Child poverty is absolute and relative
Last Thursday, the government released the latest UK poverty figures, which showed how over 1 million children were lifted out of poverty by 2010-2011, prior to the current round of cuts. In a time of growing poverty across the industrial nations, before the current austerity measures, the UK was on track to meeting it’s ambitious target of halving child poverty – albeit by 2027 rather than 2010-11.
Now, however, the situation looks rather bleak. As Friday’s IFS report on the figures stated, “There is no realistic chance that these [targets] will be met under current policies”. Just a few weeks ago, Unicef’s report also warned that UK child poverty is set to rise, accusing the government of delivering a “catastrophic blow to the futures of thousands of children.”
One of the targets set by the 2010 Child Poverty Act is for the child poverty rate before housing costs to be under 10% by 2020; so the government is set to move in completely the wrong direction and reverse the major reductions in child poverty that took place between 1998 and 2010.
Some speculate that the government intends to abandon the commitments enshrined in the 2010 legislation. The measures of child poverty used in the Act – relative low income poverty, absolute low income poverty, persistent poverty and material deprivation – have been grossly misrepresented:
- Critics wrongly suggest that the relative measure (set at 60% of median household income) is the only measure used in the Act, ignoring the other three.
- They also suggest that it is statistically impossible to meet the relative measure, but this assertion is based on a basic error of GCSE level mathematics, confusing the median (the middle income) with the mean (the average income).
The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), close to the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, this week called the Child Poverty Act targets “crude and flawed” But did so on the basis of the errors just described, along with several other errors that have been pointed out by Child Poverty Action Group in their blog piece on the CSJ report.
Of course, ‘absolute poverty’ – the fulfilment of base needs – matters, which is why the Child Poverty Act has a target for it too. But various ‘absolute’ measures (crime, social mobility, health, violence, teenage pregnancy) correlate closely to relative poverty: to the level of inequality in a society.
This is the thesis of The Spirit Level, a book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett that, according to The Sunday Times, contains “a big idea, big enough to change political thinking.” Using evidence that, to quote The Economist, is “painstakingly marshaled” and “hard to dispute”, the book demonstrates a clear relationship between inequality and a whole range of social ills. It shows, for example, that levels of imprisonment, drug abuse and mental illness are higher in unequal societies, and that levels of social mobility, trust and health are lower. Why? As the gap between rich and poor grows, society becomes more hierarchical, bonds of community break down and anxiety, rivalry and insecurity mount.
And children in stratified societies are highly vulnerable to the effects. They are more likely to suffer from obesity, bullying, and low educational attainment; girls are more likely to become teenage mothers, boys to be drawn into violence. This inevitably blights the poorest most, which is why ‘child poverty’ should be expressed as a relative condition. If poverty means living on the wrong side of town, this study shows that it is markedly worse when ‘town’ is divided and segmented by income differences.
But this does not just apply to the disadvantaged. High levels of relative poverty make everyone worse off. Take Unicef’s ranking of child well-being in twenty-one developed countries (in which the UK comes last); The Spirit Level reveals that this index correlates not – as one might expect – to average living standards, but to inequality. The book shows that its detrimental effects go right up the income scale.
The CSJ argues that the relative child poverty measure “confuses poverty with inequality”, brushing aside the latter as “inevitable in a free society”. It calls for a focus on the “underlying causes of blighted young lives, such as family breakdown, welfare dependency and educational failure, rather than the symptoms of low relative income.” In doing so, it betrays an all-too common attitude: that the size of the gap per se has no bearing on the impoverished condition of those children at the bottom; that “the symptoms of low relative income” are fundamentally distinct from these broader social problems.
The findings articulated by Wilkinson and Pickett in The Spirit Level show why anti-poverty policies built on these assumptions are doomed to fail. To tackle child poverty is to tackle the exclusion of young people from the common experiences and accepted living standards of a given society; a pernicious yet relative condition. Yet the CSJ’s comments exemplify a widespread ignorance of the social consequences of inequality in the UK (higher, and growing faster, than in almost any other developed economy). Addressing the awareness gap is a crucial first step to building a coalition to close the income gap.