Still puzzled by the existence of child poverty some years after PM Ardern decided to abolish it? You might be interested to know that the question was addressed at the same time by a couple of Brits. More transparently; and – one imagines – with much the same success.
In fact, they went a bit further in ensuring the experiment would tangibly impact on the decision-makers themselves. They made a bet of it.
In the red corner, Jonathan Portes wagered £1000 that withdrawal of state benefits would propel the UK’s child poverty rate from a dreadful 31% to an appalling 41%. It doesn’t work that way, said Christopher Snowdon from the blue corner, accepting the bet.
Five years later, the measured UK child poverty rate was 29%. Snowdon had won.
Read their explanations here, and the Financial Times summary of lessons learned here.
But if you want to avoid bogging down in detail, just ponder the implications of a 29% poverty rate.
Or to be more precise: a 29% relative poverty rate after housing costs.
Which is achieved by arbitrarily setting a poverty rate of 60% of median household income after housing costs.
If you actually want to make a practical and constructive dent in that rate, you need to figure out how to get large numbers of beneficiaries and unskilled workers into demanding skilled and productive occupations. Not straightforward.
This assumes, of course, that you don’t want an expensive, short-term and incentive-sapping programme of state subsidies.
Another quirk of relative poverty rates is that – paradoxically – the rate can go up in good times as median incomes rise, then decline in hard times, because of slower growth in higher incomes.
But perhaps the most insidious problem with using a sweeping relative poverty measure in a rich welfare state is its obfuscation and cheapening of the language. Misuse of the word poverty, coupled with overuse, will detract from more meaningful and therefore more powerful terms like indigence, want, and destitution.
For sure, the currently limited use made of these terms is a welcome reflection of the enormous progress made in the reduction of their occurrence in our societies.
But their greater deployment by politicians today might just reflect a genuine focus on tackling stubborn pockets of misery and the tremendous challenge of family dysfunction so often associated with them.
More attention to language would surely have helped protect Ardern’s legacy from criticisms of ignorance and hypocrisy. It might even – although this may be stretching it a bit – have led to some meaningful policy.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
Five years later, the measured UK child poverty rate was 29%. Snowdon had won.
Read their explanations here, and the Financial Times summary of lessons learned here.
But if you want to avoid bogging down in detail, just ponder the implications of a 29% poverty rate.
Or to be more precise: a 29% relative poverty rate after housing costs.
Which is achieved by arbitrarily setting a poverty rate of 60% of median household income after housing costs.
If you actually want to make a practical and constructive dent in that rate, you need to figure out how to get large numbers of beneficiaries and unskilled workers into demanding skilled and productive occupations. Not straightforward.
This assumes, of course, that you don’t want an expensive, short-term and incentive-sapping programme of state subsidies.
Another quirk of relative poverty rates is that – paradoxically – the rate can go up in good times as median incomes rise, then decline in hard times, because of slower growth in higher incomes.
But perhaps the most insidious problem with using a sweeping relative poverty measure in a rich welfare state is its obfuscation and cheapening of the language. Misuse of the word poverty, coupled with overuse, will detract from more meaningful and therefore more powerful terms like indigence, want, and destitution.
For sure, the currently limited use made of these terms is a welcome reflection of the enormous progress made in the reduction of their occurrence in our societies.
But their greater deployment by politicians today might just reflect a genuine focus on tackling stubborn pockets of misery and the tremendous challenge of family dysfunction so often associated with them.
More attention to language would surely have helped protect Ardern’s legacy from criticisms of ignorance and hypocrisy. It might even – although this may be stretching it a bit – have led to some meaningful policy.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
2 comments:
Relative poverty rates mean little as they are based on median incomes around which incomes are roughly Normally distributed (allowing for minimum incomes as laid down by law) and so there will always be people below an arbitrary threshold expressed as a proportion of median income. Absolute poverty measures such as homelessness owing to inability to pay rent or hunger owing to inability to buy food are far more meaningful.
Many studies, I suspect supported by purveyors of insulation, double glazed windows, air conditioners etc have "investigated" links with illness (overlooking clothing habits, wet weather gear worn, external temperature extremes experienced, persons close mixed with etc etc.) Studying poverty seems less fashionable, largely I suspect because of the enormous difficulty of establishing unmodified behaviour. And no one stands to profit from frugality. I examine likely candidates for the supposedly hard hit poverty groups at the supermarket. I am sure I could trim $15 a head a week from their food bill. Also dubious that persons beyond max normal BMI can afford no more than basic food. Many solo mothers before the DPB experienced poverty. Many families in early 50s operated at a level far below today. No takeaways except occasional fish and chips. Cordials and soft drinks a rare treat. It is difficult to compare with the distant past as few mothers then worked. Where both work long hours in manual jobs and there is a family, considerable expenditure on take aways is unreasonable to avoid, but I suspect all now utilise extensively. Not sure if many modern persons have been taught how to cook, and some groups are unlikely to self learn unaided.
Post a Comment