Excellent piece, Dennis.  What is the source of the figures on "left cabinet
share"?  Where might we look to see this published?  Best wishes to all for
a peaceful holiday.
Laurel
Laurel Rothman, Director

Community Building & Social Reform and

National Coordinator, Campaign 2000

Family Service Association of Toronto

355 Church St.

Toronto, ON     M5B 1Z8

416 595-9230 ext. 228    cell  416 575-9230

www.campaign2000.ca   www.makepovertyhistory.ca  www.fsatoronto.com

Disclaimer

 The information contained in this e-mail communication (and any
attachments) is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this
email communication (and any attachments) please delete the e-mail
immediately and notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return
e-mail. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
Family Service Association of Toronto. Neither the sender nor Family Service
Association of Toronto accepts liability for any errors or omissions in the
content of this message that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. This
message and any attachments have been scanned for viruses, however Family
Service Association of Toronto does not accept liability for any virus that
may have been transmitted

 

 



-----Original Message-----
From: Social Determinants of Health [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Dennis Raphael
Sent: December 21, 2005 10:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [SDOH] Piece sent to newspapers


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.

-------------------
Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the subject header --  to [log in to unmask]
SIGNOFF SDOH

DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.

To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname

To post a message to all 1000+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.

For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]

To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to [log in to unmask]
SET SDOH DIGEST

To view the SDOH archives, go to: https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html