Ok, that’s possible… but if the country is affluent, isn’t the clause still more to do with that country and the way it manages inequality?
Despite Tory ideology the UK has handled inequality ok-ish. We have early years funding, universal education from 4-18, special provision for young people with additional needs, universal healthcare, children's and adults' social care, out-of-work and ill health benefits, housing benefits, in-work top-up benefits, child benefits, adult learning courses, state pension, free-to-access libraries, targeted help with utilities bills etc. We can and should do better but that compares favourably with the US, for example, and hugely favourably with most poorer nations.
There is an underlying issue though that a higher proportion of wealth leaves the economy to foreign based companies and to wealth hoarders in the UK and overseas. A lot of what I've listed above wasn't in place in the 90s but can you imagine the mess the UK would be in now without them?!
Obviously globalisation didn't start in the 90s and the UK was undoubtedly a huge beneficiary of early globalisation (and is arguably still a beneficiary) but those benefits are unevenly shared out. The internet is like steroids to globalisation and I don't think any government in the world has kept up - probably because the issues caused by globalisation need a global response and there's f-all chance of that.
The UK feels badly placed to cope in the future due to isolationist policies of the past decade, our huge dependence on imports of life's essentials, how little control our government has over those life essentials and a malevolent presence that looks at countries with no welfare state as a utopia the UK should be aspiring to.
(Sorry - nothing much in the way of unicorns, sunshine and rainbows. I do think Labour are the best hope we have!)