Archive for the 'Poverty and Inequality' Category

How the Conservatives are ‘strengthening’ child poverty measures in the UK

Today’s guest blogger Fran Bennett, from the University of Oxford, is chair of the editorial board of the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice. She discusses how the government intends to change the measurement of child poverty in the UK.

csm_Fran_Bennett_69933b0e83On 1 July the Government announced that it was going to ‘strengthen’ the child poverty measure.

From the statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith MP, it is clear that the current range of child poverty measures, and accompanying targets, in the Child Poverty Act 2010 will be replaced by a statutory responsibility to report on only two measures: the proportion of children living in households that are workless, and long-term workless; and educational attainment at age 16 for all pupils and the most disadvantaged.

‘root causes’ of child poverty

The government will also develop other measures and indicators of what the Secretary of State calls the ‘root causes’ of child poverty to underpin a strategy on children’s life chances. It is unclear to what extent, if at all, poverty in work will feature, despite the fact that well over half (in fact, some two-thirds) of children living in households in poverty have at least one parent in work.

“…worklessness, educational failure, debt, drug and alcohol addiction and family breakdown, [are] repeatedly identified as causes of poverty”

The duties and provisions of the Child Poverty Act will also be repealed. And ‘child poverty’ will be dropped from the remit of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

This story goes back several years. Iain Duncan Smith came into office under the 2010-15 coalition government committed to the Centre for Social Justice analysis  highlighting worklessness, educational failure, debt, drug and alcohol addiction and family breakdown, and has repeatedly identified these as causes of poverty since then.

 

The consultation document on changing the child poverty measure in 2012 also hinted that these might be integrated into it. Many academics, NGOs and others responded to the consultation, with a large number of critical responses (for example, from the Poverty and Social Exclusion group of academics).

The Conservative Party’s 2015 election manifesto repeated a similar list of ‘root causes’ of poverty and said that better measures of child poverty would be introduced to drive change, by ‘recognizing’ these. There were rumours that the Treasury had blocked the proposed new child poverty measure not on principle but because it was unclear how to measure some elements. What seems to have happened now is that the DWP is going ahead with the feasible elements, pending more work on others.

“But with any poverty line, people on one side or the other will not have vastly different lives”

Opposition within the government also seems to have hardened to the relative income measure of poverty (60 per cent of median disposable equivalized household income). The Child Poverty Act in fact also contains complementary measures, including a fixed income poverty line rising with prices (confusingly labelled ‘absolute’); and a combination of relative low income and material deprivation. Persistent poverty and extreme low income and deprivation combined were added later. But the headline measure – used internationally, including in comparisons across the European Union) – is 60 per cent of median contemporary income.

Criticism

Indeed, before the 2010 election it was made clear by the Conservatives that they acknowledged and would act on relative poverty when David Cameron recognised it. Yet this is the measure now criticized by ministers. First, they argue that movements in the pension or overall income affect child poverty numbers. But this must be the case for a measure depending on median income, because it is about falling behind typical incomes. The existence of several measures in the 2010 Act is then valuable, in that we can also assess if more children are suffering material deprivation or living on an income fixed in relation to prices.

Secondly, ministers label the poverty line as arbitrary. But with any poverty line, people on one side or the other will not have vastly different lives. If we try to identify those in poverty, we need some dividing line. We can argue about whether 60 per cent of median income is the best, and there are currently explorations in Europe to find minimum budget levels; but this does not obviate the need.

Thirdly, ministers argue relative income is too narrow – more income does not transform lives. This takes no account of the evidence of improvements in children’s lives when real incomes have increased, as in this review, for example. And it belies what must be the core of any poverty measure: having insufficient resources to participate fully in the society in which one lives.

“As Ruth Lister argues, children are human beings, not human becomings”

This is the key problem with this redefinition of the child poverty measure. Because of a desire to incorporate certain supposed causes / consequences / correlates, it neglects the need for a focus on the essential factor distinguishing poverty from other conditions. Including all possible dimensions that may (or may not) be associated with poverty in a measure merely leads to confusion. As we know from the media, family breakdown or drug addiction, for example, may affect many families who live well above the poverty line.

This confusion arises from ministers’ real concern not being with child poverty in the here and now, but instead with two other issues. The first is social mobility, or life chances: the extent to which current circumstances dictate future outcomes. This is important. But it is not the same as child poverty. As Ruth Lister argues, children are human beings, not human becomings. And it is much harder to create equal opportunities for the future if poverty is not tackled in the present.

The second concern is ‘social justice’, which to the current government appears to have the limited meaning of a focus on the ‘most disadvantaged’. Indeed, the five causes of poverty cited by ministers were originally seen as markers of an ‘emerging underclass’. This tends to suggest that attention on a small group with multiple difficulties will solve the problem.

Ministers previously suggested that income is only one dimension of poverty. At least the government has undertaken to continue to publish Households Below Average Income each year, so that we will be able to track annually how many people live in households on under average (median) household income – including those below the various thresholds we now use as poverty lines, as described above. But the government now appears to have abandoned income as a measure completely, along with any targets to monitor progress towards eliminating child poverty.

JPSJ 2015 [FC] for e-marketingThe Journal of Poverty and Social Justice provides a unique blend of high-quality research, policy and practice from leading authors in the field related to all aspects of poverty and social exclusion.

Please see the latest issue here.

If you’d like to receive updates you can sign up for table of contents e-alerts at www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/jpsj, simply click on “Receive New Issue Alert”

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blogpost authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Growing injustice: six myths about inequality

final-cover-photoby Danny Dorling

Originally published on the New Statesman Politics Blog, The Staggers, 1 June 2015. Read the original article here.

We need to see things as they are, not as a few with great wealth would have the rest of us believe.

We used to say that most people don’t know how the other half lives; in the UK that has changed. Our society can no longer be meaningfully divided into two halves. Most of us have little understanding of the lives in the tranche just above or below us, and those people have little understanding of the tranches above and below them and so on. We live in different worlds. Most people find it difficult to believe that some people who have an income ten times higher than theirs, when asked, say that they are finding it difficult to manage financially. Continue reading ‘Growing injustice: six myths about inequality’

Shame, stigma, fear and rage: Lessons from Berlin the day before #GE2015

Policy Press director Alison Shaw recently travelled to Berlin for a few days. Contemplating a wealth of history during the trip, Alison shares with us her thoughts on some of the similarities with the threats facing us today, especially around freedom of expression, the use of  shame as a political tool and the rhetoric around food and work.

Policy Press - 018 resizeA few weeks ago I was in Berlin. It is an amazing city with a complex history. We went from gazing at stunning statues of Queen Nefertiti from 14th century BC to mind-boggling brain-activated artificial limbs (husband is a neuroscientist!).

We saw the now rather glamorised Wall that separated East from West, but the thing that stood out was the Topography of Terror, a museum on the site of the central institutions of Nazi persecution, where the leadership of the Secret State Police, the SS, were housed.

Politics today

It is an astonishing museum on the history of the Nazi movement. Three things struck me in particular that are relevant to politics today.

Burning booksAs a publisher I was taken by the photos of piles of burning books – knowledge is power, and clearly those that take away that knowledge wield an intensified power. Freedom of speech and tolerance of ideas is so vital in society.

The Charlie Hebdo murders, and the response from the different communities, put this into stark relief. Our ‘global village’ is small and we have to find a way to live in tolerance with each other. The rise of extremism is something that concerns us all. But the almost hysterical rhetoric about immigration in the UK is deeply concerning.

The question is how do we engage communities who are fearful of other cultures. The rise of UKIP is something both the left and the right in Britain need to understand – they are providing something people want – so, in a multi-cultural society, how can the traditional parties address those concerns whilst staying true to their beliefs?

“The significant effect shame has on people has come to the fore recently in work on poverty.”

The second aspect that stood out was the use of shame and stigma as a method of control, such as the parading of individuals down the streets with shaved heads and placards reading out their misdemeanors.

Shame is a powerful emotion that most of us want to avoid and thus is extremely powerful. The significant effect shame has on people has come to the fore recently in work on poverty. Amartya Sen described shame as the “irreducible core” of poverty. The shame of it by Gubrium, Pellissery and Lødemel takes research from across the globe to show how policy makers must take account of the psychological aspects of people’s experiences  to provide policies that work effectively.

Families and poverty with border [FC]Closer to home O’Hara’s interviews with those facing the savage cuts to welfare in the UK for Austerity bites highlighted how shame plays a significant role in people’s responses to poverty with Daly and Kelly’s ground-breaking study Families and Poverty supporting this.

Jennifer Jacquet’s Is shame necessary? (Penguin) turns the concept on its head by looking at how the public can shame the powerful into behaving better as in the case of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the shaming of the 1% such as by Dorling in his fully updated edition of Injustice and Sayer in Why we can’t afford the rich. It will be interesting to see if there are real changes made to policy and legislation to address the inequality of the 1% to the 99% as a result.

One text line stood out for me at the Topography of Terror and that was “Those who do not work, shall not eat” which was used as the justification for the murder of the mentally and physically disabled and the mentally ill. Now we don’t murder people in the UK but we have moved to an extremely punitive sanctions regime for those ‘who do not work’ and we do leave people with literally nothing to eat.

Outraged

I remain outraged that we have benefit sanctions that are so tough that people have no money at all for months because they are late to a benefits appointment by 5 minutes. What are they meant to do? The bedroom tax has had an appalling impact on the disabled and the welfare cuts are hitting the disabled and mentally ill hard as services and care support are cut.

In the new Afterword to Austerity Bites, O’Hara gives the example of a young disabled woman who had had her support cut – she had gone from being a Cambridge undergraduate who, although severely disabled had been able to live a full life filled with promise, to someone who said: “There have been just two emotions in the last month – fear and rage. I joke that the Tories should just round up all us disabled people and have us shot – it would be quicker and cheaper than what they’re doing and it would put us out of our misery. It’s a dark joke but sometimes it doesn’t feel like it. I wonder when will we fight for equality for the disabled?”

According to Mahatma Ghandi, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” How are we doing as a society? Pretty badly I would say for one of the globe’s wealthiest nations.

Related links

How benefit sanctions left me sleeping on the streets

Policy Press April ‘editorial picks’: Politics

Continuing our new series of monthly ‘editor picks’, and with our focus very much on the election it makes sense for our Politics Senior Commissioning Editor Emily Watt to tell us a little bit about her background, what she’s most excited by in upcoming Politics titles and why she feels certain New Zealand will win the Rugby World Cup this year…

Policy Press - 013Name: Emily Watt

Title: Senior Commissioning Editor

What’s your background story?
I have been at Policy Press for just over 10 years, which is still hard to believe, working my way up from Editorial Assistant in January 2005 to my current role as Senior Commissioning Editor.

About 4 years before this and about a year after graduating from Lancaster University with a BA Hons in American Studies, I went travelling with my best friend for 15 months to the US, Australia and South East Asia. I didn’t really know at this point what I wanted to do, so I was hoping this trip would enable me, in true clichéd style, ‘to find myself’. It was an amazing experience, but it didn’t get me much closer to a career decision.

When I returned I found out that one of the friends had just completed an MA in Publishing at Oxford Brookes and then the penny dropped, I suddenly knew this is what I wanted to do! My Mum had also done copy-editing and proofreading and worked in magazine publishing, so publishing had always been there in the background.

One year of study later, during which I worked part-time at Berg, I finally got my qualification and, just as importantly, was put in touch with Alison Shaw, the Director at Policy Press. While back in Bristol, I wrote a letter to Alison to ask if she had any work for me. The rest, as they say, is history and I haven’t looked back since.

What does your role entail and what do you enjoy most about it?
As a Senior Commissioning Editor and manager of the Commissioning Team, my role can be really varied. For example, one morning I can be reading and feeding back on new book proposals, planning for the next conference or campus visit, preparing paperwork for our next Acquisitions Meetings or sending out referee comments or contract offers. By the afternoon, I could be reviewing the Team’s budget, analysing the commissioning targets to feed into plans for the following year, or attending a cross-team meeting.

I really relish balancing such a variety of tasks in any one day and being able to challenge myself to think through problems and make swift decisions. I enjoy managing the team, but my real passion is commissioning and being able to see an early idea start from a conversation I had at a conference to becoming a finished product. This gives me great satisfaction.

What most excites you about your subjects?
I look after a good range of subjects including Politics, such as Public Policy, Social Policy and Welfare, Social Geography and Urban Studies and Housing and Planning and although they interlink, I like that the books I work on can be so different in scope.

I am particularly engaged in areas of my list that have a social justice or equality angle, that challenge current thinking and push the debate forward and which truly bridge the gap between theory and practice. Great recent examples of this are ‘Making policy move’ by John Clarke, Dave Bainton, Noémi Lendvai and Paul Stubbs, which is out this month, ‘New philanthropy and social justice’ (part of our Contemporary issues in social policy series) by Behrooz Morvaridi and Julian Dobson’s campaigning book ‘How to save our town centres’.

What key things are happening in Politics at Policy Press this year?
You could argue that everything we publish has a relevance to politics and policy, but in Politics we started the year off well with the release of a new trade book by Peter Hain MP entitled ‘Back to the future of Socialism’, which is a real boost to our Politics list. Written by a former Labour MP, who was in the Blair and Brown Cabinets, Peter’s book revisits the classic 1956 work by Anthony Crosland and uses it as a springboard for putting forward his political prospectus for today. The book, pitched at a wide readership, is a real boost for our Politics list and makes for an academically engaging and personal read, one that I think is very important given the public’s growing disengagement and disaffection with mainstream political parties.

Another important book that has just been released as a paperback is ‘Women of Power’ by Torild Skard which charts an impressive 73 female presidents and prime ministers worldwide over the last 50 years. Based on an astounding amount of research by the author, the book looks at these women’s motives, achievements and life stories in politics and it is a must read for anyone interested in gender, politics and leadership.

There has also been some excellent content on key political issues published in the latest issue of our Policy & Politics journal. I was particularly drawn to ‘the politics of quangocide’ from Katharine Dommett and Matt Flinders and ‘Governing at arm’s length’ by Catherine Durose, Jonathan Justice and Chris Skelcher. The journal co-edited by Sarah Ayres (Bristol) and Matt Flinders (Sheffield) is a leading international journal in the field of public policy that importantly prizes itself (as Policy Press does too) on bridging the gap between theory and practice and linking macro-scale political economy debates with micro-scale policy studies.

Our new Policy Press Shorts are an ideal format for Politics given that the subject is so fast-moving and topical. Being able to offer flexible publishing options has opened up new opportunities in all our subjects and the Policy Press Shorts have a 12 week turnaround from delivery to publication. They are an excellent outlet for publishing original ideas quickly and making a difference in a concise and accessible way, ideal for politics.

One great example is a Policy and practice Short entitled ‘Battle of the Bedroom tax’ by Dave Cowan and Alex Marsh which publishes just after the election. The bedroom tax was a key and highly contentious policy and one which could slip down the political agenda depending on who gets in power in May, so having the Short out quickly so that it hits the right political moment is key.

What interests you particularly about Politics?
The key issues that interest me in Politics at the moment are political disengagement, devolution and a shift in power from a Westminster-centric view and the ongoing debates related to independence and the decline of mainstream political parties in favour of more extreme parties, such as UKiP (there is much more to be said here!).

I am also keen to commission more politics books in areas we are known for and which are continually on the political agenda. This includes political issues for disadvantaged groups, such as those in poverty, older people, disability and gender and books that push the boundaries and put forward radical and fresh perspectives.

What reading book is currently on your bedside table?

I’m reading The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt that was chosen by our very own Victoria Pittman for book group. I really like what I’ve read so far, but I have a feeling the book will be by my bed (or on the bus with me) for a while!

Laura Vickers led the editorial picks in March – what would you say is her secret superpower/thing she is most awesome at doing?
Her sheer determination. When she puts her mind to something she doesn’t give up and makes sure it gets done even though it might be really challenging along the way or take a long time.

Laura’s question for you is: Who will win the Rugby World Cup?
This question from Laura is a not a surprise as she is a massive fan of rugby and most sports. I have absolutely no idea how to pick a team to win the World Cup, but I will base it on a place where I have always wanted to visit – New Zealand.

What question would you want us to ask our next editorial interviewee?
Who would be the 4 best/most influential people you would have dinner with and why? They don’t all have to be alive!

If you enjoyed this blog you might also enjoy….

Policy Press March ‘editorial picks’: Environment and Sustainability

Policy Press February ‘editorial picks’: Criminology and Criminal Justice

Related reading

Policy Press CoverMoney and electoral politics by Johnston and Pattie

Austerity: Creating more harmful societies?

In today’s guest blog post author and academic Simon Pemberton shares his insights on the true cost of austerity measures having compared the rates of social harms across 31 OECD countries for his recently published book Harmful Societies.

Simon Pemberton

Simon Pemberton

Collectively we tend to worry about things that are unlikely to happen to us, or those events that are least likely to impact our long term health or prosperity. Our perception of risk is distorted.

Many of us might worry about crime and threats posed by strangers to ourselves and loved ones, but we probably concern ourselves less with the air that we breathe, the everyday act of crossing the road, the dangers our workplaces pose and so on.

Yet the numbers are staggering. If we take the example of homicide rates, the UK has a thankfully low murder rate, there are around 500-1,000 a year. Contrasting homicide to a range of social harms puts this into some perspective: 18,000 (England and Wales) people who die due to the effects of winter, while 29,000 (UK) lives are ended prematurely from air pollution and 13,000 (Great Britain) lives are lost from lung disease or cancers contracted via the workplace.

Lottery of life?

Is this a fair comparison? Homicide is the most unnatural end to one’s life imaginable; the other examples might most commonly be considered part of the ‘lottery of life’ due to the fairly diffuse and ambiguous causal chains. Indeed many of us would struggle to view these harms to be ‘preventable’. This said we might be more willing to accept that these harms are preventable if we feel that it is in our collective capacity to intervene within its production.

Comparing death rates across similarly-placed capitalist societies quickly demonstrates that there is no ‘natural’ rate of death from suicide, homicide, road traffic injuries or obesity, nor are there ‘natural’ rates of poverty, overwork, unemployment, financial insecurity or social isolation.

In fact some societies appear to be better placed to protect their populations than others. In relation to all but one of these harm indicators the Social Democratic regime (Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway) proves to be the least harmful; whereas the Neo-Liberal regime (Chile, Mexico, Turkey and Russia) and Liberal regime including the UK, US and Australia, are among the most harmful.

“we get the levels of harm that politically we are willing to tolerate”

Far from being inevitable events then, these social harms are the result of the way we choose to organise our societies. In other words we get the levels of harm that politically we are willing to tolerate.

There are a number of features of societies that make them more or less harmful. Societies that exhibit high levels of trust and low levels of inequality better protect populations in relation to many harm indicators, whereas highly individualised competitive societies seem to generate greater levels of harm.

Additionally societies characterised by high expenditure on welfare benefits, services, education and healthcare appear to reduce the likelihood of autonomy harms (such as poverty, financial insecurity) as one might expect, yet they also provide contexts that reduce the likelihood of specific physical harms (such as homicide, infant mortality deaths).

Finally, societies that place restrictions on market activities through high levels of trade union representation and/or state regulation demonstrate lower rates of autonomy harms (such as poverty, youth unemployment, long working hours).

Under siege

Many of the societal features that appear to protect populations from harm are currently under siege in many nation states. Austerity programmes in countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and the UK are eroding and in some instances actively dismantling many of the features that protect populations from social harm.

If one wants to understand the collateral harms that might result as a consequence of the UK coalition government’s austerity agenda and the harms our society might generate then we only need to look to the US – where levels of harm are similar to those of middle income countries in the Neo Liberal regime.

With the UK’s social expenditure anticipated to fall below that of the US by 2016 the erosion of the social state through cuts to benefits, services and regulatory bodies are likely to directly impact the experience of harm. In the process the UK will undoubtedly become a more harmful society.

“Other nation states have responded very differently to the pressures of the public spending deficit, acting to protect populations”

Quite simply it does not need to be this way. This harm is entirely foreseeable – given the weight of empirical evidence that documents the deleterious impact of austerity on harms such as suicide, infant mortality rates, depression and so on.

Moreover there are alternative courses of action available. Other nation states, such as Iceland, who arguably faced more desperate situations than the UK have responded very differently to the pressures of the public spending deficit, acting to protect populations. This is a matter of political will – do we have the politicians with the fortitude required to reverse the harmful legacy of austerity?

Harmful societies [FC]Harmful Societies by Simon Pemberton is available for purchase and you can buy your copy from our website here (RRP £70.00). Don’t forget Policy Press newsletter subscribers get a 35% discount when ordering through our website. If you’re not a subscriber yet why not sign up here today and join our Policy Press community?

You can also follow @socialharm for more on Studies in Social harm.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blogpost authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Tyranny’s False Comfort: Why Rights Aren’t Wrong in Tough Times

Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that defends the rights of people worldwide.  To celebrate the publication of their World Report 2015 this month we have reproduced an excerpt of Executive Director, Kenneth Roth’s (@KenRoth) article about the current state of human rights globally today. This post was first published on the Human Rights Watch website and can be viewed in full here.

Kenneth Roth

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch

The world has not seen this much tumult for a generation. The once-heralded Arab Spring has given way almost everywhere to conflict and repression. Islamist extremists commit mass atrocities and threaten civilians throughout the Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa. Cold War-type tensions have revived over Ukraine, with even a civilian jetliner shot out of the sky. Sometimes it can seem as if the world is unraveling.

Many governments have responded to the turmoil by downplaying or abandoning human rights. Governments directly affected by the ferment are often eager for an excuse to suppress popular pressure for democratic change. Other influential governments are frequently more comfortable falling back on familiar relationships with autocrats than contending with the uncertainty of popular rule. Some of these governments continue to raise human rights concerns, but many appear to have concluded that today’s serious security threats must take precedence over human rights. In this difficult moment, they seem to argue, human rights must be put on the back burner, a luxury for less trying times.

That subordination of human rights is not only wrong, but also shortsighted and counterproductive. Human rights violations played a major role in spawning or aggravating most of today’s crises. Protecting human rights and enabling people to have a say in how their governments address the crises will be key to their resolution. Particularly in periods of challenges and difficult choices, human rights are an essential compass for political action.

The Rise of ISIS

No challenge in the past year has exploded more dramatically than the emergence of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the extremist group also known as ISIS. One can only be appalled at ISIS’s mass execution of captured combatants and disfavored civilians. This Sunni armed group has singled out Yazidis, Turkmen, Kurds, Shia, and even other Sunnis who contest its extreme interpretation of Islamic law. Its militants have enslaved, forcibly married, and raped Yazidi women and girls, and beheaded journalists and aid workers in gruesome videotaped spectacles. Rarely has an armed force engendered such widespread revulsion and opposition.

Yet ISIS did not emerge in a vacuum. In part it is a product of the United States-led war and military occupation of Iraq that began in 2003, which produced, among other things, a security vacuum and the abuses of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison and other US-run detention centers. Funding of extremist groups by Gulf states and their citizens also played a role. More recently, the sectarian policies of the Iraqi and Syrian governments, and international indifference to those governments’ serious rights abuses, have been important factors. If the conditions that led to ISIS are left to fester, the group could deepen its hold on the two countries and expand into Lebanon, Jordan, Libya, and beyond.

Iraq

In Iraq, ISIS owes much of its emergence to the abusive sectarian rule of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the resulting radicalization of the Sunni community. With Iranian backing, Maliki took personal control of Iraqi security forces and supported the formation of Shia militia, many of which brutally persecuted the minority Sunni population. Sunnis were excluded from select government jobs, rounded up and arbitrarily detained under new overbroad laws, summarily executed, and indiscriminately bombed.

The severity of the persecution can be measured by its effects. ISIS’s predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), was defeated with the help of a military coalition of Sunni tribes in western Iraq known as the Awakening Councils. But many of the tribes that nearly single-handedly defeated AQI became so fearful of slaughter and persecution by pro-government security forces that when conflict broke out in 2014, they felt safer fighting those forces than ISIS.

Human rights groups persistently called attention to Maliki’s abusive rule, but the US, the United Kingdom, and other countries, eager to put their own military involvement in Iraq behind them, largely shut their eyes to this sectarian reign—and even plied it with arms.

Today, there is wider recognition that this indifference to atrocities under Maliki was a mistake. Eventually he was forced from office and replaced by Haider al-Abadi, who has pledged a more inclusive form of governance. But as Western military aid still flows into Iraq, abusive sectarianism has not ended. Maliki continues to serve as one of Iraq’s three vice presidents, and the weak government has vastly increased its reliance on Shia militia, allowing the mobilization of almost one million Shia fighters without government oversight or regulation. Indeed, because of the Iraqi army’s disarray, the militias are the lead ground forces fighting ISIS, despite their ongoing killing and cleansing of Sunnis as ostensible ISIS sympathizers. Until these atrocities end, the Shia militias are likely to do more to aid ISIS recruitment than to defeat ISIS on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has not ended indiscriminate military attacks in civilian areas or released a significant number of detainees held without a warrant or after completion of their sentences. The corrupt and abusive judiciary remains unreformed, and Abadi’s calls for an end to abusive, exclusionary rule remain unimplemented. Over the long term, completing these reforms will be at least as important as military action to protect civilians from ISIS atrocities.

Syria

In Syria, ISIS owes its rise to various factors, including porous borders with Turkey that have enabled fighters armed and funded by foreign governments to flow in. Many then joined the extremist group. ISIS has also generated funds through exorbitant ransom demands and “taxes” on people in territory it controls, as well as selling Syrian oil and antiquities.

With these building blocks, ISIS came to portray itself as the force most capable of standing up to the extraordinary brutality of President Bashar al-Assad and his troops. In vicious fashion, Assad’s forces have been deliberately attacking civilians who happen to live in opposition-held areas, aiming to depopulate these areas and punish presumed rebel sympathizers.

Since the Syrian government turned over its chemical weapons, its most notorious tool has been the barrel bomb, an oil drum or similar container filled with high explosives and metal fragments. Also used by the Iraqi air force, it has gained notoriety in Syria, where the air force typically drops it from a helicopter hovering at high altitudes to avoid anti-aircraft fire. From that height, the barrel bomb is impossible to target with any precision. It simply tumbles to earth, making its dreaded swishing sound as its contents shift back and forth, until it hits the ground and detonates.

Barrel bombs are so inaccurate that the Syrian military does not dare use them near the front lines for fear of hitting its own troops. Rather, it drops them well into territory held by rebel groups, knowing that they will destroy apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, and other institutions of civilian life. These indiscriminate weapons have made life so miserable for many civilians that some who do not flee the country choose to move their families near the front line, preferring to brave snipers and artillery rather than the horror of the barrel bombs.

When the Syrian government attacked civilians with chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council pressured Assad to stop and to surrender his weapons. But as the Syrian government killed countless more civilians by indiscriminate attacks with conventional weapons such as barrel bombs, as well as cluster munitions, incendiary weapons, and unguided rockets, the Security Council has largely stood on the sidelines. A number of states have condemned the slaughter, but they have done little more to generate pressure to end it.

Russia has used its Security Council veto power to stop unified efforts to end the carnage. Russia, as well as Iran, has also refused to use their enormous influence in Damascus to press for an end to the indiscriminate attacks, despite demands from the Security Council, including Russia, for such attacks to cease. Referring Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to address serious international crimes by all sides, a step endorsed by more than 65 countries, remains anathema to Moscow.

The US-led coalition has taken on ISIS, but no nation—whether adversaries like the US, or backers like Russia and Iran—have increased pressure on Assad to stop the slaughter of civilians. The two cannot, and should not, be so easily separated

This selective concern has been a gift to ISIS recruiters, who portray themselves as the only ones willing and able to stand up to Assad’s atrocities. Simply attacking ISIS is clearly not going to end its appeal. A broader concern with protecting Syrian civilians is required.

To read more of Kenneth’s article please click here. You can follow Kenneth on twitter @KenRoth and you can follow Human Rights Watch there too – @hrw

World Report 2015 [FC]You can also purchase a hard copy of the World Report 2015 from the Policy Press website at a 20% discount here

If you enjoyed this post, you might also like…

Celebrating Human Rights Day, 10 December

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blogpost authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.

 

Would a Citizen’s Income make some people poorer than they are today?

The notion of a Citizen’s Income, an unconditional income for every individual as a right of citizenship, has been around for thirty years, thanks in no small part to the efforts of author and director of the Citizen’s Income Trust Dr Malcolm Torry. In today’s guest post, Dr Torry gives clarity and background to the recent debate over whether a Citizen’s Income would really leave some low-income families worse off.

Malcolm Torry, photo for websites, 2015An unconditional income for every individual as a right of citizenship would help to solve the problem of poverty and would create a more just society. This is no doubt why the Green Party voted to include a Citizen’s Income in its manifesto for the forthcoming General Election.

The details have not been published, but what is known is that the party intends a Citizen’s Income of £72 per week for every adult (less for children and young people, and more for elderly people), and that it would pay for it by abolishing personal tax allowances and means-tested benefits.

Current controversy around the Citizen’s Income was caused however by Andrew Neil’s interview with Natalie Bennett, the Leader of the Green Party. He suggested that because people would lose their personal tax allowance of something like £10,000, and would only receive £3,500 in Citizen’s Income, they would be worse off.

In making this suggestion it is clear that Neil had not understood that the cash value of a tax allowance is the value of the allowance multiplied by the tax rate; and Natalie Bennett didn’t pick him up on the mistake.

But even though the logic was erroneous, the idea was out there that a Citizen’s Income would lose people money.

Problem

The Green Party scheme might be similar to the Citizen Income Trust’s illustrative scheme that the Work and Pensions Select Committee published as evidence in 2006 and updated in 2013. There is no problem with affording this scheme, as the abolition of personal tax allowances, the abolition of means-tested benefits, and the restriction of pension contribution tax relief to the basic rate, would save enough money to pay for the whole of the UK population’s Citizen’s Incomes: but there is a problem with it.

For some low income households their Citizen’s Incomes would more than replace the value of their lost personal tax allowances, but they would not also replace the whole of their abolished Working Tax Credits.

Because the Citizen’s Income would never be withdrawn, additional earnings would produce more additional disposable income than additional earnings can produce in the context of means-tested benefits, so households suffering small losses at the point of implementation of a Citizen’s Income would be able to make them up quite easily by earning a little more. But this was clearly not a total solution, so more work was required.

In 2012 I used the Euromod modelling software maintained by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex to quantify the losses that low income households would experience; and during the summer of 2014 the Citizen’s Income Trust studied a number of schemes similar to our illustrative scheme. We found that we could reduce the losses but not eliminate them. So the search began for alternative methods of implementation.

Alternative

Work I subsequently carried out using Euromod showed that a revenue neutral Citizen’s Income scheme need not impose losses on low income households at the point of implementation if means-tested benefits are left in place and households’ Citizen’s Incomes are taken into account as income when their means-tested benefits are calculated. The 2012 and 2014 results were published together in an Institute for Social and Economic Research working paper and have been republished in a recent edition of the Citizen’s Income Newsletter.

The Guardian’s Political Editor, Patrick Wintour, then read our website, telephoned me for a discussion, and wrote an article stating that the Citizen’s Income Trust had said that the Green Party’s Citizen’s Income scheme would impose losses on low income families.

We had not said that – in fact, we had never commented on the Green Party’s scheme, except to note that they intended to develop one for their manifesto: but by noticing the similarities between our illustrative scheme and what the Green Party had so far said about theirs, Patrick Wintour had drawn his own conclusion and published it as if it was ours.

“…it is perfectly possible to implement a genuine Citizen’s Income of £72 a week without imposing losses on low income households…”

What he did not emphasise, which he might have done, is that we had proved that it is perfectly possible to implement a genuine Citizen’s Income of £72 a week without imposing losses on low income households if means-tested benefits are retained and households’ Citizen’s Incomes are taken into account when their benefits are calculated.

What other journalists have correctly noted is that if additional tax revenue is raised, either through higher Income Tax rates, through the implementation of a financial transaction tax, or through some other new tax, then a larger Citizen’s Income would become affordable. This would eliminate losses on low income households, and possibly on all households, without means-tested benefits having to be retained.

On the plus side, Patrick Wintour’s article, and the many articles that have followed it, in the Guardian, the Times, the Financial Times, and elsewhere, have stimulated a substantial increase in the level of the debate, which is exciting for the Citizen’s Income Trust. We have never before had so many people asking to join our mailing list, our website has never experienced so many daily visits, and we have never had so many new Twitter followers.

Later this year  Policy Press will be publishing my new book, 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income. This will be a short introduction to the subject, and cheap enough to enable readers to give copies to their friends, colleagues and relatives.

The need for the book is clearly urgent, and I’m working as hard as I can to finish it.

You can keep up to date with Citizen’s Income by following them on twitter @Citizensincome


Torry-MoneyForEveryoneDr Malcolm Torry’s book Money for Everyone: Why we need a Citizen’s Income (Policy Press, 2013) is available at a 20% discount from the Policy Press website – here.

His new book 101 Reasons for a Citizen’s Income publishes later this year. Sign up to our newsletter to get the latest information on forthcoming publications, be part of the Policy Press community and access members special offers.

The Citizen’s Income Trust was formed from a group of people who had gathered together thirty years ago to discuss how they might promote debate on a Citizen’s Income (then and sometimes still called a Basic Income), they became the Basic Income Research Group, and then the Citizen’s Income Trust. They promote debate on the desirability and feasibility of a Citizen’s Income. They publish the Citizen’s Income Newsletter, maintain a library and a website, hold meetings and conferences, and respond to requests for information. They run on voluntary labour and a shoestring budget. More information is available via their website – here.

The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blogpost authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Archives


Shot by both sides

The blog of Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP

Paul Collins's Running Blog

Running and London Marathon 2013 Training

Bristol Civic Leadership Project

A collaborative project on change in local governance

Stuck on Social Work

And what a great place to be

Points: The Blog of the Alcohol & Drugs History Society

short and insightful writing about a long and complex history

Urban policy and practice

Publishing with a purpose

TessaCoombes

Policy & Politics blog with a focus on place

Blog

Publishing with a purpose

Public Administration Review

Public Administration Review is a professional journal dedicated to advancing theory and practice in public administration.

EUROPP

European Politics and Policy

Urban Studies Journal

Publishing with a purpose

INLOGOV Blog

Official Blog of the Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY

The official blog of the Journal of Public Policy

Social Europe

politics, economics and employment & labour

OUPblog

Publishing with a purpose

PolicyBristol Hub

Publishing with a purpose

Alex Marsh Online

Publishing with a purpose

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,203 other followers

%d bloggers like this: