Going Without Necessities: Poverty in the Land of the Long White Cloud

pn344

The first thing to go in households struggling for money are trips to the dentist. The second is spending on clothes and shoes. Next, families cut back on meat, perhaps buying cheaper cuts, and less of it. Local trips also go out the window after that, with families' participation in the community falling away.

Wobbly Polls on Business Confidence... and the latest political poll

pn353

Once again we are being tempted to read too much into a poll. The latest Wellington Regional Chambers of Commerce and Business Central survey of business confidence found "Businesses' confidence continues to fluctuate. The positive result from the December survey followed a net negative 12 per cent result from the survey in September... More businesses expect the economy to worsen than expect it to improve in the next 12 months."

Weekend Reading 19-20th January 2019: the Pacific in 2018: the Social Progress Index Explained, Maori Education, Few Aussies Can Speak Aussie Languages

pn238

• The Pacific in 2018: a political round-up by Johnny Blades and Jamie Tahana pn220

• Exciting new statistical tool to measure wellbeing: the Social Progress Index. With a video link to SPI executive Michael Green who explains it all. pn235

• Maori education: "We have got a lot of work to do" by John Boynton, Te Manu Korihi reporter. pn238

• Why do so few Aussies speak an Australian language? The state of Austalia's Te Reo (Whoops! Nga Reo) pn239

Go to Search in the right-side toolbar and type the pn (posting number) you want to read, e,g., Maori education, type pn238

An Old but Still Relevant Note on Statisitics

A NOTE ON STATISTICS Crosbie Walsh 10.3.02 Pn22.

Quantitative material has shortcomings, as Teresia notes, but for the wrong reason. The major shortcomings of statistics published by ADB, Pacific Community, World Bank and the UN the poverty study are:

1. Few measure poverty directly. Most, including the composition HDI and HPI measures, are based on assumed indirect relationships (e.g., life expectancy , health, education)

2. Most Pacific Island nations do not collect/publish statistics on poverty.

3. Almost all statistics are national figures which show averages or simple percentages. Poverty is a condition of inequality. Considerable differences exists within countries. See examples below.

4. In-country statistics, where they exist, relate to crude political divisions such as provinces.

5. Measures of inequality are generally lacking.

6. Much data are of questionable accuracy, and most are dated.

7. Most comparisons between countries based on existing data lack validity due to differences in definition and vastly different geographies.

In My Opinion …

• The absence of appropriate statistics results in governments, NGOs and aid agencies basing their policies on assumptions, which cannot help but be coloured by personal ideologies and agendas.

• Appropriate statistics are essential to define, locate and monitor poverty.

• No serious study of poverty (and no serious programme of poverty alleviation) would proceed without the “best possible” database, and statistical information would be an important part of that database.

• Data should be relevant to the country it concerns. Not all data will be suitable for pan-Pacific comparisons. Data for pan-Pacific comparisons should be very carefully examined (see note 7, above).

• The data for appropriate statistics must be readily obtainable and verifiable. Some could be obtained from existing censuses and government and quasi-government annual reports. Other data may require small, recurring sample surveys of known populations, such as schools and localities.

• One or more “agency” should be commissioned to develop a poverty database and reference library on poverty (e,g, Pacific Community; USP through the Centre for Development Studies).

SOME MEASURES OF INEQUALITY CONCEALED BY NATIONAL AVERAGES

All of the examples are from my own research.

NUKU’ALOFA 1964 (My MA thesis). Urban households differentiated by six types of house showed major differences in: total living space (from 146 to 36 sq.ft.); the number of rooms (>6 to 1); household heads in farming or casual occupations (6 to 43%); and household annual income means for each housing type (from > T$800 to

NIUE 1976 (Niue 1976 Census of Population and Housing, Vol II.)

Niuean officials assumed little income variation between and within villages, and no “poverty” (taken in my analysis to be a 1976 annual household income of under NZ$200). The results from a sample of seven of the 13 villages showed just how wrong they were:

Village	Hakupu	Avatele	Mutalau	Liku	Tamakautoga	Toi	Hikutavake
Mean H’hold income	3366	2590	2197	1904	1876	1384	1341
% < NZ$200	24	33	49	44	53	50	44

FIJI 1976 (My PhD thesis). Differences in income between squatter and urban village settlements in Suva. The results show significant Fijian-Fijian Indian and City-Urban Area differences in the means and, perhaps more important, in the standard deviations from the mean. Contrary to “local knowledge”, the Fijian poor were significantly “better off” than the Indo-Fijian poor. Other data showed the Fijian “kin exchange” system to be more intact than the Indo-Fijian.

Fijian 1976 $	Fijian City Villagers	Fijian informal housing in Urban Area	Fijian City Renters in Squatter Areas	Indo-Fijian City Squatters	Indo-Fijian informal housing in Urban Area
Mean	63.3	50.9	48.4	39.4	38.1
Standard deviation	36.9	34.1	26.6	21.6	21.2
Standard Error	3.5	5.8	5.3	2.1	2.5
Rank:Best-worst	1	2	3	4	5

FIJI 1996 (My as yet unpublished monograph on housing for the Fiji Bureau of Statistics which was based on the 1996 census). Note: the ranges below concern 15 provinces, and 29 towns and urban areas.

• Safe Water

The ABD Fiji Discussion Paper (March 2001) stated 77% had “access to safe water”. No source was given for this figure. The 1996 Fiji Census show 60% had access to metered (piped) water. The percentage ranged from rural 31% (and provinces from one to 100 percent); urban 93% ranging from 61 to 100%).

• Cooking on Open Fire. Fiji 42.8%; provincial range 8 to 87%; urban range 2 to 62%.

• Wick lamps main source of lighting. Fiji 29%; provincial range 12 to 80%: urban range 2 to 62%.

• Flush toilets. Fiji 46%; provincial range 7 to 76%; urban range 20 to 95 %.

• “Inferior” housing (makeshift, old wood, old tin, etc.) Fiji 25; Provincial range 8 to 43%;

Urban range 4 to 41%.

I trust these figures demonstrate the importance of appropriate statistics in studies of poverty.

A comprehensive literature search would reveal far more information of this type by other researchers.

ACW

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics?

Pn11. Note from Croz:  I've had a tumultuous three months which included moving house.  During this time the blog has been much neglected.  My re-think on the future of the blog is that I will publish once a week, usually between Friday and Monday, with articles, comments and analyses focusing on major issues in the hope that this focus on aspects of the "bigger picture" will inform and promote thoughtful robust responses from readers.

Starting today....
with Fr Barr's article which questions official statistics showing a decline in poverty.

My guess is that Fiji, along with other liberal-driven economies,  will also have experienced a widening gap between rich and poor, which adds to the societal costs of poverty.

What do you think of:

1. The official statistics and Fr Barr's argument?
2. Government actions and policy? Have they helped or worsened the situation?  What can it do differently? 
3. What are the policies of the parliamentary opposition on poverty, wages and related issues?

"Lies, damned lies and statistics." This was the phrase used by Benjamin Disraeli when he cautioned against the persuasive power of numbers that do not necessarily tally with reality. Pn11

     

         Has Poverty in Fiji Really Declined?

                                                            Fr Kevin Barr

  

It was interesting to read in The Fiji Times (April 22^nd) the announcement of Kelera Nokelevu from the Bureau of Statistics that the incidence of poverty in Fiji has decreased enormously – from 35% in the 2003-4 Housing Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) to 31% in the 2008-9 HIES to 28.1% in the 2013-14 HIES.

This would be wonderful if it were true but, as I pointed out in a previous article, because the World Bank analysed the data from the 2013-14 HIES, we need to serious question the credibility of the results.  They will find what they want to find because they and the IMF have been persuading our government to follow their neo-liberal, free market economic policies which have recently been criticised for creating greater poverty and inequality all around the world.

The credibility of the recent results would need to be seriously questioned in view of the following facts. If poverty stood at 31% in the 2008-9 HIES then it surely must have worsened because:

·       The devaluation of the Fiji dollar by 20% in April 2009 meant (according to the Bureau of Statistics) that the Consumer Price Index for food increased by 38% and for building materials by 29%;

·       In January 2011 VAT was increased by 2.5% and, as everyone knows, VAT is a regressive tax;

·       Electricity increased by 30% and water costs also increased;

·       Wages during this period did not increase significantly so the high increase in the cost of living had serious repercussions for the 60% of those in full-time employment whose wages were already below the poverty line;

·       There have also been other indicators which are related to an increase in poverty:

-        Dramatic increase in domestic violence;

-        Increase in crime rates especially involving robbery;

-        Dramatic increase in the numbers of people in squatter settlements because decent affordable housing was not available;

-        Increase in child labour.

For many years the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have been pushing the policies of Neo-Liberal Free-Market Capitalism which underpins globalisation and have caused increasing poverty and inequality around the world. Pascal Lamy (former Director of the WTO) said recently: “Our world is sick and the cause of the sickness is the neo-liberal policies we have been following.”  Christine Lagarde (Director of the IMF) confessed at Davos last year that IMF policies have probably increased inequality around the world.

Over the years Fiji (like many other countries) has been following (advised/or forced to follow) the policy directives of the World Bank, the IMF, and the ADB despite the fact that these policies have created greater poverty and inequality in other countries (as so many scholars and economists have pointed out).  The findings of the Melzer Commission of the US Congress (2000) are still worth repeating:

“ Neither the World Bank nor the regional banks are pursuing the

set of activities that could best help the world move rapidly toward

a world without poverty or even the lesser, but more fully

achievable goal of raising living standards and the quality of life,

particularly in the poorest nations of the world.”

Also Oxfam based Duncan Green (2008: 296ff) states:

            “For much of the last 25 years the IMF and the World Bank have

            been pursuing nothing less than a radical overhaul of the way that

            developing countries run their economies.  That role has been

            controversial and, in many eyes, profoundly destructive ..... “

The credibility of the analysis of our Housing Income and Expenditure data by the World Bank must be seriously questioned. As I remarked some time ago, it is like the United States bringing in the Mafia to analyse the crime statistics in the US.  They will find what they want to find.

The separation of poverty statistics for urban and rural areas can be useful but what is missing is any recognition of the depth of poverty in these regions.  Usually poverty is deeper in urban areas than in rural areas.

Also what about all those (35%?) who are living just above the poverty line and the extent of inequality?

As Mr Lal remarked at the recent Dialogue Fiji Conference, even if we accept that 28.1% of Fiji’s population are living in poverty, this is still a matter of grave concern and quite unacceptable in view of the much taunted levels of increased economic growth.  The economy of a country must benefit all its people – not just the few.

Not only do we need an independent analysis of data from the Bureau of Statistics, we need something of that “economic revolution” which Bernie Sanders is promoting in the US which is attracting the attention of so many people – especially the youth. This “revolution” aims to “pull down the mighty from their thrones and lift up the lowly” (to use biblical terminology) so that we have a more just, compassionate and inclusive society.