On the surface, the shift of millions of British workers from commuting to offices daily to working from home is perhaps one of the least interesting of the transformations the country has endured through the Coronavirus pandemic – but surface impressions can often be misleading.
The enforced nature of home working during the pandemic has shown many previously uninterested employers and employees that in the 21st century remote working can often be as efficient – or sometimes even more efficient – than working in the office.
Now a generation of workers have become accustomed to it, employers looking to attract and retain talent will need to offer a higher degree of flexibility for those who want it. But this comes with a surprising degree of upsides for a government and society willing to embrace the opportunities that come with it.
First among these are chances for straightforward and efficient welfare gains: academic research shows that long commutes are one of the strongest correlations with unhappiness, and even appear to increase the probabilities of infidelity and divorce. Reducing the frequency of such commutes improves welfare and family stability at virtually zero cost.
But the benefits extend further: now we have had a 10-month natural experiment showing many roles where the office was previously thought to be essential can be done remotely expand the potential pool of workers to those with childcare or social care responsibilities, and may lead to productivity increases for those workers already in the pool. Any potential partial fix to the UK’s longstanding productivity puzzle should be embraced.
Broader social issues may also be helped by homeworking. Lockdowns were accompanies by photos of abandoned city centres and concerns from major central chains. More quietly, though, many smaller high streets have thrived thanks to a populace staying local – visiting local shops or independent cafes during work breaks, to the benefit of outer London and commuter towns. Retaining a more flexible working mix between city centres and remote work may help reinvigorate towns and local high streets – a longstanding policy goal.
There are even potential climate wins to be had through simply trying to incentivise behaviours learned through lockdown. Reducing the number of commutes is a relatively painless way to reduce carbon emissions, and in the longer term could lead to rethink of the use of different bits of urban space – potentially allowing some offices to change use, opening up potential for housebuilding in ultra-efficient and climate friendly mixed-use developments.
Policymakers need not have a heavy hand in trying to effect these outcomes – no-one would suggest people who want to work in an office should be barred from doing so, or employers heavily penalised for requiring at least some in-person contact. But careful thinking around how subsidies, tax incentives and other policy tools are used could help embed new and better practices – as could the public sector modelling new best practices for the private sector to follow.
This is an excellent opportunity to put a thumb on the scale and to create good incentives that could create good outcomes across a range of policy ideas. Just because it’s not heavy-handed doesn’t mean it couldn’t create real and worthwhile change.
408-11