April 2, 2008

Why Poverty Persists

From Drake Bennet's overview of Charles Karelis's The Persistence of Poverty.

traditional economics just doesn't apply to the poor. When we're poor, Karelis argues, our economic worldview is shaped by deprivation, and we see the world around us not in terms of goods to be consumed but as problems to be alleviated. This is where the bee stings come in: A person with one bee sting is highly motivated to get it treated. But a person with multiple bee stings does not have much incentive to get one sting treated, because the others will still throb. The more of a painful or undesirable thing one has (i.e. the poorer one is) the less likely one is to do anything about any one problem. Poverty is less a matter of having few goods than having lots of problems.

Ezra Klein adds:

Put another way: If you have one unpaid bill, you may freak out until you pay it. If you have 12 unpaid bills, success is so far from reach that you may not even pay the two you can afford -- better to spend that money on some temporary happiness.


The implication here is that poverty-reduction efforts can't rely on small efforts that don't sufficiently change the condition of the poor. They have to be big enough to get them over the hump of their current problems so their incentives are a bit easier to manipulate -- so they're dealing with one or two bee stings that they can see how to salve, rather than twelve that they simply resign themselves to enduring. And maybe that's true. But as Bennett notes, past efforts to do exactly this have had ambiguous results at best. Karelis's book is a brilliant tract, but it relies too much on "introspection" and too little on evidence. Given the vast world of poverty research and the vast universe of past alleviation efforts, if Karelis had even tried to deal with some of that evidence, or at least demonstrated a familiarity with it, he'd be a helluva lot more convincing. That said, the book is really very short, and at least offers some interesting thinking.

Another book to add to my summer reading list, I guess....

November 15, 2007

Simple Questions, Simple Answers

Ross Douthat says the following:

We still have a costly welfare bureaucracy that caters more to minorities than to whites, but it’s no longer a political liability for liberals because the system is no longer the disaster that it became in the Seventies and Eighties

Which prompts John Cole to ask:

Is this accurate?

Answer: No. This is both a lie and a myth.

Although it is true that minorities are over-represented among the poor when calculated as a percentage, in sheer numbers a vast majority of the individuals who collect "welfare" are white.

According to the Census Dept, there were almost 36.5 million Americans living in poverty in 2006. Of that group, 16 million were white, 9 million black, and 9.2 million Hispanic.

Welfare doesn't "cater" to minority groups. If it "caters" to anyone it is to the poor.

And that, of course, assumes that you define "welfare" solely as means-tested programs designed to alleviate poverty. If you do not - a much more appropriate definition is any government program designed to transfer wealth from one group to another - you will be forced to include things like the mortgage interest tax deduction, a welfare program aimed at the middle class that explicitly transfers wealth from those who rent homes to those who own them. Or, as another example, the tax exemption provided to individuals for any contributions made by their employer to cover the cost of their health insurance, an exemption that transfers wealth from those who do not have health insurance to those who do.

Does Roth believe the myth or is he deliberately lying? Given that he's a smart guy, I'd assume the former over the later. And given that this claim comes in an apparent defense of Republican rhetoric on race and welfare, that may actually be worse.

Want more? View Category Archives by month:
April 2008 (1)
November 2007 (1)