-----Original Message-----
From: Robb Travers [mailto:rtravers@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:47 AM
Subject: [CLICK4HP] The Politics of Poverty

originally posted at SDOH listserv

The Politics of Poverty
    "This House seek(s) to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000."

      Despite the House of Commons unanimously passing this all-party resolution November 24, 1989, Canada's child poverty rate continues to be amongst the highest in the developed world. Indeed, for many Canadians, the primary campaign issue in this election is: What is your party prepared to do about eliminating child poverty?

      According to UNICEF, Canada's child poverty rate of 14.9% during the late 1990's was among the highest in the developed world. This is the case even though Canada is a wealthier nation -using the total value of goods and services or GDP -- than just about every other developed nation. Denmark's child poverty rate of 2.4% represents a virtual elimination of child poverty.  This is also the case in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. As a public health researcher trying to come to grips with why this might be the case, I reviewed Canadian public health documents that have accumulated since the famous 1974 Lalonde Report that put Canada on the world map as a leader in "health promotion." Health Canada's seems to be onside. Its 1998 Statistical Report on the Health of Canadians stated:

    In the case of poverty, unemployment, stress, and violence, the  influence on health is direct, negative and often shocking for a country as wealthy and as highly regarded as Canada.

      The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) 2000 annual meeting approved the resolution:

    Be it resolved that CPHA...  promote dialogue with the public about the persistence of poverty in the midst of economic growth and declining unemployment rates; the negative effects that poverty has on the health of individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole; and solutions/strategies for reducing poverty and its negative health consequences.

      The appreciation of the importance of poverty is present.  Why is nothing being done? An increasing body of research finds that child poverty rates cannot be attributed to failings of those children and families who are poor.  It does not even lie with the presence or absence of well-meaning intentions of policymakers.  It reflects the general operation of the economy - heavily influenced by the politics - of a nation. International studies reveal the best predictors of child poverty rates are a) the percentage of low-paid workers within a nation; b) levels of minimum wages; and c) percentage of national resources or revenues invested in social infrastructure.

      Among developed nations, Canada has the highest percentage of low-paid workers (23%) exceeded only by the USA.  Our minimum wages are among the lowest. Despite Canadians' beliefs about the generosity of our welfare state, we actually have one of the least developed welfare states.  Indeed, Canada is identified by scholars as a "liberal welfare state" that shares characteristics with nations such as the USA, UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.  These nations spend relatively little on social and entitlement programs which results in higher levels of child and general poverty, and greater income and wealth inequality.  How does a nation get to be a liberal welfare state as opposed to a nation that takes the well-being of its population seriously? The answer is deceptively simply.  The best predictor of child poverty rates is also the best predictor of jurisdictional commitment to providing its citizens with a modicum of security and well-being: The influence of "left" parties in government as measured by "Left Cabinet Share."

      Left cabinet share is the percentage of Cabinet members that are members of a labour or social democratic party. Canada and the USA have never had a Federal labour, CCF, socialist, or the NDP in power. How strong is the relationship between left cabinet share and child poverty rates? Among 14 developed nations between 1946 and 1990, the presence of left parties in government is strongly related to the probability that a child will experience poverty.   To illustrate Sweden had a 32% left cabinet share and a child poverty rate of 2.4%. Belgium had a 13% left cabinet share and a 6% child poverty rate. Canada has 0% left cabinet share and a 14% rate. And the USA also has the lowest left cabinet share at 0% and a 25% child poverty rate. Why is this so ? Social democratic parties are committed to full employment, equitable distribution of income and wealth, and provision of a strong social safety net.  Indeed, most of the progressive changes that have occurred in Canada such as Medicare and Pensions and most recently, increased spending on housing daycare, and transportation -- have come about during minority government situations.

      The electoral implications of these findings are clear.  Vicente Navarro of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health points out:

For those wishing to optimize the health of populations by reducing social and income inequalities, it seems advisable to support political forces such as the labor movement and social democratic parties, which have traditionally supported larger, more successful redistributive policies.

If you vote Conservative or Liberal in January, you are voting for child poverty.

Dennis Raphael, PhD, Associate Professor at the School of Health Policy and Management at York University in Toronto, is editor of Social Determinants of Health: Canadian Perspectives published by Canadian Scholars Press.

Robb Travers, PhD
Scientist & Director of Community-Based Research Ontario HIV Treatment Network 1300 Yonge St. Suite 308 Toronto, Ontario. M4T 1X3

Tel: 416 642 6486 x 311
Toll Free: 1 877 743 6486
Fax: 416 640 4245
http://www.ohtn.on.ca/