I was reading up on poverty reduction policies and I came across a paragraph by Dalhousie University economics professor Lars Osberg that was just begging to be shared and discussed on PolicyNote:
[I]f one takes seriously the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which Canada is a signatory), it makes no more sense to ask “what are the costs and benefits of preventing poverty?” than to ask “what are the costs and benefits of prohibiting torture?” If individuals have both the right to be free from torture and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, than these are simply constraints which all other social and economic decisions must respect.
These words, written twenty years ago in Osberg’s 1990 working paper “The Costs and Benefits of Anti-Poverty Policy” (available here), made me wonder what it would take for the BC government to adopt a comprehensive poverty-reduction plan.
Is it a business case outlining the benefits of poverty reduction that will convince them? Or do we need a change in attitude, a new way of looking at social and economy policy that puts human dignity first?
vantown // Aug 25, 2010 at 10:22 am
That is an excellent way of looking at it, thanks for sharing that Iglika.
Terri // Aug 25, 2010 at 11:39 am
I think you are correct on both counts: governments currently require a business case for poverty reduction AND we need a change in attitude about the primacy of human dignity in social and economic policy.
This may be stating the obvious, but until we can demonstrate an IMMEDIATE economic benefit to poverty reduction, the majority of governments will resist an anti-poverty policy. Most governments are simply not willing to wait for the financial benefits of a anti-poverty policy to materialize.
Unfortunately, spending cuts to social programs show an immediate financial cost savings, whereas financial cost savings for investment in social programs and policies are almost always delayed. This is, of course, intertwined with BCs existing neo-liberal political climate which holds that the individual is responsible for her/himself and if self care is a challenge, then it is up to kith and kin (and not government) to assist.
It is this latter sentiment/belief system that must change. Human dignity (or lack thereof) does not exist in a vacuum, rather it is the direct result of the social and economic context within which it rests. And when that context privileges profits over people, human dignity falls by the wayside.
Human dignity, and social and economic welbeing for all, ought to be non-negotiable facets of the Canadian (world) political and policy landscape.
One key to changing attitudes about poverty reduction and anti-poverty legislation is to remove BC’s current neo-liberal government from power. Unfortunately, that’s the easy part and it has not proven to be easy thus far.
Another shift that must take place includes political pressure. Rather than demand immediate cost benefits, the citizenry needs to put political pressure on government to demand social benefits. We have created or at least permitted a “capitalist microwave society” to flourish — we want financial benefits and we want it now! This is not to say that we don’t also want social welbeing, however it does seem to be the case that many citizens privilege economic wellness over social wellness.
Thus, back to my initial point/opinion, if changes in attitude occur it will be because economists have been able to demonstrate an immediate financial benefit to anti-poverty policies. It is times such as these when I wish I had expertise in econometrics, but I do not. Hopefully someone else out there has.
Peter Prontzos // Aug 31, 2010 at 1:57 pm
I was about to add a few points regarding Iglika’s blog, but Terri has already said most of what I had in mind.
More later………..