Leaders avoid setting anti-poverty targets they cannot meet

POVERTY is something we cannot afford, according to the European Commissioner with the not very sexy portfolio of employment, social affairs and inclusion.

The usual arguments for reducing poverty are social ones, but the Commissioner, Laszlo Andor, is an economist who has worked for organisations from trade unions to the World Bank and uses a different context.

The 43-year-old Hungarian, who has spent much time in academia, and has come through American and British universities, says poverty is very expensive for a country, and insists reducing it is not about more spending or creating deficits.

While social affairs, including poverty, is not a power member states have given to the EU, Andor points out that a problem in one EU country can have serious affects for another.

He warns of social instability and says that like problems in the world of finance, social problems can spread across borders too.

EU leaders missed this point, or were not interested in it, when they sat around their summit table to discuss the economic state of the union last Thursday and Friday.

While the emphasis was on Greece and whether the eurozone could take a step towards creating a safety net for the currency, the five-year growth strategy for the union was hidden in the shadows.

Eventually Europe 2020, which the 27 EU leaders had asked for, was discussed with the main emphasis on the five headline goals of climate change targets; employment creation; R&D; poverty reduction and improving education.

Many countries don’t like being set targets. For Ireland it goes against the political grain. You only set out what you know you can achieve. It doesn’t make for any great ambition but rather hones the skills of creating perception.

So the Taoiseach had a reference to the importance of agriculture inserted.

It did not mean that Ireland will develop any new, innovative plan to develop the potential of agriculture.

But it is an area Ireland should score well on, given the advantages nature has given the country over many others.

In research and development Ireland does not really like the 3% spending target. They say it’s more important to measure the outcome – what such spending produces in real terms. Many would agree with them. After all when Japan was spending much more on R & D than Europe, its growth was less.

This argument was well accepted by the prime ministers of the member states and the upshot was that the commission agreed to find a way to measure outcomes – what you actually get for your input.

But this principle is in danger of being ignored when it comes to employment and anti-poverty targets.

Wealth and job creation is a target but its outcome – which must include taking people out of poverty – needs to be measured too.

Ireland’s figures prove this, with 40% of all households in poverty headed by a person who has a job.

Add to this the recent cut to social welfare rates in the budget by more than the fall in the cost of living – a move predicted by Social Justice Ireland to reverse the drop in poverty levels achieved over the past few years.

But instead of agreeing to cut the number at risk of poverty by 25% by 2020, Ireland and several other countries said they wanted a new way to measure poverty, which they will consider at their next summit in June.

The EU and the UN have for years measured ‘at risk of poverty’ as having a disposable income of less than 60% of the middle range of income of others in your country.

The alternative system, poverty groups warn, can mask the reality, which may be what some politicians would prefer.