The economics editor of the NZ Herald writes, “Wherever you
draw the line, too many children are going without. By one measure, one in
every 10 New Zealand children is growing up in conditions of material hardship.
By a less exacting measure it is one in four. ”
For 100,000 children, or one in 10, home is somewhere where
at least nine of those 17 tests of deprivation are met - a level the ministry
labels "more severe hardship." Of those 100,000 children, 69,000 are
from families with an income - after housing costs - of less than 60 per cent
of the median household income, and 58,000 from those with an income of less
than 50 per cent of the median (a more stringent "poverty line").
"A weekly rise in benefits of up to $25 for families at
the hardest end will be helpful for families with one child, though less so for
those with more children as the increase is per family rather than per
child," the Children's Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills, said in his
submission on the legislation. Children living in hardship in larger families,
where poverty is more prevalent, would see very little effect, he said. And it
is a one-off adjustment to benefit levels.
Myths
1) 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.
2) 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?
3) 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 consensus
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.
4) 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."
5) 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."
6) 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."
7) 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."
8) 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.
9) 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."
The World Socialist Party (New Zealand)
can understand why children may well be "innocent", "our
future" and other such sentimentalised slogans, but, yet, more
significantly, are also an immense hindrance to the smooth operation of the
system of production for profit. Government promises are all very well, but
it's the economy that usually decides whether a political reform will stick. One
of the main criticisms that the WSP(NZ) have of attempts to reform the insane
system called capitalism, is that gains obtained one year may disappear when
the economy dips, and you find yourself back at square one again. Those social
workers whose job it is to mop up the human victims of the profit machine, are
variously described as "failing", "incompetent", "not
fit for purpose" but these
WSP(NZ) website:
E-mail: wsp.nz@worldsocialism.org
No comments:
Post a Comment