Rethinking Child Poverty

The Centre for Social Justice, an independent British think tank, has published a new report that calls for a radical rethinking of the UK government's relative income inequality approach to measuring and reducing poverty.  The measure, introduced by the previous Labour government and perpetuated by the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government, has proved expensive and ineffective, the report argues, because it is is misconceived.


Crude and flawed yardsticks for measuring child poverty should be scrapped and replaced with a range of new indicators reflecting the true causes of deprivation, according to the leading think-tank.


The Centre for Social Justice condemns the existing official formula as arbitrary and faulty and says that it conveys almost nothing about the suffocating nature of genuine hardship.


Christian Guy, Managing Director of the CSJ, said: “Labour's misguided child poverty targets have wasted over £150 billion pounds of taxpayers' money. By not reforming this misfiring system, the Coalition risks doing nothing to tackle child poverty.


“It must start showing that it is serious about reducing real deprivation.  Poverty is about more than money - it is about the family breakdown, addiction, debt-traps, and failing schools that blight the lives of our children.”


The current formula, based mainly on income inequality targets, has led to narrow and expensive policy responses, costing taxpayers at least £150 billion from 2004 to 2010.


In a new report, the CSJ calls for a complete overhaul of the system, in which the accent would be on measuring the underlying causes of blighted young lives, such as family breakdown, welfare dependency and educational failure, rather than the symptoms of low relative income.


The current system, enshrined in Labour's 2010 Child Poverty Act, classifies a child as poor if he or she is brought up in a family with an income below 60 per cent of median household income.


The ‘relative’ yardstick takes no account of the true, underlying causes of a deprived upbringing, for instance whether a child has the love and care of two parents, whether he or she has the role model of adults who go out to work for a living, or whether drug or alcohol addiction scars family life.

And because the measure is relative (and because income differences are inevitable in a free society), lofty promises, such as Labour's commitment to eliminate child poverty by 2020, are by definition practically unachievable.


The 60 per cent target also has perverse effects. It encourages governments to throw ever-increasing amounts of money at the problem in the forlorn belief that cash alone can solve the problem.


Between 2004 and 2010, the Government spent £150 billion on tax credits designed to lift individuals to just above the 60 per cent poverty line. Yet the number of children classified as living in poverty hardly moved. The total number declined marginally from 2.7 million in 2004/05 to 2.6 million in 2009/10, but the percentage remained the same at 21 per cent.


The CSJ report declares: “The first methodological flaw of the Government's central measure of poverty is that it is defined in relative terms. The result of this is that the poor will always exist statistically, as it is inevitable that some in society will have less than others.


“However, simply having less money than others does not necessarily render an individual to be in poverty. The measure therefore confuses poverty with income inequality. The commitment to eradicating child poverty by 2020 is thus almost impossible to achieve on the basis of a relative measure.


“What's more, on the basis of this measure, a household can be moved into or out of poverty without any change in their circumstances. For example, in a recession, as median incomes fall, so does the poverty line. This means that many households who were previously in poverty are now out of poverty (above the new, lower poverty line).


“Similarly, and somewhat bizarrely, an increase in the size of pensions will lift the median income and thereby push more children below this arbitrary poverty line.


“Measuring poverty in this way also fails to distinguish between those furthest away from the poverty line and those just below. As a result, the depth of poverty is not fully realised and improvements in living standards which raise children from far below the poverty line to just below are not captured.


“However, our main concern is that the exclusive use of an arbitrary line to measure child poverty tells us almost nothing about the real issues blighting the lives of the most disadvantaged.


“This spreadsheet-driven approach is relatively simple to calculate and provides figures which are convenient for politicians and the media to use.


“Yet we know from our own extensive research as well as the research of others that the key drivers of poverty are family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependency and worklessness, addiction and serious personal debt.

“It is these drivers which any serious attempt to tackle poverty must address, and so in turn any effort to accurately measure levels of poverty must assess the prevalence of these drivers.”


The CSJ suggests a new approach to computing poverty levels, taking into account a far wider range of variables, reflecting quality of life as well as quantity of income.


These include sources of income because income earned through work promotes the self-reliance and self-respect of families.


Equally, family consumption rather than income might be a better indicator of poverty levels.


Other factors that should be taken into account include the ability to save, the quality of a child’s parenting, family stability because children from broken homes are twice as likely to suffer behavioural problems than those from intact families, levels of worklessness in households because children tend to repeat the work habits of their parents, access to good schools, truancy rates, drug and alcohol addiction and levels of household debt.


Mr Guy added: “The CSJ strongly believes that any strategy to tackle poverty should focus on the root causes of deprivation and the social breakdown which fuels it, not the symptoms.


“Yet the way the previous Government conceptualised and sought to measure poverty is deeply flawed.


“The legacy of this is a narrow and one-dimensional Child Poverty Act which focuses solely on income and material deprivation. This is despite huge swathes of evidence to demonstrate that poverty is about far more than this.


“Poverty is not just about income, it is about family breakdown, educational failure, intergenerational worklessness, addiction, serious personal debt and poor mental health.


“It is absolutely vital that any serious measure of poverty reflects this. It is wholly unacceptable for such high and deep-seated levels of poverty to exist in the UK today. Such poverty devastates our communities and destroys the life chances of our children.


“We call on the Government to make a bold commitment to confronting this problem head-on. Transforming the way poverty is measured would be a crucial first step.


“We therefore urge the Government to review its Child Poverty Act in order to construct a measure of poverty which is fit for the 21st Century. It would be one of the most radical and commendable accomplishments of its period in office.”
____

A NOTE ABOUT THE CENTRE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE


The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) is an independent think tank established in
2004 to put social justice at the heart of British politics.


In 2007 the CSJ published its landmark report, Breakthrough Britain. This publication, which set out 190 evidence-based policy recommendations to tackle poverty in Britain, transformed the social policy and political landscape and was awarded Publication of the Year by Prospect Magazine in 2008.


Since Breakthrough Britain the CSJ has published over 40 reports which have shaped government policy and influenced opposition parties. These have included the seminal papers Dying To Belong and Dynamic Benefits, which has led the Coalition Government’s welfare reforms.


The CSJ manages an Alliance of over 250 of the most effective grass roots, poverty-fighting organisations. 

End Gendercide in the US! Planned Parenthood in New York City

...and today Democrats defeated a bill to outlaw sex-selective abortion, saying the problem does not exist!

How Social Security Depends on - and Penalizes - Childrearing

Ramesh Ponnuru has a good essay in National Review Online today on the ways in which social security both depends on the childrearing contribution to the system that parents make - a contribution-in-kind or tax-equivalent - and penalizes it.  He makes points similar to those I made in an article in Social Work in 1990 (Paul Adams, "Children as Contributions in Kind: Social Security and Family Policy," Social Work 35(6) (November 1990), pp. 492-97), but with updated research and some account of the effect of "family-friendly" policies.  The latter are supposed to make it easier to harmonize work and family, but as Neil Gilbert argues in his book, A Mother's Work: How Feminism, the Market, and Policy Shape Family Life, both "family-friendly" and "gender-neutralizing" policies adopt an approach of harmonizing by subordinating family to work.  (See my discussion on my blog about Sowell, Sandel, and Neil Gilbert for March 13, 2010.) 


Ponnuru says that prior to social insurance,  people depended on their children, both for labor and especially for security in old age.  A man's children were his social security.

They  needed children, especially, to avoid hunger and privation in old age. The bargain was simple: Parents take care of their children until they are able-bodied, and in return get taken care of by their children when they no longer are.
We still need to have children so that we can enjoy a secure old age. Modern societies have disguised the old bargain by socializing it. They maintain expensive government programs to assist the elderly, financed by successive generations. The children still take care of the elderly when they grow up, but now it’s all the children providing for all the elderly, collectively. 

In some ways this arrangement may represent an advance for civilization. Most people seem to think so. But it has a little-appreciated drawback: It imposes a heavy, if hidden, burden on parents, especially those with several children, and societies that adopt it therefore tend to have fewer children. For both moral and practical reasons, it is time to revise the generational bargain again.

We still depend, collectively, on the children we rear to productive adulthood for our security in old age or disability.  But we no longer depend on a culture of filial piety, sense of duty, or gratitude.  Instead the rather more reliable Federal payroll tax system ensures that the intergenerational transfer is made.  

Now, as individuals we no longer need to have children, with all the attendant costs of childrearing, in order to provide for our old age.  We just need others to do so.

The social security system depends on the contribution in kind made by parents in the form of childrearing, but it gives non-parents a free ride and penalizes parents.  As a parent, you pay the same earnings-related tax as non-parents and on top of that you pay a tax-equivalent in the form of childrearing.  Not only is that contribution not recognized but it is penalized in the form of reduced earnings over a lifetime and hence lower earnings-related social security benefits.

Social security thus suppresses fertility - not that it is the only factor in the birth dearth now afflicting half the countries in the world - and so creates its own fiscal woes.  The ratio of workers/contributors to beneficiaries declines dramatically.  The working age population always maintained those too old or sick or disabled to work, but now we have ever more of the latter and proportionately fewer of the former.

One kind of solution briefly discussed by Ponnuru is to re-establish the direct link for individuals between fertility behavior (as demographers call it) in young adulthood and security in old age or disability.  One way to do this - well short of abolishing social insurance - is to increase the tax credit substantially to offset the contribution in kind that parents make to the system.

End Gendercide in the U.S.!

Undercover in Austin, Texas, where a woman is advised on how she can delay an abortion decision and wait to find out if she's carrying a boy or girl - so she can have the baby killed if it's a girl.  And defraud Medicaid in the process.

Working to End Gendercide in India

The Rhema Project

Marcus Roberts | 25 May 2012 | 

After last week’s post about female infanticide and foeticide in India I received some information via email (Marcus.roberts@mercatornet.com) about The Rhema Project. This NGO is on the ground in India and is seeking to change attitudes towards the Indian girl child.  In its own words:

“The mission of The Rhema Project is to eliminate female infanticide, sex determination feticide and other discriminations against the girl child in India by supporting and networking with organizations and indigenous groups. We strive to add value to female lives in India through the short-term rescue of unborn, newborn and the Indian girl child as well as long-term initiatives that include education, health and wellness, trade and micro-finance to help Indian women become truly valued by their culture.”

I suggest heading over to the website and having a look at the amazing work that The Rhema Project is doing. But for a brief taste, here is a project that The Rhema Project is currently involved in (as described by its director, Dan Blacketor):

“Our organization has been working in Tamil Nadu.  Two years ago we launched a very simple program that we refer to as our "Prenatal and Newborn Care" initiative.  Simply, the program identifies communities with a high rate of gendercide and;

1.  Begins to provide all pregnant woman a daily milk (1/2 liter) allotment.  Our indigenous staff simply begins to build relationships with the families.
2.  Each week the women receive vitamin supplements to help improve the health of mother and fetus.
3.  Once a month the group of women are taken to a clinic or hospital for an exam (not a ultrasound).  While returning to the village we take the women out to lunch at an Indian restaurant.  This demonstrates value to the pregnant woman as well as helps build community among the women.
4.  Once the baby is born we celebrate the birth of a girl with small gifts and a blessing.  We do not do this for boy babies since the family and community already celebrate his birth and life.
5.  Families with girl babies are allowed to continue to participate in the daily milk (1 liter) and vitamin allotment for an additional six months.
6.  We celebrate the girl babies first birth with a small gift to the baby and family.

Most times we precede this program with a community project that will benefit all.  Many times this is the drilling of a bore-well.  All have access.

What we have experienced is a reduction of mortality rates of girl babies by over 90% within 12 to 18 months after the program has been started.  Amazingly, nearly 80% of the birth families decide to keep their girl baby and raise her.  For those families unwilling or unable to care for a girl baby we simply identify a family that are willing to care for her and provide them a small monthly stipend to cover the additional costs of raising another child.

In several villages, the women of the village have actually taken over the responsibilities of this program and we have seen midwifes move from executioner to advocate for the girl babies born in the community.”

While we can pontificate all we like about the problems of the world (and I must admit I like it more than I should) people like those involved in The Rhema Project are the ones actually changing things. They are the ones who save lives, change attitudes and make this world a better place. They need and deserve our support. We should give it to them. May their project be a fruitful and successful one. As we (sometimes) say in New Zealand, “kia kaha!”


From MercatorNet, May 25, 2012

For Greater Glory: The Cristeros' Fight for Religious Freedom in Mexico

Perils of Polygamy

The push for same-sex marriage between two partners has led inexorably to demands for legal recognition of polyamorous or polygamous marriage.  Once marriage is no longer based on the only kind of sex capable of generating new life, it is no longer clear why it should be limited to two people.  Here Christopher Kaczor considers the damaging effects of polygamy for women, children, men, and society.  Similar considerations apply to the the growing practice of sex-selective abortion, which has led to a huge demographic imbalance between boys and girls.

The Perils of Polygamy

by Christopher Kaczor

May 21, 2012

Recent empirical research suggests that, in virtually every respect, polygamy is socially detrimental—to society in general, to men, to women, and to children.

In the course of history, approximately 85 percent of societies have practiced polygamy. Pushed by advocates of same-sex marriage and multiculturalism, some scholars, such as the signers of “Beyond Gay Marriage,” argue that it is irrational and bigoted for contemporary society to limit marriage to just two people. However, there is no bigotry in treating different things differently, and there are many important differences between polygamy and monogamy in practice as well as in principle.


Read MORE