Alberto Minujin and Shailen Nandy (eds), Global Child Poverty and Well-Being: Measurement, concepts, policy and action

by Citizens' Income Trust | Dec 20, 2013 | Opinion

Alberto Minujin and Shailen Nandy (eds), Global Child Poverty and Well-Being: Measurement, concepts, policy and action, Policy Press, 2012, xxxii + 591 pp, pbk, 1 847 42481 5, £28.99, hbk, 1 847 42482 2, £70

In 2006, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the first internationally agreed definition of child poverty:

Children living in poverty are deprived of nutrition, water and sanitation facilities, access to basic health-care services, shelter, education, participation and protection, and … while a severe lack of goods and services hurts every human being, it is most threatening and harmful to children, leaving them unable to enjoy their rights, to reach their full potential and to participate as full members of society (quoted on p.3)

In 2007, UNICEF stated that

measuring child poverty can no longer be lumped together with general poverty assessments which often focus solely on income levels, but must take into consideration access to basic social services, especially nutrition, water, sanitation, shelter, education and information (also quoted on p.3)

In 2008, a conference, ‘Rethinking poverty: making policies work for children’, gave birth to a revived academic interest in the measurement and causes of child poverty. In 2009, Peter Townsend died. His early work on child poverty and his constant commitment to poverty’s measurement and abolition have been an inspiration to academics, policy-makers and practitioners, and to the authors of the papers published in this tribute volume.

The first part of the book finds that children’s human rights are frequently violated, and that economic growth is far from being a sufficient condition for the elimination of child poverty. The second part discusses a variety of methods for measuring child poverty, and finds that the multidimensional nature of poverty means that cash-defined poverty lines are inadequate on their own. The third part relates case studies on the development of multidimensional poverty indices; and the fourth part studies the causes of child poverty and a number of methods for eradicating it. Of particular interest to readers of this Newsletter will be chapter 18, ‘Utopia calling: eradicating child poverty in the United Kingdom and beyond’. Ruth Levitas tells the story of the UK’s Family Allowance, which evolved into Child Benefit, and shows how other rather different policies intended to reduce child poverty reduce the level of absolute poverty but do little or nothing to reduce relative poverty. She laments the proposal to means-test Child Benefit, shows how social polarisation is at the root of child poverty, and suggests that to increase the level of Child Benefit and establish a Citizen’s Income would provide a good basis on which to tackle the many aspects of child poverty. The fourth part of the book shows that economic growth is not a sufficient condition for abolishing child poverty, that tackling one deprivation at a time (for instance, sanitation) can make a real difference to levels of child poverty, and that a global study in fifty countries effectively combines quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a deep description of child poverty. The final chapter, by Peter Townsend, calls for an international financial transactions tax to pay for a global Child Benefit. This is classic Townsend: well researched, big ideas, and quietly passionate.

I have only one quibble: that an editor might have removed duplication, such as the similar discussions of the flawed ‘under $1 a day’ poverty definition in adjacent chapters: but such duplication is hardly unusual in a volume which started life as conference papers.

This is a brilliant book, and a most fitting tribute to Peter Townsend’s lifelong campaign to measure and eradicate child poverty. Now that we have some more adequate methods of measuring global child poverty, all we need to do is abolish child poverty, and then measure it again to see if we’ve succeeded.

Gaby Ramia, Kevin Farnsworth and Zöe Irving (eds), Social Policy Review 25: Analysis and debate in social policy

by Citizens' Income Trust | Dec 13, 2013 | Opinion

Gaby Ramia, Kevin Farnsworth and Zöe Irving (eds), Social Policy Review 25: Analysis and debate in social policy, 2013, Policy Press, 2013, xii + 324 pp, hbk, 1 44731 274 1, £70

As Gaby Ramia’s introduction to this twenty-fifth annual collection suggests, the choice of papers is evidence of an increasing internationalisation of the Social Policy Association (SPA). The contributions are from Germany, Denmark, the USA, South Korea, Australia, Israel, and the UK. The first part of the volume tackles some particular policy issues faced by the UK’s coalition government, chapters in the second part are papers delivered at the 2012 SPA conference, and the third part is on the theme ‘work, employment and insecurity’.

All of the chapters address important questions: Is it possible to reconcile policy designed to address fuel poverty with policy designed to address climate change? Does marketisation make the NHS less of a universal public service? Will marketisation of pensions, social care and housing for elderly people breed greater inequality? Does the ‘social cohesion’ agenda mean that we no longer notice racial disadvantage? Can social policy initiatives generate corporate interconnectedness and therefore corporate power? What kind of welfare states are Israel, China, Japan and South Korea developing? Does unemployment have personal or structural roots? Do current EU regulations sufficiently address the two-tier labour market? How do labour market activation policies affect social citizenship? Is subsidised childcare a route out of the unemployment and fertility traps? Can female employment make up for public spending cuts that hit low income families the hardest?

Two chapters will of particular interest to readers of this Newsletter. Jeroslow asks whether the US’s Earned Income Tax Credit is palliative or cure, and concludes that quality childcare, improved education and training, improved community services, and more family friendly employment practices are required if the next generation is to escape poverty and the US is not to become an even more unequal society. Equality of opportunity requires a bit more equality of outcomes if it is to work.

Even more relevant is Paul Spicker’s evaluation of Universal Credit. Because it is means-tested, and its administration is complex, it will go the way of all other means-tested benefits. It will adapt to the conditions in which it is applied and will become more complex; old rules will be recycled into the new benefit; and for those sections of the population for whom the benefit works least well the system will be separately managed, thus recreating yet another mosaic of benefits.

Even if Universal Credit fails spectacularly, it will lumber on. (p.19)

Sadly, Spicker does not suggest a solution. He could have done.

Kevin Farnsworth, Social Versus Corporate Welfare: Competing Needs and Interests within the Welfare State

by Citizens' Income Trust | Dec 6, 2013 | Opinion

Kevin Farnsworth, Social Versus Corporate Welfare: Competing Needs and Interests within the Welfare State, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, xii + 222 pp, hbk, 0 230 27453 2, £55

In this book, ‘corporate welfare’ means ‘governments serving the needs of business’ (through subsidies, contracts, tax allowances, etc.) and ‘social welfare’ means ‘governments serving the needs of citizens’ (through cash benefits, free education and healthcare, tax allowances, etc.). As Farnsworth points out, both are necessary. They are also connected to each other’ Corporate welfare, such as government contracts and subsidies, benefit citizens, and social welfare, such as free education and healthcare, benefit corporations – though there are also ways in which they compete, for instance through government tariffs designed to protect local industries preventing cheaper products from abroad being available to consumers. Sometimes, these are met with government contract bid protests, but this is rarer than many would believe.

The second chapter develops a continuum between social and corporate welfare in the context of a discussion of ideology and of citizens’ and corporate needs. (A note to clearly define the difference between ‘corporate welfare’ – provision for the needs of businesses – and ‘corporatist welfare’ – company, trade union and other non-state provision for citizen’s needs – would have helped the reader unfamiliar with the terms.) Farnsworth concludes that

what governments need to do is ensure that there is a close and complimentary fit between social and corporate welfare and that the burden of supporting the welfare state more generally is shared between all those that benefit from it. (p.74)

The third chapter shows how a more integrated global economy and the reduction of trade barriers has led to an increase in such corporate welfare measurers as investment inducements, and also how a global more liberal ideology has reduced the strength of social welfare, thus tipping the social-corporate balance more towards corporate welfare.

Chapters 4 and 5 employ statistical data to compare social and corporate welfare in a variety of OECD countries, and on p.142 Farnsworth presents a useful graph showing the proportions of state welfare expenditure spent on social welfare and corporate welfare. Somewhat surprisingly, Germany comes out as the most social welfare state, Sweden as a social-corporate welfare state, and the UK between the two. Unsurprisingly, the USA is the most corporate of the corporate welfare states.

Chapter 6 describes the financial crisis as a series of crises, and shows how in countries with a high proportion of companies in the financial sector the pendulum has swung rapidly towards corporate welfare and away from social welfare, which will have a negative effect on economic growth and thus on the corporate sector.

The concluding chapter emphasises the importance of both social and corporate welfare, and calls on the corporate sector to contribute more in order to justify the vast public expenditure that comes its way.

This fascinating study raises a question that the author does not directly tackle: When reform to either corporate or social welfare is being considered, should its impact on the other sector be considered? The answer is clearly ‘yes’. This implies yet another new agenda item for the Citizen’s Income debate.

Esping-Andersen’s name is misspelt throughout, and in general the copy-editing is abysmal, which is a pity. And another quibble: The title suggests that social and corporate welfare are necessarily opposed to each other, whilst the book in fact argues that the opposite is often the case: that is, that social welfare expenditure is good for business and that corporate welfare expenditure is often good for society. A Citizen’s Income would provide an important example of a reform that would serve both business and citizens’ interests.

Podcast on Basic Income #8 (13/12/03)

by BINews | Dec 3, 2013 | Opinion

Links:
0:34 Funding – Chris Stucchio
https://binews.org/2013/11/chris-stucchio-%e2%80%9cmodelling-a-basic-income-with-python-and-monte-carlo-simulation%e2%80%9d/

0:46 the Guardian – Ryan Ross
https://binews.org/2013/11/ryan-ross-%e2%80%9cndp-calling-for-increased-minimum-wage-guaranteed-income%e2%80%9d/

0:56 United Kingdom – Jon Maiden
https://binews.org/2013/11/jon-maiden-%e2%80%9cbasic-income-restructuring-the-economy%e2%80%9d/

1:09 India – Hindustan Times
https://binews.org/2013/11/livemint-the-wall-street-journal-%e2%80%9ca-universal-basic-income-for-all-indians%e2%80%9d/

1:29 Europe – European Citizens Initiative
https://binews.org/2013/11/european-map-of-basic-income-groups/

1:52 United States – Elliot Sperber
https://binews.org/2013/12/elliot-sperber-%e2%80%9ctoward-a-salutary-political-economy-%e2%80%93-freedom-from-jobs%e2%80%9d-elliot-sperber-%e2%80%9ctoward-a-salutary-political-economy-%e2%80%93-freedom-from-jobs%e2%80%9d/

2:04 Cyprus
https://binews.org/2013/12/cyprus-%e2%80%9cguaranteed-minimum-income%e2%80%9d-is-not-a-guaranteed-minimum-income/

You can reach us via Twitter: https://twitter.com/BINews

Clive Lord, Miriam Kennet and Judith Felton (eds), Citizen’s Income and Green Economics

by Citizens' Income Trust | Nov 29, 2013 | Opinion

Clive Lord, Miriam Kennet and Judith Felton (eds), Citizen’s Income and Green Economics, The Green Economics Institute, 2012, 339 pp, pbk, 1 907543 07 4, £20

This somewhat passionate book sets off from a classic example of the tragedy of the commons: the story of Easter Island, where for six hundred years the felling of trees for canoe manufacture and statue transportation led to environmental degradation, conflict, and human catastrophe. Expansion always has its limits, and the ways in which we are using the planet’s resources and polluting its environment are eerily reminiscent of the issue at the heart of the Easter Island disaster. The absence of an adequate mechanism to enable the community’s long term interest in conserving natural resources and protecting its environment is leading to a failure to control individuals’ or groups’ short-term interest in resource exploitation.

But this is also a hopeful book. It takes as the model for its proposed solution to the problem the way of life developed by the Siane tribe in New Guinea: shared necessities and a free market in luxury goods. From this example Lord et al argue that a Citizen’s Income would enable a just sharing of necessities at the same time as freeing the market in everything else. (The flaw in the logic is that amongst the Siane necessities were not automatically exchangeable for luxury goods whereas a Citizen’s Income would be an integral part of a money economy in which all goods and services can be exchanged with each other. The parallel to the Siane experience would be universal food stamps, not a Citizen’s Income.) As the authors correctly identify, reduced consumption and therefore reduced production can save the commons from degradation, but that will mean disconnecting consumption from jobs, a process which would be facilitated by a Citizen’s Income.

The major problem with the book is not so much the content but rather the structure. The book is a somewhat disconnected set of chapters, mostly by Clive Lord, but with others by other authors presumably related to the Green Economics Institute. Whilst each chapter is of interest, it is not easy to discover a consistent line of argument through the book. One reason for this is that the two main themes, 1. a Citizen’s Income, and 2. environmental protection and a sustainable economy, are not necessarily as directly related as the authors might think. They are dual enthusiasms, and because they are enthusiasms the potential connections and conflicts between them are inadequately explored. The reader is therefore left puzzled by the combination of themes. A more objective editor might have pointed this out to the authors.

But having said that, the two main themes are important and the book’s chapters are often thought-provoking. If you don’t have time to read the whole book then read chapter 4, which helpfully summarises the book as a whole, and which is equally helpfully published as a separate eight page pamphlet.

Easter Island’s story did not end in complete tragedy. When a Dutch ship arrived in 1722 there were still 3,000 people alive. They had found ways to co-operate in scraping a living from a barren landscape. Lord’s, Kennet’s and Felton’s book is a robust call for us all to act now before there is a tragedy from which we shall need to recover, and is an important contribution to a debate on how Green economics and a Citizen’s Income might relate to each other.