Measuring success

One of the constants of New Zealand policy debate is the local right's uncritical adoption of the US as the model to pursue. According to them, the key to wealth is lower taxes and the elimination of social services. However, such policies come at a cost: according to a recent report from UNICEF, the US has the worst child-poverty rate of any developed nation, second only to Mexico. Who has the best? Predictably,

[t]op of the table are Denmark and Finland, where child poverty levels are less than 3%, while Norway and Sweden follow close behind.

And the reason is pretty clear:

"Higher government spending on family and social benefits is very clearly associated with a lower level of child poverty," said Mr O'Brien.

He said market forces could not on their own lift children out of poverty and urged direct intervention through greater government spending.

By comparison, New Zealand ranks as fourth-worst, something which can be laid directly at the foot of our obsession with market forces in the 80's and 90's. And since the report's data was gathered, the government has massively increased social spending through the Working for Families programme, which is expected to reduce child poverty by two-thirds within a decade.

The right will no doubt point out that this is a comparison of relative, rather than absolute poverty. But while there is no question that the average poor child in the US is better off than one in Mexico, the issue cannot be dismissed as easily as that. The US, like other western nations, is a nominal meritocracy, where people can rise (or fall) according to their talents. But child poverty undermines this, by preventing some from accessing the opportunity meritocracy requires to function. If society is seen as a race, then the children of the poor are handicapped even before it begins, through no fault of their own. Strong measures to eliminate child poverty would therefore seem justified on meritocratic grounds alone.