Category: Social Policy

This occasional blog discusses issues in Social Policy.

Peru has provided everyone with national ID

The things we take for granted often look very different from the perspective of other countries.  In Peru, it’s being proudly reported that the nation has at last provided identity documents to everyone – a smart card that covers people for grants and benefits as well as ID.  Civil war had displaced 600,000 people, and three million had no documentation.  Now everyone does.  It’s being represented as a major step towards social inclusion.  “IDs open doors to opportunities.”

In the UK, ID cards were abolished post-war after people refused to cooperate with the system, and their reintroduction has been fiercely resisted.  It’s seen as the action of a domineering state and “Big Brother”.  In India, the Aadhaar card has been used to impose controls on issues including tax evasion and terrorism, and it is being challenged as an invasion of privacy.

It’s clear that the problems of being without documentation are a major blight on the lives of many people, most obviously in the USA and more recently in the treatment of Caribbean immigrants in the UK.  But processes which include some people can exclude others, and there are concerns from India about people who have been left out.  The lesson for public administration ought to be that no system is perfect, and the test of a good system is how it deals with mistakes, omissions and exclusions.  This is not so much about a sophisticated technology as about how services relate to ordinary people.

Terminating a Basic Income experiment tells us something, too

The decision to terminate the Basic Income Experiment in Ontario is a sort of finding, too.  The design of related experiments has usually been based on short term economic or behavioural effects – because that, after all, is all one can hope to pick up from an experiment for two or three years.  However, the arguments around Basic Income, on both sides, are about something different – about social and cultural change.   That kind of change can take a generation or more, and it’s simply not going to appear in the way that economists usually model such effects.  I’ve previously drawn the parallel with the introduction of old age pensions, where the effects in the UK weren’t fully resolved in sixty years.  It’s not possible, more than a hundred years after the introduction of pensions, to be certain what the implications were for older people at the time – and people considering retirement would have been right to be uncertain.  The costs of the 1908 scheme led the UK government to threaten retrenchment, and after massive post-war cuts in other services (the “Geddes axe”, applied 1921-22, cut spending worth 10% of GDP), in 1925 pensions were fundamentally reformed to raise money through contributions instead.   Most older people were retiring by the 1940s, but many people who were retiring in the 1970s were still deferring their pension claims.

The decision in Ontario comes shortly after a (somewhat less brutal) decision in Finland not to extend their experiments.   The message coming over is clear and strong: Basic Income is pushing at the limits of what politicians are prepared to consider.

What does this imply for Basic Income?  First,  politicians won’t leave Basic Income alone – they just can’t stop themselves from tampering.  Look at Child Benefit, which was working really well before the Coalition government decided to create special conditions for wealthy people. If Basic Income comes, it won’t be forever.

Second, there’s no such thing as an unconditional benefit.   Issues which may seem relatively minor now, such as the treatment of migrants, prisoners or religious communities, are going to surface eventually.   Some of the conditions are more liberal, some are less intrusive, but there will be conditions – tax exemptions to “send a message”, rewards for virtue, or whatever.  People advocating for Basic Income have to argue for conditions to be kept to a practical minimum.  That’s hard to do when politicians and the press will convert it into “benefits for paedophiles” or “benefits for members of ISIS”, with specific instances.  Be prepared.

And that leads to the third point: whatever people use their Basic Income for, they’d be unwise to bank their long-term security or future life-plan on it.  How long would it take before the system is so strongly embedded that the future becomes certain?   I can’t be sure, but it’s not going to happen in a three year experiment.

Kim Long: 24 hours

Councillor Kim Long has agreed I can share her full thread with you, but asked me to include links to donate to two causes:  the Refugee Survival Trust and Positive Action in Housing.  Here’s what she wrote on Twitter, minus only a couple of (understandably furious) swear words.

RIGHT. i am so angry. We have established that Trump is a monster, yes? Let’s talk about my past 24 hours and what that says about our esteemed UK government.

So Tuesday night i got a call from a church minister in a total panic because one of her congregation had recieved a letter, out of nowhere, saying her she had 24 hours to vacate her accommodation because her asylum support was being stopped. Her support (a whole £35/week) plus accomodation, was being immediately removed because they did not believe she was destitute. One of their reasons was she had toys (handmedowns from a kind neighbour) & money in her account – money she had recieved from the home office.  So because she could not prove her destitution according to their insane criteria they decided to MAKE HER AND HER 4 KIDS HOMELESS AND DESTITUTE. With 24 HOURS notice. Before her 3 days to appeal rights were even close to up.The letter had no email address, no phone number, no way of contacting except to send said appeal by POST. Which would be impossible within 24 hours. She was advised to FAX an appeal to a number NOT ON THE LETTER. A FAX. I have never even TOUCHED a fax machine.

So there she was, out of her mind with worry. Oh yes also she’s a single parent, she has an 8 year old, a 5 yo who is severely autistic (& so incredibly sensitive to disruption) & twin toddlers (omg). She has also survived horrific domestic violence, sexual assault, & abuse. (As an interlude i need to say how in awe i am of this lady, her strength and courage and parenting skills are just out of this world. She used to run her own small business, she is articulate and clever and hospitable and kind. It was a pleasure to spend my day with her) … anyway i went to her home yesterday morning, to try to work out a support plan, so that if Serco showed up there was Cllr observing their behaviour, and so that if they were made homeless i could ensure immediate social work support.

let’s pause here to observe that Glasgow City Council would be picking up the bill if the Home Office made this family homeless. The UK government is literally pushing people through the cracks + local authorities are financially penalised for not being so inhumane – let us also observe that if there were no kids involved the council would not be able to give her accomodation. Also if she was (now) fleeing domestic abuse she would not be able to go to a shelter because she is not eligible for housing benefits. Yes, things are that bad.

So – long day of emails and phone calls and then a wonderful lady from her church was there to watch most of the kids while i took this lady & kid to @GovanCP , who were just incredible. They met us, applied for an emergency grant, gave £ for food + an appt for the next day.We went home with cake from the foodbank 😁 & via aldi for essentials. Lady has been through hell but thanks to the support she’ll now receive to fight for her £ to be reinstated, thinks she will be able to sleep. Meanwhile locks were unchanged, nobody showed. Scare tactics.

So that was yesterday. And THEN on my way home today i met our neighbour who was frantic that he’s not seen me around (i’ve been away) – what if i had moved and he had nobody? He is also an asylum seeker & is living in limbo, waiting for news that his case is being looked at. He has been living with toothache for maybe 7 weeks because he is waiting for a form from the Home Office to give him access to dental treatment. He was recently given a card to say he was allowed to work, but now they have sent him a new one saying he is not allowed to.

He is bored. Fed up. Hungry. His wife is the same – he tells me they have nothing to do but quarrel because they are under so much pressure. They have a kid – the cutest, smartest, daughter, who comes to ours to play with/terrorise our cat & laugh at our music choices.  Today he said he is struggling with school holidays. “There are free things to do – but what if, when we’re out, we see someone with a lolly? Or she wants some candy? How can i say i can’t afford it? I feel so ashamed. So perhaps it’s better for her to be inside & not see.”

And then he said that while we were away they had their big interview with the Home Office. (They had first been summoned months ago, went through sleepness nights, showed up, to find the wrong interpreter provided. Interview postponed – back home. More waiting.) So last week they went back again. He was grilled for 8.5 hours, with 1 hour break & one further 15 mins. His wife had 6.5 hours. No kids allowed, but no childcare. They questioned every minute detail. He was so exhausted when he got home he didn’t speak for 2 days. And then – after he explained the danger they fled from, after he explained that as both religious and cultural minorities they could not possibly be safe in their country of origin – he said that he had also brought his daughter away because of the threat of FGM. We were standing in the sunlight but suddenly the world went grey as i realised the gorgeous kid who made me a birthday card last month would have been mutilated as soon as she hit puberty – could still face this if they are put on a plane. And then – i don’t know if i can type this because i am shaking – the interviewers said:”But 98% of the people in your country do FGM. Why is this a problem?”It took me several minutes to understand. UK HOME OFFICE AGENTS ASKED HIM WHY HAVING HIS DAUGHTER CUT WAS AN ISSUE.

This is our UK government. This is what they are doing to people – people who live in your close, whose kids are pals with your kids, people who are just trying to live their lives and survive.

This has been ONE DAY.

Kim’s requests for donations again:  they were the Refugee Survival Trust and Positive Action in Housing.

Academic sources can’t be relied on

I’ve never been keen on the dominant style in conventional academic referencing, represented by Harvard or Vancouver – the notes generally appear as the author’s name stuffed in brackets with a date, such as “Marx, 1990”.  (That’s from a book I was looking at which is citing Das Kapital.  Karl Marx didn’t write very much in 1990, being dead, but we’re all supposed to know what it means.)   The notes often disguise the original source, which will appear on a different page, and lots of people will stuff a small reading list into a note to support points. I’m used to my own stuff being dragged in like that.  Whenever I write an academic paper, I’ll usually try to include arguments for, arguments against and my own conclusion.  That gives people the chance to find three contrasting opinions in most of the stuff I do, and I’m pretty much used by now to having all sorts of weird, ill-founded or obnoxious views attributed to me, from both left and right.  To take a small example, I’ve recently read an otherwise rather good article which cites my work on covert research, saying that covert research generally relies on deception.  That’s a fairly direct contradiction of what I do say.

Lots of academic writing seems to rely on sources to convey the necessary gravitas, but people can be a bit cavalier about the way that names are dropped.  I’ve just come across this, which seems to have been put together by pulling the names of likely contenders from a hat:

There is a long-standing problematisation of impoverished individuals subverting the basis of state or charitable support (Rousseau, 1762) and a strong conservative tradition of individualistic and behavioural understandings of poverty (Hobbes, 1651; Burke, 1790; Smith, 1776).

Rousseau, Hobbes and Burke’s Reflections (the 1790 reference) didn’t have much to say about state support for poverty, and it could be argued that Smith said the opposite.  It would have made more sense to refer to Joseph TownsendThomas Alcock or the traditions of the Poor Law.  The misattributions just get in the way of what is, otherwise, a very creditable and solid bit of empirical research.  Peer review is supposed to protect against this sort of thing, but frankly most peer reviewers won’t pick them up when they’re commenting – inaccurate referencing is hard to spot, and it’s almost never the main issue requiring comment.

 

 

India’s response to open defaecation

A billion people in the world defaecate in the open, largely because they have no toilet.  Half of them are in India. The graph below comes from an atlas of the Sustainable Development Goals produced by the World Bank.

SDG6.2

The government of India hoped, five years ago, that it could end open defecation by 2019.  It is well behind that target, but claims that 72.3 million toilets have been constructed, out of a target of 110 million. Reports from India number such things in lakh, a unit of 100,000; 72.3 million is 723 lakh.  The position was slightly confused last month by the Prime Minister’s claim that the state of Bihar had constructed 8.5 lakh, that is 850,000, toilets in a week – it seems that the toilets have been constructed, but not so quickly.

The Economist is sceptical about the figures more generally; some of the toilets that were supposed to be constructed appear not to exist, the claims of one state to have ended the practice have been shown to be false, and besides some people continue to defaecate in the open even though they have a toilet.   In Bangladesh, improved sanitation has been linked to education about hygiene, to great effect.   Regardless, the government deserves some credit for the priority it has given  to issues that are intended to make people’s lives better – including housing, electricity, financial inclusion and sanitation.

 

“No-one is illegal”

I came across this slogan for the first time earlier this week, in a café in Oświęcim, shortly after a visit to the extermination camp at Auschwitz.  It struck a chord, for more reasons than the obvious one. There’s something deeply disturbing about with any system that accuses people, not of offending, but of being an offence – making their very presence a matter for the criminal law.

The words and the logo are the badge of a movement, “No One is Illegal”,  described on Wikipedia as a “loosely connected international network”.  The  groups describing themselves in these terms take subtly different positions – “a world without borders” (Sweden), an end to immigration controls (UK) , or “freedom to move, freedom to return, freedom to stay” (Canada).   (These are not the same thing: the first of these is about status and citizenship, the second about movement, the third about membership.)  It is probably fair to say that the movement represents some extreme viewpoints; but sometimes, thinking about the extremes can help to clarify issues that matter for those of us who live in the murky, muddy middle.  The challenge that No One is Illegal puts before us is this:  can immigration controls be justified?

The basic arguments for free movement are these:

  • Individualism – that every individual should have a choice of where they live, and opportunities to improve their lives through their own actions
  • Freedom – people are free to move, and no-one has the right to deny them a chance of a decent life
  • Free markets – the efficient operation of labour markets depends on the movement, not just of goods and services, but of people.
  • Humanitarianism. Migrants are not fleeing war, famine and disease lightly. People have a duty to each other, including a duty to strangers.
  • Arguments about consequences.  The effect of denying people access to legitimate means of movement has been disastrous – a human rights catastrophy that has costs the lives of tens of thousands of people.   People use boats or walk because they cannot fly or drive.   They use dangerous, illegitimate routes because the safe, legitimate routes have been closed to them.

No One is Illegal starts from the premise that everyone has a right to be where they are.  If immigration controls are to be justified, there have to be some considerations to set against that presumption.   The key arguments for control are these:

  • Communitarianism.  People in different places have connections, networks, shared values and culture that have to be respected.  Migrants are not excluded, but have to be integrated; free movement is not compatible with this.
  • Citizenship.  Citizenship can be understood, for this purpose, as membership of a social and political community; membership depends on status, mutual obligations and relationships with the wider community, not just on physical presence.
  • Pragmatism.  Migrants can be admitted when they are useful for a nation, and excluded when they are not.
  • The argument about capacity.  If people are going to be absorbed into any new society, there have to be the services, facilities and infrastructure to support them.  This, like the communitarian argument, does not mean that migration is excluded; it means that it needs to be controlled.

(There are also lots of bad arguments for restricting migration, including racism, ethnocentricy, and the defence of privilege.  I am not going to look at them here, except to note that they have been made.)

All of the the arguments for free movement are good ones, and some are very strong; but I am not convinced that they trump  all the arguments for some controls.  Even if people should be able to move much more freely, some thought has to be given about integration and management – housing, education, medical care, language and so on.  The countries which are most welcoming to migrants are the countries which do just that.

That brings me back to the slogan, “No-one is illegal”.  What, if that was more generally accepted, would that mean? Taken to the extreme, it could be taken to imply a free-for-all, or or an unregulated labour market, or unrestricted laissez-faire.  However, the position does not need to be taken so far (and I doubt that the supporters of the principle, many of whom think of themselves as ‘anti-capitalist’, mean to say that). In general terms, it implies only:

  • that being present in a country is primarily a question of fact, not a legal status;
  • that countries which intend to regulate migration need to accept that migrants have rights, too; and
  • that it should not be a criminal offence simply to be present in a country.

The arguments considered here would mean that migration can still be controlled by regulating and managing permissions to reside, and taking steps to integrate migrants.  For the UK, it seems to me to follow that :

  • The UK has a responsibility to manage the integration of migrants, to ensure appropriate facilities and access to services;
  • The onus of showing that a person does or not not have permission rests with the authorities, not the individual;
  • While some permission to reside may be explicit, permission to reside is  also implicit in a range of actions that governments may take, including levying personal taxation,  licensing actions (e.g. issuing a driving licence), regularising employment (National Insurance numbers) or recording the presence of the person (births, marriages or divorce).    It follows that any of these could be considered to be proof of residence.
  • The rule which has applied since 1971 – that being present without permission is in itself a criminal offence – is wrong in principle, and should be discontinued.

I should add one further issue, which is not implicit in the slogan: the principle of natural justice, which is that no person should be deprived of his or her liberty without due process and a hearing.  That should be true for everyone that the state comes into contact with, regardless of nationality, status or permissions.

Shamefully, the Home Office is harassing British citizens

This note was posted on Twitter by David Lammy MP.  Lammy writes:

I am disgusted and appalled by the case I have just received. My constituent arrived from Jamaica in 1964 aged 6. He has shown me his letter from the Home Office telling him that he will be deported despite having a National Insurance card from 1974 & NHS documentation from 1964.

I cannot say, in all honesty, that I have never seen anything like this, but I did hope never to see it in the UK.  Over the last 18 months or so, I have been reading, in short bursts, a fairly detailed account of the life of Jews in Vichy France – it’s hard to take, and I’ve still not finished the book.  Most of my father’s family escaped from France, because my grandfather was English, but others, like his cousin and aunt, didn’t; they’d thought they were French. For those who stayed, the little restrictions added up piece by piece.  At first people couldn’t go out at certain hours, then they couldn’t work or earn.  People who conformed to the rules, reporting to the authorities as requested,  realised too late what was happening.

Governments may find it convenient to blame this policy on mistakes or insensitivity, but it’s much worse than that.  This policy breaches the most basic principles of natural justice:: it offers a sentence before a verdict, and a verdict before a hearing.  It threatens people with bodily force, and we have to presume that the threat has been carried out.  It denies UK citizens the rights of their citizenship.  As David Lammy has said, the people who came to Britain before 1971 don’t need to be granted UK citizenship – they were UK citizens before they arrived.

There’s more.  The Home Office has ignored the evidence it was offered.  It has responded aggressively to enquiries from legitimate citizens and residents (including EU nationals).  It has denied people access work, health care and employment.  It has created a situation where the only most sensible thing for a citizen to do may be to hide.   And it all results from the deliberate decisions and actions of those in power.

I’ve seen some bad administration in Britain in my time, and some shameful decisions. This may be the worst.

How selective benefits affect people who are not being targeted

A technical study for the World Bank challenges one of the central arguments for ‘targeting’ the poorest – as well as posing a major challenge to conventional economic theory.  The report is snappily titled General equilibrium effects of targeted cash transfers: nutrition impacts on non-beneficiary children.   The first effect of cash benefits to selected poor people was substantially to improve the extent to which their children were able to get protein rich foods.  There were marked improvements in nutrition, particularly on stunting – the effect that malnutrition has over time, in limiting children’s growth.

However, the policy also had a side-effect: the relative price of that kind of food increased. That, in turn, had a further effect: it reduced the access of other children, children in families who were not getting benefits, to protein-rich foods.  The effect was clearest in poorer villages where more people were getting benefits.  “We find that weight-for-age is significantly lower and the likelihood of being underweight significantly higher in program villages that have high rates of saturation. Average height-for-age is also lower and stunting rates higher …”

There are two major implications.  The first is about targeting.  One of the key problems with selectivity has always been that a line has to be drawn somewhere: the effect is that people a little above the line are not necessarily being treated fairly relative to those who are just below it.  The way to avoid this is to make the benefits universal – which is what has been happening with basic health care and universal primary education.

The second implication is about one of the received principles of economic theory, ‘Pareto optimality’.  Most economic analyses about of suppose that welfare is increased if at least one person is made better off, and no-one is worse off.  I’ve argued in previous work (for example, my book Reclaiming individualism) that this cannot happen, because prices are relative to resources.  This  study demonstrates the effect very clearly.

An OECD economist argues that Universal Credit is better than Basic Income

I was surprised to read a report from the Helsinki Times, that the OECD is recommending Finland to forget about Basic Income and adopt Universal Credit instead.  It took me a little while to find the source; it’s in a blog post written by Jon Kristian Pareliussen.  He  had previously expressed his appreciation for Universal Credit in a paper written in 2013, when the system was still imaginary rather than practical.  Even at that time, the idea that work incentives would be preserved by a marginal rate of deduction of possibly three-quarters – that’s the combined effect of tax or NI plus the loss of  UC – was fantasy.

The OECD’s opposition of Basic Income has a rather stronger foundation.   Last year’s report on Basic Income explained that in each of the countries they looked at, schemes for a Basic Income were likely to leave many poor people worse off.  What Basic Income wouldn’t do is to undermine work incentives, because there is no added marginal rate of deduction.

 

The IMF takes steps to scupper universal benefits

A  report from Stephen Kidd about Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan tells us that the IMF have been forcing governments to limit the scope of universal benefits for children.  At a time when the evidence for universal programmes in less developed countries has rarely been stronger – see, for example, S Davala, R Jhabvala, G Standing, S Mehta, 2015, Basic Income –  this is deeply depressing.

I discuss the issues about targeting briefly on my social policy website.  If “targeting” means that there’s a choice of group (for example, payments to pensioners or nursing mothers), it can work.  Targeting “the poor” is much vaguer and more difficult to do effectively.  The process is complex and hard to do with any precision; some favoured methods, such as geographical selection, really don’t work well.  A report by Australian Aid,  Targeting the poorest, found that for poor people the process could seemed bizarrely random, with outcomes that they attributed to luck or divine judgment.  The evidence suggests that selectivity is rather more effective at stopping people from getting benefits than it is at getting them to the people who need them most.  By contrast, universal benefits work.  Arguing to scrap benefits that work and replace them with rules that don’t makes very little sense.