Two concepts of poverty, two approaches to tackle it

Kate Green, the Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group, recently responded to an IEA blog piece in which I examined a CPAG article by Polly Toynbee. I had argued that the article was not really about child poverty, but about Toynbee’s criticisms of the “super-rich”. Kate Green, in contrast, defends Toynbee’s position, arguing that poverty and inequality are inseparable issues. It is to be welcomed that CPAG takes up this debate, if only because it brings out the contours of two different ways of thinking about poverty.

Green quotes a paper from the British Medical Journal which shows a negative correlation between income inequality and various dimensions of child wellbeing, such as health outcomes. Oddly, the paper puts a lot of faith in bivariate correlations. It offers little explanation as to why income inequality – rather than cultural particularities, for example – should be a causal factor. It stops at arguably speculative statements like “greater inequality leads to increased competition and anxiety regarding social status” and “the quality of social relations is poorer in more unequal societies”.

In particular, the assertion that inequality causes poor health would require a causal explanation and not just a correlation coefficient. Whether or not a particular illness is curable in a particular setting depends on the availability of medical technology and expertise. Where does the income distribution fit into this picture? Just out of curiosity, I plotted data for life expectancy against data for inequality in developed countries, and found a (very small) positive correlation. But we would hardly conclude that increasing inequality would make us live longer.

Green then goes on to criticise the relatively high tax burden levied on poor people. Here, she is pushing at an open door. I would go even further. Suppose a group of bright economists was asked to devise a system which ensures that one group in society, A, lags permanently behind another group, B. They would probably recommend levying differential marginal tax rates; say 30% on group B and 70% on group A.

In other words, they would come up with something quite close to the UK’s tax and benefit system. The interaction of taxes and benefit withdrawals, resulting in effective marginal tax rates of 70% and above for vulnerable groups, is an ingenious poverty trap. Before this mess is sorted out, I wouldn’t spend a single thought on the “super-rich”.

The BMJ paper is a spinoff from a book which Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have published called “The Spirit Level”. It uses a mass of correlations to support the thesis that inequality is bad for us. This is just one of a range of new arguments – others from the climate change debate, behavioural economics and from the “happiness” literature – for government intervention. I hope Philip has got someone lined up to write something examining all this stuff.

My comment in response to Kate Green’s article.Len’s comments on The Spirit Level remind me that nobody appears to have written the narrative for the Fraser Institute’s evidence on economic freedom and prosperity. The data and some nice bar charts exist, but where is the Christmas paperback.If I’m wrong, please name the author and point me to a good book shop. Otherwise, I’m ready to take up my pen if anybody is willing to commission it!

How would CPAG deal with the fact that the US has the most progressive tax system in the developed world with some of the lowest marginal tax rates on the poor?

The BMJ paper is a spinoff from a book which Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have published called “The Spirit Level”. It uses a mass of correlations to support the thesis that inequality is bad for us. This is just one of a range of new arguments – others from the climate change debate, behavioural economics and from the “happiness” literature – for government intervention. I hope Philip has got someone lined up to write something examining all this stuff.

My comment in response to Kate Green’s article.Len’s comments on The Spirit Level remind me that nobody appears to have written the narrative for the Fraser Institute’s evidence on economic freedom and prosperity. The data and some nice bar charts exist, but where is the Christmas paperback.If I’m wrong, please name the author and point me to a good book shop. Otherwise, I’m ready to take up my pen if anybody is willing to commission it!

How would CPAG deal with the fact that the US has the most progressive tax system in the developed world with some of the lowest marginal tax rates on the poor?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

Invest in the IEA. We are the catalyst for changing consensus and influencing public debate.

Donate now

Thank you for
your support

Subscribe to
publications

Subscribe