- Ms McLeod claimed that the internationally recognised Luxembourg Income Studies use a 50% median income benchmark rather than the 60% poverty line used in the NZ study.
She also referred to two studies, published by the Department of Social Welfare (DSW), out of which she implied there were fewer people in poverty, that DSW supplementary payments and foodbanks were not utilised enough, and better budgeting would reduce the numbers of poverty further.
In this letter to the editors of the Jobs Letter, Charles Waldegrave, of the NZ Poverty Measurement Project responds to Rosemary McLeod's challenges ...
- The Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) referred to by Ms McLeod, gives estimates at 40%, 50%, and 60% of median income, not simply a 50% benchmark, as she stated. These estimates are not poverty lines. The poverty line in most countries fits within a range of between 50% and 60%. The LIS does not exclude the self-employed who declare losses, as we did, which lowered our poverty estimates by three percentage points. LIS consider it costs more to feed and clothe children than our team. If their approach has been used, far more people would have been found to be poor.
- The NZ Poverty Measurement Project has not overstated the levels of poverty in NZ. Internationally established methods of calculation were used in a totally transparent manner. The weekly household budget estimations for food, for a family of 2 adults and 3 children, for example, were estimated at $112, or $16 a day. This is not generous, by any standards, for three meals a day. It is sufficient, if the household is frugal, to live independently without resorting to foodbank support.
- Ms McLeod failed to quote the only recent research paper, published by the Department of Social Welfare, that has attempted to do what we did, i.e. devise a scientifically valid poverty line and count the numbers in poverty. In a study using six different poverty measures, they calculated 19.5% of New Zealand households in poverty, using the measure they said was "more sensitive to overall changes in the economy, particularly labour market changes." Just using income as a poverty measure, we estimated 10.8% of households to be poor, which rose to 18.5% after taking account of both inadequate income and housing expenditure. Our estimate is more conservative.
- McLeod's own measurement approach based on numbers taking up special needs grants or food parcels lacks credibility. She should know that not all people who are eligible to receive benefits take them up -- due to ignorance, stigma and bureaucratic failure, as recent government reports have confirmed. Furthermore, her statements on budgeting, while possibly helpful to some individuals, lack credibility if foodbanks and special needs grants are required in the first place. If these are necessary, then clearly households requiring them have an inadequate income.
- The NZ Poverty Measurement Project is a multi-year and multi-disciplinary research programme commissioned by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. The work of the project has been peer reviewed here and overseas, including committees of scientists, independent monitoring and accountability reports annually. It has fared very successfully through this process.
Source -- fax to the Jobs Letter September 1996
Top of Page
This Letter's Main Page
Stats | Subscribe | Index |
The Jobs Letter Home Page | The Website 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
DEFENDING THE NZ POVERTY MEASUREMENT STUDY
by Charles Waldegrave
LAST MONTH, the Jobs Letter reported columnist Rosemary McLeod's challenges of the results of the NZ Poverty Measurement Project.
see the Jobs Letter summary of
Rosemary McLeod's criticisms.