities are more likely to attempt suicide than those without illness or disabilities, as are those who identify as ‘gay’, ‘bisexual’, or ‘other sexual orientation’. There are also clear ethnic differences in suicide deaths, with people from White and Mixed ethnic backgrounds more likely to die by suicide than those from other ethnic backgrounds.  

These statistics are helpful in illustrating the state of suicide in the UK today, although they do not give a wholly reflective picture. For example, there are discrepancies in how suicide deaths are recorded, often relying on judgments of ethnicity from a coroner, links to GP records, or vague categories such as 'BAME'. Migrants and those not registered with GPs may not be accurately reflected in official figures. As such, the true rate of suicide deaths could vary from what is recorded in official statistics.

Suicide prevention policy across the UK

In September 2023, the government published a five-year, cross-sector strategy for suicide prevention in England that sets out 100 actions across several priority areas. It aims to reduce the suicide rate over the following five years, improve support for people who have self-harmed, and improve support for people bereaved by suicide. Some of its measures, including funding for VCSE sector organisations and data linkage projects including the link between the cost of living and suicide, could help to address the impact of socio-economic inequalities. The strategy also references the need to be responsive to the needs of marginalised communities and address inequalities. However, it does not situate individual suicidal risks within the context of wealth inequality, and fails to draw the link between wealth inequality and suicidal risk.  

Other parts of the UK have taken a different approach. In Scotland, the ten-year Suicide Prevention Strategy includes “tackling the inequalities which contribute to suicide” as part of its vision. This is connected to other key political strategic goals as outlined in the National Performance Framework - tackling poverty, promoting public health, community cohesion, human rights, and growing up safe and loved. The importance of the social determinants of suicide is made explicit and guides the rest of the ten-year strategy. At the time of writing, the Scottish government has released new data demonstrating an 11% decrease in suicide deaths in the year 2024/25. While this reduction is welcome, there is of course far more work to be done to bring the rate down further, address the root causes of suicide risk, and ensure that this decrease is sustained.

In Northern Ireland, one of the principles of the Protect Life 2 Strategy and Action Plan is to “contribute to reducing inequalities”. The Strategy recognises the need to “address the wider determinants of mental health and wellbeing… including issues of socio-economic disadvantage and inequality that are associated with suicide”.

In the Welsh suicide prevention strategy, the role of inequality and the social determinants of health are addressed, linked to broader strategic goals of the Welsh government as per the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act (2015), and there is a focus on prevention.

All four strategies acknowledge the role of socio-economic inequalities, although the sophistication of this recognition varies greatly, as do the measures taken to address these inequalities. All four strategies fail to fully acknowledge wealth inequalities as part of their assessment and proposed actions to address the link between inequalities and suicide.

Wealth inequality in 2025

Wealth inequality is a pressing issue in the UK. The absolute wealth gap between the top 10% and bottom 10% of the wealth distribution is estimated to be £11.5 trillion, but given under-reporting of wealth and difficulties tracking the finances of the very wealthiest it could be even greater. The Fairness Foundation's Wealth Gap Risk Register, which maps the impacts of wealth inequality across society and the economy, has revealed that the absolute wealth gap rose by 54% between 2011 and 2021.

Wealth inequality affects certain communities more than others. Wealth inequality between men and women stands at 21%, according to the Women’s Budget Group. Black African, Caribbean, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi households are far less wealthy than those from White British backgrounds, with the latter estimated to have a median net worth of £140,000 compared to the former groups’ near-zero net worth.

Older people hold much greater levels of wealth than younger generations, and with older generations preparing to pass down wealth to their younger family members in the coming years through the great wealth transfer, wealth inequality could become even more entrenched for younger generations.

Wealth ownership is also concentrated in the South of England, particularly in London, and there is an estimated average £71,000 gap in wealth between people in the North and South of the England, contributing to regional inequalities in health, education, work, and housing equality while minimising revenue for investment in productive enterprises and public services. Of course, these statistics do not give a nuanced picture of wealth inequality, and it is important to note that within each of these communities varying degrees of deprivation and economic challenges exist.

Societal impacts of wealth inequality

Wealth inequality exerts a substantial pressure on a society’s psycho-structural context by actively shaping people’s experiences. It undermines social cohesion by creating greater barriers to social interaction with people from different backgrounds, reducing trust and participation overall. It may increase loneliness and isolation by reducing people's ability to engage with social spaces, networks and opportunities.

Wealth inequality also limits opportunities for social mobility. People who do not come from wealthy households have been shown to be outperformed by their wealthier counterparts. Importantly, they are far more limited in their ability to secure opportunities at work due to weaker social capital compared to their wealthier counterparts. When children grow up in wealthier families, their ability to choose their own careers, explore, and fulfil their potential is much greater.

A lack of wealth places greater stress on people’s mental and physical health. It has also been associated with higher rates of anxiety, depression, disordered eating, emotional and behavioural issues in children and young people, and higher rates of chronic pain. People from less wealthy backgrounds are more likely to experience physical health conditions and disabilities later in life, start smoking earlier, and develop issues with alcohol abuse and obesity. This is likely in part due to the stress of economic precarity and potential debt, lower quality housing, and other forms of adversity faced in a harsher environment.

Wealth inequality also strains our economy. From obstructing the supply of talent, ideas and capital, and distorting consumer demand, to undermining competition and subverting public investment, an emerging evidence base suggests that inequality can hinder growth and prosperity.

Finally, wealth inequality undermines political equality. People with less wealth are less likely to vote than those with more wealth, whose interests are therefore better represented in policymaking. The wealthy can also exert greater force on our political system via large donations to political parties, essentially buying policy change that protects and advances their own interests over those of the public.

Wealth inequality and deprivation thus have a range of effects on our socio-economic, cultural, political, and environmental context. To exclude these from suicide prevention strategies that aim to address the full range of factors that can contribute to the risk of suicide is self-defeating.

Take me back to the top

Wealth inequality and the Integrated Motivational Volitional model

To investigate the impact of wealth inequality on liveability, we conducted a literature review on the relationship between wealth and suicide. We structured our literature review on one of the leading psychological models of suicidality (suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts): the Integrated Motivational Volitional (IMV) model of suicide by O’Connor and Kirtley (2018). The model, which features in the Scottish Creating Hope Together strategy, provides a clear framework for understanding the biopsychosocial context that underlies suicidal ideation and behaviour.

The model identifies three phrases of suicide: the pre-motivational phase (background factors), the motivational phase (ideation or intention formation) and the volitional phase (behavioural enaction). It explicitly identifies socio-economic deprivation and inequality as potential risk factors for suicide, noting how these forces increase people’s exposure to stress, trauma, and adverse experiences while limiting their capacity to cope with them due to the impacts of deprivation.

Without the support or capacity to manage these stressors, this can lead to feelings of defeat, entrapment, and humiliation. These feelings, coupled with the presence of 'threat to self-moderators' and 'motivational moderators’ (see below), can transform into suicidal ideation and intent. These intentions turn into action, and this transition is aided (or inhibited) by the presence (or absence) of 'volitional moderators', which include fear of death, access to means, and physical pain sensitivity.

We wanted to extend the IMV model by examining how wealth inequality influenced the latter stages of the model. We coupled our literature review with feedback from an expert roundtable discussion, attended by 14 people working in suicidology, wealth inequality, health economics, and mental health.

Due to capacity constraints, we were unable to invite experts by experience to the roundtable. We realise that this means the perspectives represented in the discussion are those from more elite, largely White, middle-class backgrounds. In addition, relying on an opportunity sample means that we were unable to bring together a more diverse, potentially more representative, group of experts by profession.

We hope that this initial discussion encourages further investigation into this area of research that can meaningfully integrate the perspectives and expertise of those with lived and living experience of suicide across the wealth distribution. We also hope that other professional perspectives may be brought into such discussions, such as those belonging to organisations working on the frontlines of the voluntary services, in healthcare or other similar contexts.

The roundtable discussion was focused on the following three questions:

• Considering your research and experience thus far, to what extent do you think that there is any relationship between wealth inequality and liveability today?
• The Integrated Motivational Volitional Model is a commonly used model of explaining the psychological processes through which people may come to ideate and attempt suicide. Considering your expertise, where in the model do you feel wealth inequality may play a role?
• Reflecting on the potential relationship between wealth, liveability and suicide, to what extent do you feel that this is addressed by national suicide prevention strategies? Should it be?

Across the literature review and roundtable discussion, we identified key ways in which wealth inequality can create 'unliveable' conditions and undermine effective suicide prevention in the UK.

Specifically, we found that wealth inequality and deprivation can increase pressures on the (i) pre-motivational; (ii) motivational, and (iii) volitional determinants of suicide. We additionally identified how wealth inequality (iv) upholds political barriers to action, and (v) is both maintained and maintained by cultural beliefs about individual responsibility, meritocracy, and deservingness.

Pre-motivational phase

Roundtable participants agreed that wealth inequality may increase pressure on the 'pre-motivational' or environmental factors associated with suicide, with people lacking wealth more likely to be more exposed to stress, trauma, and adverse experiences.  Wealth inequality likely affects suicide, given that those in more deprived areas tend to have the highest suicide rates. Research by Camacho et al. (2024) demonstrates this clearly, with higher rates of deaths by despair in the North of England. However, participants suggested that more research is needed to explore the nature of this relationship further with regard to specific forms of wealth. 

Our literature review largely corroborates participants’ views, suggesting a link between wealth, adverse environments, and increased exposure to stress and trauma. In terms of people’s environment, wealth inequality has been shown to correspond to differences in access to secure and good quality housing. Property wealth is one of the most common forms of wealth ownership, but it is increasingly hard to buy homes without access to parental wealth. For those who lack this luxury, they instead rely on private or social housing, both of which are notorious for being more insecure, lower quality, and associated with worse mental and physical health outcomes. Wealth inequalities, in the form of home ownership and housing status, could therefore increase exposure to stress.  

Relatedly, wealth inequality can also influence income, again shaping levels of deprivation and stress that can increase vulnerability at this point in the model. The same structures that give rise to wealth inequality effectively extract wealth from workers in the form of income and profits from labour, undermining financial security. This insecurity has wider impacts on wellbeing by increasing pressure on the social determinants of health for workers and their families, whilst allowing 'wealth extractors' to grow their profits and accumulate further wealth.  

Negative wealth, or debt, has long been identified as a key risk factor for suicidal ideation. Research by the Money and Mental Health Institute found that 13% of those in problem debt had thought about suicide in 2018, and nearly 25% of those who attempted suicide in the same year had reported having problem debt. Problem debt and the aggressive practices used to collect debt can lead to immense stress, depression, and anxiety, potentially triggering feelings of defeat and entrapment.  

Motivational phase

Threat to self-moderators

Roundtable participants acknowledged the importance of wealth inequality and deprivation to people’s 'cognitive bandwidth’, with the stress of resource scarcity and deprivation reducing ability to engage in long-term thinking or in complex problem solving. The cognitive burden of wealth inequality and deprivation may lead to sub-optimal decision-making, as well as exacerbating the sense of defeat, entrapment, and humiliation that can trigger suicidal ideation and intentions. This idea was also borne out in the literature: studies have shown that wealth may have an impact on cognitive processes, including memory, social-problem solving and coping strategies, all of which are implicated in suicidal ideation. 

Household wealth ownership has been shown to have effects on children’s wellbeing: children from wealthier backgrounds exhibit lower rates of emotional and behavioural issues than their less wealthy peers. Moulton et al. (2020) have shown that parental wealth ownership has a clear relationship with children’s emotional and behavioural wellbeing. The children of wealthier parents with wealth have fewer emotional and behavioural issues, fewer anxieties, and fewer problems with concentration and playing well with other children than the children of less wealthy parents. McElroy et al. (2022) report similar findings. Comparing trends in socio-economic status and related measures across four cohort studies of UK families, researchers found that home ownership was negatively related to the prevalence of emotional and behavioural issues. These difficulties with emotional regulation can contribute to an increased risk of suicidal ideation.  

Roundtable participants also quickly linked wealth inequality to increased risk of mental distress. Deprivation has been associated with an increased risk of depression, which involves ruminative thinking, and an elevated risk of suicide. In a review of 96 studies spanning a range of countries, including the UK, Ettman et al. (2021) found that higher levels of wealth are associated with lower rates of depression. 

Motivational moderators

Roundtable participants also acknowledged the importance of wealth inequality and motivational moderators in relation to the impact of inequality on social comparisons and access to social support. With regard to the former, higher levels of economic inequality raise the salience of social rank and foment status anxiety. Upward comparisons to those we perceive as having more wealth, status, or power than us can trigger feelings of shame and humiliation for failing to 'match up' and being unable to change their situation. This is borne out in the suicidology literature; using data from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, Wetherall et al. (2015) find that people’s social position significantly predicts their lifetime risk of suicidal ideation, over and above their level of absolute income. 

Relatedly, the wider research base indicates that wealth inequality could also increase social perfectionism (the need to meet other’s perceived high expectations). This could contribute to a greater focus on achievement and success at a cost to healthy social relationships, exacerbating social disconnection, loneliness and alienation, and increasing the risk of suicidal ideation. Social perfectionism has been shown to have been increasing over time, with Curran (2022) demonstrating that this increase is likely due to an increase in inequality and competition. Parents may set higher expectations for children for success to ensure that they can succeed in an increasingly competitive labour market, buy a home, and achieve financial security. As inequality has increased, so too has the competition and need for excellence, fuelling this perfectionist shame spiral.   

Finally, roundtable participants drew attention to the links between wealth and accessing care. Roundtable participants agreed that those without wealth may need to rely more on public health care services, but face greater barriers to access given the strain of public health services. In addition, they likely lack access to social networks that could help them to navigate complex healthcare systems or take more agency over their own care or support. Those without wealth are ultimately less able to access broader social, health, or crisis support when needed, whilst being at greater risk of ill health. Long delays in access to care can lead to a further deterioration in people’s mental health and broader socio-economic context, contributing further to their sense of entrapment.    

Volitional phase

Roundtable participants agreed that wealth could influence the volitional phase of suicide. Considering that those living in less wealthy, more deprived areas are likely to be more exposed to suicides (a known risk factor for suicidal ideation and attempts), this could make suicide a more cognitively accessible solution in the face of feelings of defeat and entrapment.

Wider research also suggests that wealth inequality may influence access to the means of suicide to some extent. For instance, we may consider the role of wealth and “big tech” in influencing the extent to which people are exposed to suicidal content and in some cases, actively encouraged to attempt suicide. Social media companies have been connected to hundreds of suicides because of failures to regulate harmful content online, actively propagating such content to increase their own revenue.

Roundtable participants also criticised the English suicide prevention strategy for identifying at-risk groups such as people experiencing gambling or alcohol addictions, but doing little to address the systemic nature of that risk. For example, strategies may identify gambling as a risk factor, but the measures proposed to address this issue are focused on sourcing help for individuals with gambling, instead of enforcing stronger regulations on the industry itself to limit the harm it can do to the public.

Wealth and media narrative challenges

Wealth holders have a disproportionately large level of influence on policy priorities and decision-making. Sometimes this influence acts to frustrate attempts to bring in policy changes that would help to make life more liveable for people without wealth, such as investing more in social security and public services (and increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for this investment).

Wealth is linked to the proliferation of unfair media coverage and narratives of the poor and less wealthy, as well as of suicide itself. Mainstream media outlets , largely owned by a handful of wealthy individuals, have long promoted the 'undeserving poor' narrative that casts the less wealthy as being to blame for their own deprivation and distress, and so as being undeserving of care or support. In reality, almost all socio-economic outcomes have been shown to have been influenced by household wealth and the improvements in health, social networks, and opportunities that flow from it. However, the media narrative often shifts responsibility for people’s lack of wealth and mental distress back to the individual, instead of onto those with the power and ability to shape their social, economic, political, and environmental context.

The same political and cultural beliefs that advance the myth of meritocracy maintain wealth inequality. An emphasis on individual responsibility for both wealth and suffering inevitably encourages people to focus on individual-level determinants of suicide, rather than on the broader situational or contextual factors surrounding people’s experiences and outcomes. The narrative of individual responsibility leads people to feel ashamed of themselves for failing to meet unobtainable ideals of wealth and success. This increases people’s feelings of being burdensome because they are unable to 'manage', eliciting a sense of defeat and entrapment. Crucially, these feelings must be understood as connected to a social, cultural and political discourse that encourages people to feel shame.

Roundtable participants also highlighted that language around suicide obscures the role of contextual factors, including wealth and structural inequalities, that precede experiences of mental distress and suicidal ideation. The term 'resilience' was often used to this end, once again suggesting that the individual must become tougher to cope under societal conditions, rather than that societal conditions must become more liveable.

Participants also acknowledged the limitations of purely psychological models that do not fully integrate social and economic factors into their analyses, including the IMV model outlined above. Psychological theories and models can shape further investigation, policy action, and broader understanding of the drivers of suicide. Researchers could engage more critically with the role of societal factors that contribute to the risk of suicide. These twin issues, harmful narratives and a lack of political will to change, work together to undermine effective suicide prevention policy.

Referring to the inequalities that underpin poor mental health, without including sufficient measures to address them, is more of a rhetorical device than a signal of true political will. Ultimately, the way that suicide is explained in policy has become depoliticised. Ignoring the broader socio-economic and political context in which suicidal ideation, attempts and deaths occur absolves the state of responsibility.

Take me back to the top

Recommendations

In this report, we have shown that high levels of wealth inequality can make life less liveable, and potentially increase the risk of suicide, for millions of people in the UK.

In light of these findings, we suggest the following recommendations for politicians, public health organisations, researchers, and civil society organisations:

Recommendation 1: Review suicide prevention strategies

It is our contention that current suicide prevention strategies, while often acknowledging the role of inequalities, do not fully address the salience of wealth inequality.

As such, we believe that a greater focus should be afforded within public policy on the relationship between socio-economic inequalities and suicide, including from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). We would invite a response from the DHSC to this report, including on how it has considered the relationship between wealth disparities and suicidality in current policy, and whether it has considered possible changes to the National Suicide Prevention Strategy to reflect this report’s findings.

In updating this strategy, the Department of Health and Social Care should consult with other relevant government departments, drawing on a broader range of expertise and knowledge, in line with the government’s ambition to “make suicide everyone’s business”.

Future suicide prevention strategies must ensure that the link between socio-economic inequalities, including wealth inequalities, and suicide is explicitly addressed. Those with lived and living experience should be actively involved in shaping future government policy in this area. Positioning inequalities in national suicide prevention strategies, in both narrative and action, would demonstrate clearly that suicide is not a product of individual failures to be 'resilient' or to have enough 'grit' to cope with life.

Recommendation 2: Tackle wealth inequality and its spillover impacts 

To reduce the impacts of wealth inequality on liveability and on suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts, the government should take urgent action to reduce both the scale of wealth inequality and its spillover impacts.

As we have outlined in our Wealth Gap Risk Register, policy measures to reduce the scale of wealth inequality require both the more effective redistribution of wealth through the tax system, and efforts to reduce poverty and to enable people without wealth to build up assets.

There are a variety of ways in which the government could reform existing taxes on wealth (looking at income from wealth - e.g. capital gains - and transfers of wealth - e.g. inheritance), to say nothing of the option of introducing a new one-off or recurring tax on stocks of wealth.

Some or all of the revenues raised as a result could be used to reduce poverty directly, for example by removing the two-child limit or implementing proposals for an ‘essentials guarantee’. They could also be used to invest in public services, making existing services (such as education and the NHS) better as well as investing in, for example, free childcare or the broader availability of social housing.

These measures would help to reduce the negative impacts on people’s wellbeing and life chances of not having wealth. They could be accompanied by policies to reduce the negative impacts of wealth inequality on political equality, such as caps on donations to political parties or tighter regulations on lobbying.

Another set of policies could help people to accumulate wealth themselves, by building a more inclusive economy that challenges the extractive processes that redistribute resources upwards. Policy priorities could include ensuring that a higher proportion of company profits goes to workers rather than to shareholders or executives (for example, through mandatory worker representation on boards), or helping people to build up wealth through various kinds of asset-building initiatives (such as community wealth building funds or a citizen’s wealth fund).

Access to savings, secure housing, and community wealth have all been shown to help mental health, employment and educational outcomes, the benefits of which go beyond suicide prevention to advance societal wellbeing.

In combination, these measures could be effective in reducing the pressure on the pre-motivational phase of the IMV model, reducing the risk that stress, deprivation, and trauma escalate into suicidal ideation and motivation. Increasing individual wealth ownership and people’s access to public services and social security could also reduce feelings of defeat and entrapment, by boosting financial security and providing the societal support that people need to help them to navigate complex challenges.

Recommendation 3: Dismantle the myth of meritocracy

There should be a greater acknowledgement by a range of political and civic society actors of the damage done by the myth of meritocracy to our collective and individual wellbeing.

A consistent theme in the research was that meritocratic myths are harmful to societal wellbeing. Extensive research has shown that life chances are circumstantial, and wealth and its benefits are increasingly inherited. However, as a society we still hold on to the idea that life’s outcomes are a product of individual effort. This false notion, coupled with the high levels of wealth inequality that encourage people to compare themselves negatively with others, drives feelings of shame and low self-worth.

These meritocratic myths distract attention from the historic, structural wealth inequalities that shape people’s health, education, environment, democracy, and more. Unpicking the grip of the meritocratic narrative could help to address some if its negative consequences. Inequality campaigners and policy researchers on suicide prevention can work together to help to change the public conversation about the kind of society that we live in now, and the one that we want to build in the future.

Take me back to the top