Jonathan Boston from Victoria University, and Simon Chapple
from Otago University, have calculated that for families need $100 to $200 a
week rather than $25 worth of benefit to raise them above the 60 per cent of
median income relative poverty line. "Numerous myths abound," they say. "Some of these have been repeated so often that they are lodged deep
in the public consciousness." So entrenched are they that Boston has come
to believe that only an event as terrible as
war, or a great depression could get enough of the population to see
children in poor families as "our" children, rather
than "their"
children, and commit to lifting them out of the poverty into which they had the
bad fortune to be born.
Claim One: There is
little or no real child poverty in New Zealand
Child poverty here is "relative", and while not as
debilitating as severe or debilitating malnutrition, it is real, measurable and
often leaves "significant and long-lasting scars". "This
includes poor educational attainment, higher unemployment, poor health and
higher incidence of involvement in crime. For such reasons it matters,"
Boston and Chapple say. There are generally two ways poverty is measured:
income poverty (living in households where the income is 60 per cent or less
than the median household income), and material hardship (where children lack
things like two pairs of sturdy shoes, or a winter coat, or live in draughty,
damp houses). The Ministry of Social Development takes this seriously and
tracks child poverty. Depending on the precise measure of income poverty
adopted, between 120,000 and 260,000 children are living in this relative
poverty.
Claim two: It's the
fault of lazy or irresponsible parents.
Undoubtedly, say Chapple and Boston, some parents do make
bad choices, and there's growing evidence that being in poverty actually
reduces reasoning capacity. But: "It seems unlikely that poverty is
primarily due to people's poor choices." Why, they ask are overall poverty
rates three times higher in the US than in Scandinavia? Are Americans lazier
and stupider? And why are there so few people over age 65 in New Zealand in
poverty? Do they stop making bad choices on turning 65, or is it that society
chooses to provide them with NZ Super? And was there a sudden outbreak of bad
choices in New Zealand in the 1990s after benefits levels were slashed and
unemployment rose?
Claim three: The real
problem is that poor people have too many children
Some believe strongly that the poor can't afford the luxury
of children, and simply shouldn't have them, or at least not so many of them.
It is unreasonable for society to pay to raise them. The authors say the
concensus has been for societies to share the costs of raising children, and
that by investing in those children, society receives a return in the future.
The authors say there are major ethical problems associated with the view that
the poor should not have children, or that a third, or a fourth child should
somehow be abandoned by the state and attract no further support.
Claim four: Assisting
poor families will simply encourage them to have more children.
Some believe that having babies is a business, with
increased benefits being the reward. But the best international evidence
suggests that financial incentives do not have a big effect on fertility levels,
the academics say. And, "Current policy settings in New Zealand favour
families with only one or two children. Partly as a result, poverty rates are
higher amongst families with more than two children."
Claim five: The real
problem is poor parenting
There is no need to choose between poor parenting and
poverty as being the real problem, the authors say. "Both are real and
disturbing." And both poor parenting and poverty cause harm to children,
who are powerless against either force. In fact, Boston and Chapple say:
"There is good evidence that the stress and anxiety caused by poverty are
factors that contribute to poor parenting and harmful outcomes for
children."
Claim six: We can't
do anything about child poverty
Some believe the "perversity" thesis, that
anything you try to do will only make things worse. Some believe the
"jeopardy" thesis that spending on alleviating child poverty will put
other policy objectives like economic growth at risk. Then there are those who
buy into the "futility" myth that nothing can be done. This last
often argue that as poverty in New Zealand is relative, it can never be
reduced, but Boston and Chapple say that stance is often the result of mixing
up median income and average income. Relative poverty can be alleviated even if
the median income does not move. And, they say, the evidence is clear that
"Child poverty rates are responsive to government policies."
Claim seven: We can't
afford to reduce child poverty
This is really a question of whether spending money on child
poverty is "worth it", the academics say. The authors say we can't
afford not to. "Child poverty imposes significant costs both on the
children affected and on wider society. Investing well in children produces
positive economic and social returns, and is also likely to save on future
fiscal costs." Indeed: "The international and domestic evidence
suggest that the scale and severity of child poverty are at least partly
matters of societal choice." And, they say: "Since the early 1990s we
have chose to tolerate child poverty of significant levels and duration;
reducing child poverty has not been a high priority."
Claim eight: Reducing
or even eliminating child poverty is relatively easy.
While Government policies have a direct impact on child
poverty levels, things like cutting spending in other areas to find the money
to pay for it, or lifting taxes are not easy. And, child poverty is not solely
about a lack of financial resources. Child poverty continues to exist in
countries with comprehensive and relatively generous welfare states, the
authors say.
Claim nine:
Increasing incomes for the poor won't solve child poverty
"There is no evidence that the majority of poor
families are grossly incompetent or wasteful", the academics say. But it
is true that providing money alone won't always be the most cost-effective way
of achieving outcomes like getting adults into work. "The most recent
international evidence suggests that increasing the income level of poor
families can certainly generate better outcomes for their children. This is
particularly the case if the income boost occurs when the children are
young." And, they say: "The claim that "throwing more money at
the problem doesn't help" is unfounded."
No comments:
Post a Comment