Krugman on poverty in the UK

Paul Krugman has some nice things to say about the UK government's efforts to reduce poverty in his 25 December New York Times column. As usual, it's subscribers only - but Mark Thoma has some lengthy excerpts:

Helping the Poor, the British Way, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:
It’s the season for charitable giving. And far too many Americans, particularly children, need that charity. ...

[F]our decades after L.B.J. declared war on poverty ..., I’m not sure whether people understand how little progress we’ve made. In 1969, fewer than one in every seven American children lived below the poverty line. Last year, although the country was far wealthier, more than one in every six American children were poor.

And there’s no excuse for our lack of progress. Just look at what the British government has accomplished over the last decade.

Although Tony Blair has been President Bush’s obedient manservant when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Blair’s domestic policies are nothing like Mr. Bush’s. Where Mr. Bush has sought to privatize the social safety net, Mr. Blair’s Labor government has defended and strengthened it. Where Mr. Bush and his allies accuse anyone who mentions income distribution of “class warfare,” the Blair government has made a major effort to reverse the surge in inequality and poverty that took place during the Thatcher years.

And Britain’s poverty rate, if measured American-style ... has been cut in half since Labor came to power in 1997.

Britain’s war on poverty has been led by Gordon Brown, ... Mr. Blair’s heir apparent. There’s nothing exotic about his policies, many of which are inspired by American models. But in Britain, these policies are carried out with much more determination.

For example, Britain didn’t have a minimum wage until 1999 — but ... Britain’s minimum wage rate is now about twice as high as ours. Britain’s child benefit is more generous than America’s child tax credit, and it’s available to everyone... Britain’s tax credit for low-wage workers is similar to the U.S. earned-income tax credit, but substantially larger. And don’t forget ... Britain’s universal health care system...

The Blair government hasn’t achieved all its domestic goals. ... But there’s no denying that the Blair government has done a lot for Britain’s have-nots. ... Providing a strong social safety net requires a higher overall rate of taxation than Americans are accustomed to, but Britain’s tax burden hasn’t undermined the economy’s growth.

What are the lessons...?

First, government truly can be a force for good. Decades of propaganda have conditioned many Americans to assume that government is always incompetent... But the Blair years have shown that a government that seriously tries to reduce poverty can achieve a lot.

Second, it really helps to have politicians who are serious about governing, rather than devoting themselves entirely to amassing power and rewarding cronies.

While researching this article, I was startled by the sheer rationality of British policy discussion, as compared with the cynical posturing that passes for policy discourse in George Bush’s America. Instead of making grandiose promises that are quickly forgotten — like Mr. Bush’s promise of “bold action” to confront poverty after Hurricane Katrina — British Labor politicians propose specific policies with well-defined goals. And when actual results fall short of those goals, they face the facts rather than trying to suppress them and sliming the critics.

The moral of my Christmas story is that fighting poverty isn’t easy, but it can be done. Giving in to cynicism and accepting the persistence of widespread poverty even as the rich get ever richer is a choice that our politicians have made. And we should be ashamed of that choice.

The British debate is much less upbeat, with most commentators from both the right and the left giving little credit to Blair and Brown for what they've achieved so far. True, low pay or child poverty or homelessness have not been eradicated in Britain - but they're considerably less of a problem now than in 1997. Some of that progress reflects specific anti-poverty programmes. Some reflects a longish period of stable growth and falling unemployment. Not all the praise should go to our political leaders - but some, surely?

Comments

[David Wiczer]

I also noted this article when it was published and thought that Krugman failed at the crucial first step: to define his terms (as ought any good economist). He's fallen into the classic pitfall of a policy critic, looking to other side of the Pond for greener grass, but he never sufficiently defines the object of his idolization: what is it that the British do better?
He mentions that the UK spends more on a tax transfer and the minimum wage is higher. But these are not free and one can understand why some British would be unsatisfied that the benefits do not justify the costs. If Krugman is going to write a commentary he has to do a better job at explaining how the UK does it better, but instead he falls into hand wavy arguments about MPs being more "serious" about poverty.
I wrote more on the subject: Be More British

[Arthur Eckart]

David, I agree, an explanation of trade-offs would also help. For example, would small business owners want heavier regulation for more or larger government programs? Or would workers want more income, benefits, or work at the expense of fewer jobs or opportunities?

[travesti sex]

This article is very beautiful, I really get very beyendım text files manually to your health as you travesti very beautiful and I wish you continued success with all respect ..

Thanks for helpful information travesti siteleri you catch up us with your sagol instructional çok explanation.
en iyi travestiler en guzel travesti

travesti
istanbul travestileri
ankara travestileri
izmir travestileri
travestiler
trv
travesti siteleri
travesti video
travesti sex
travesti porno
travesti
travesti
travestiler
travesti
travestiler
sohbet
chat
organik
güncel blog