- THERE ARE MANY practical steps that individuals, communities and societies can take to reduce poverty. I have come to believe, however, that poverty will remain a significant social and economic problem and that many of the practical steps will not be taken, until attitudes to poverty change.
- ATTITUDE : That welfare is a problem.
Welfare has been blamed for the size of the Government deficit of the 1970s and 80s. It is therefore surmised that we cannot return to the so-called generosity of the welfare state of the past, and that any increased activity by government to redistribute income will somehow threaten the economic recovery.But welfare was not the major contributor to the fiscal deficits of the 80s. In the paper Taxing the Poor, by Dr Paul Dalziel of Lincoln University, it was shown that private sector borrowing, changes in rate of inflation and interest rates, the funding of Think Big projects and producers boards were far more influential in creating and maintaining debt than spending on welfare.
Welfare spending did rise, but the major proportion of that rise -- three quarters in fact -- was due to the increased rate of national superannuation. The increase in unemployment in the late 80s and early 90s due to restructuring of the economy also had a significant impact. The government would have saved $1 billion in 1991 if unemployment had been the same as in 1985.
- ATTITUDE : That we have to choose between economic prosperity and adequate incomes and benefits for all people.
The real issue is who pays the price of economic reform and who benefits from its success? The research has shown that it was not necessary for those on benefits and low incomes to suffer as much as they did during the reform process. And now that we have budget surpluses, it is not necessary for governments to have to choose between adequate welfare or debt repayment -- we can have both.We need to challenge the myth that those who are concerned about poverty are opposed to all the economic reforms and to economic prosperity. This is not the case and need not be so. Many of the economic reforms, such as the removal of subsidies, were if not necessary, probably inevitable in an economy which is increasingly global.
Prosperity is to be encouraged. We need to make it clear that our question is: "Prosperity for whom ?"
- ATTITUDE : That discerning between the deserving and undeserving poor is both possible, desirable and helpful.
Our welfare system has built into its structures a fear of the undeserving getting more than is their due and of the need for retribution or sanctions to discourage the undeserving from 'ripping off the system'.The desire to differentiate between the deserving and the undeserving poor is, I believe, one of the underlying factors behind the change to a more targeted benefit system, and is behind the benefit cuts and the suggestions that the unemployment benefit should be time limited. However, the evidence shows that the reasons people are on benefits are complex and most often have to do with macro-economic and structural issues that are beyond the control of an individual.
Overseas research has also shown that cutting benefits has a very small impact on labour force participation. A recent article on time limiting the dole also suggested that such tactics would do little for the long-term unemployed whose situation was influenced far more by the availability of work, or geographical mis-match of labour and employment, than the availability of the dole.
- ATTITUDE : That poverty is motivational.
We need to change the attitude that poverty is somehow motivational, is character-building, and encourages people to find work.Many people have experienced a period of low income. Anyone who has been a full-time student, for example, has some experience of making do on very little. Quite a number of people experience a few weeks or months of unemployment throughout their careers and families who dropped to one income for a few years while their children were young all know what it is to struggle financially. This leads people to think that they know what poverty is like, and that it is not that bad and indeed a good experience for everyone to have.
But, as people who work with families in poverty know, there is an enormous difference between a student with no dependents living on $400 a month for a couple of years, with the prospect of earning eight times that when they finish ... and a low income family, earning $18,000 a year between the two partners, with no prospect of ever really improving their situation, or a solo parent with young children facing several years on a benefit.
For such people, poverty is not a character-building activity. It is a daily and constant reality that wears their financial, physical and emotional resources to zero.
Source -- paper to the 1996 Foodbanks Conference August 1996
Top of Page
This Letter's Main Page
Stats | Subscribe | Index | Search
The Jobs Letter Home Page | The Archive Home Page
jobs.research@jobsletter.org.nz
The Jobs Research Trust -- a not-for-profit Charitable Trust
constituted in 1994
We publish The Jobs Letter - ATTITUDE : That we have to choose between economic prosperity and adequate incomes and benefits for all people.
SOME ATTITUDES
ABOUT POVERTY IN NZ
by Bonnie Robinson
Bonnie Robinson is the Executive Officer of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services.