Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Idea alert

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, January 5, 2011 11:44am - 61 Comments

Further to the guaranteed income discussion, there is what Brazil has done to great success.

The program, called Bolsa Familia (Family Grant) in Brazil, goes by different names in different places. In Mexico, where it first began on a national scale and has been equally successful at reducing poverty, it is Oportunidades. The generic term for the program is conditional cash transfers.  The idea is to give regular payments to poor families, in the form of cash or electronic transfers into their bank accounts, if they meet certain requirements.  The requirements vary, but many countries employ those used by Mexico: families must keep their children in school and go for regular medical checkups, and mom must attend workshops on subjects like nutrition or disease prevention.  The payments almost always go to women, as they are the most likely to spend the money on their families.  The elegant idea behind conditional cash transfers is to combat poverty today while breaking the cycle of poverty for tomorrow.

Though perhaps not comparable to Brazil, many have argued that Canada has its own inequality problem.

Tags: , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • s_c_f

    Since when do we look to Mexico and Brazil for ideas about reducing poverty? Is this some kind of joke?

    • Amateur Hour

      If their poverty levels are falling and ours our rising (relatively, that is), then we might learn something. We need not copy them to discover new approaches.

      • s_c_f

        Exactly. Their poverty levels have, and always will be, exponentially higher than ours. And in Mexico, their poverty levels are rising much faster than in Canada (if ours are rising at all).

        In Brazil (and increasingly Mexico these days as well), their policies to combat poverty have always been, to put it mildly, an absolute unmitigated disaster.

        If you want to learn what not to do, then look at Brazil and Mexico. If you want to learn what to do, look at the countries with low levels of poverty, such as Canada.

    • Thwim

      Since when is being arrogant about our own position a useful attitude to take?

      • Jan

        And we wonder why we didn't get that UN vote…

      • s_c_f

        Since when was copying failure a useful attitude to take?

        • Jan

          But that's Harper's policy re criminal justice.

          • s_c_f

            What on earth does that comment have to do with anything? I'm talking about Wherry's post. If you want to talk about Harper's crime policies, there's plenty of other places to do so.

        • Thwim

          I believe the saying is that wise men learn from other's mistakes, fools from their own.

          Of course, the saying doesn't take into account those who simply choose not to learn.

    • Emily

      Because good minds and ideas exist everywhere?

      • s_c_f

        Tell that to the millions of residents of the Brazilian favelas, who have no power, no plumbing, nothing. Tell that to the millions of people in Mexico becoming poorer every year.

        You tell them that Canada needs to be looking at their countries' policies, and watch as they laugh at you as some kind of crackpot.

        • MostlyCivil

          We can't learn anything from them at all? They've had no success in any program we might want to look at?

          Really?

          • s_c_f

            Your paraphrasing is absurd.

            I'd be happy for Canada to emulate the Brazilian soccer program.

          • Jan

            I wish Canada could emulate their energy independence. Or their success with treating Aids.

          • s_c_f

            Energy independence? Treating AIDs? Is this satire or something?

            Canada produces more energy per capita than either country (ever heard of the oil sands, hibernia, hydro quebec, etc). The only reason those countries have energy independence is because many of their residents have no electricity, heating, cars or appliances.

            In other words, if you admire their energy independence, you are saying you admire their poverty.

            As for AIDS, I think just about any sufferer of AIDS would prefer to be living in Canada.

          • s_c_f

            Wherry's not talking about these programs because Mexico and Brazil have any record of success in anti-poverty programs (in fact they have a record of complete failure).

            He's talking about them because they align with his socialist ideology.

          • Thwim

            You may want to try reading the links. They have had failures in the past. This current method seems to be succeeding.

            Again, it's that whole fallacy of assuming that what happened yesterday must therefore happen again today

          • s_c_f

            Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

            This current method seems to be succeeding.

            Please provide a shred of evidence for that statement without disregarding the fact that Brazil has spent the last 10 years liberalizing their markets.

          • Thwim

            Again. Read the linked articles. It's not that hard. They're linked, for goodness sakes, and none of the words are too big.

          • s_c_f

            Why do you comment if you don't want to say anything? The article's evidence is flimsy and indirect. It provides no direct link whatsoever. It's ideological and wrong.

            For instance, one of the few attempts at evidence is a link between these programs and school enrollment, without making any further attempt to verify any associated acquisition of skills, jobs, or reduction in poverty. Therefore, it fails to make any link whatsoever to poverty reduction.

            It is trivial to associate any poverty reduction in those countries with the more obvious suspects.

          • Thwim

            So you're suggesting that they *have* made changes we should learn from then? Just not the ones this article points out?

            I guess that arrogance only applies when it's changes that you personally don't think highly of.

          • s_c_f

            Well, they have made changes, although not necessarily things we should learn from, they are things that we knew already, namely that liberalizing markets, opening up the private sector, and other free-market innovations (which Canada has benefited from for decades or centirues already) are the key to reducing poverty, as they always have been, particularly since the industrial revolution. These are the obvious suspects. Lula did a good job of moving Brazil in the right direction. This is especially true of Brazil. In Mexico, this has also occurred to a lesser extent.

            These changes are not at all related to the programs described in the article.

  • http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

    I'm not sure I get how this is different from the welfare programs in Canada, anyone care to help me with that?

    SCF- I would counter your own contrariness with two thoughts: as a social democracy, it is the generally accepted philosophy of the country that we act out of mercy for the poorest, to ensure some minimal standard of living is available to even the most helpless. The argument in Canada in general is HOW this is best done, and HOW MUCH should be forcibly collected from others for this purpose. The argument that you make could be applied not just against this program, but against Canada's governing philosophy in general. Which you are free to do, but I don't see why this particular program raises your hackles compared to the multitude of social programs we already have in Canada. Which brings us to the second point, which is that we spend a great amount of resources on the poorest; if there are programs which wold effectivley break the cycle of poverty for individuals and families, then such programs should be viewed as investments which will save money in the long term (analogous to spending more on front line health care to save money on specialists…)

    • Emily

      We don't demand that the recipients get an education or job training so that they can then qualify for a job, and get out of that cycle of poverty.

      • brooster2

        Interestingly, the Harris government in Ontario made receipt of social assistance for all those not deemed permanently disabled (e.g., single parents of pre-school children) conditional on pursuit of training or employment. From the point of view of recipients, it was often a disaster: no suitable local training opportunities, no meaningful employment, unsuitable, unavailable or unaffordable childcare. Many recipients were placed in demeaning make-work situations. When municipalities tried to put them into public service activities (e.g., picking up garbage in parks), public sector unions raised hell about encroachment into public sector jobs, exploiting the poor, etc.

        But it all made good press for Harris' tough-on-welfare image.

        • Emily

          Yes, workfare stresses getting a job….which you can't get if you have no education and training.

          Con programs rarely offer any follow-up though

          The current McGuinty re-training program for people laid off and so on is working well though…thousands signed up for it, and the training is for real jobs not make-work.

    • Thwim

      Good question. From looking at the links in the OP, it seems to tie the behavior more into things such as keeping you and your kids healthy and keeping your kids in school, rather than our system which ties it into you actively trying to get off the system. Other than that though,I'm not seeing a lot of difference.

    • s_c_f

      Canada was similar to those countries, perhaps in the mid 1800s. And Canada did not turn to such policies to raise our standard of living. In fact, countries that do turn to policies of "state-sanctioned behaviour" have not tended to fare so well. So I don't think this qualifies as an "idea".

      It's pretty easy to see how these programs differ from Canadian social programs. There's a HUGE difference. In Canada, you qualify for welfare if you're poor, PERIOD. You don't have to attend re-education camps and parenting classes to qualify for a welfare cheque. In other words, Canada is a free country, and does not confiscate taxes in order to control the population.

      • MostlyCivil

        "You don't have to attend re-education camps and parenting classes to qualify for a welfare cheque"

        It's clear you've not had to apply for social assistance in the last decade or so.

        Here's some reading. I suggest you take a break between sections 10 and 11.
        Ontario Works Policy Directives http://www.accesson.ca/en/mcss/programs/social/di…

        • s_c_f

          If you are in temporary financial need, Ontario Works can:

          * provide you with money, and
          * help you find a job.

          To be eligible to receive help from Ontario Works, you must:

          * live in Ontario
          * need money right away to help pay for food and housing costs, and
          * be willing to take part in activities that will help you find a job.

          Perhaps you could elaborate on how this is somehow a counter-example. Notice the absence of telling people what to eat, how to spend their money and how to live their lives.

          Granted, I'll concede the point that programs like this are heading down that slippery slope in that awful direction.

  • Leo

    This would never work in Canada as there would be "Charter" issues as "how dare you expect me to do anything – just give me the money".

    • http://twitter.com/bgilliard bgilliard

      Section 15 of the Charter actually lets the government discriminate if it is 'positive' discrimination.

      • Leo

        Thanks for that – so why isn't it used?

        • TimesArrow

          Because wefare is a provincial responsibility…oh damn…i broke the rule. Conservatives only use that arguement in a negative sense:)

          • Leo

            Lol!!! Actually much of it probably stems from the costs to monitor each case to see if the rules were being followed.

          • TimesArrow

            When i was a teenager in the UK i thought they had a sensible approach. You went to your job center, got an interview with your jobs councillor, [ a proxy dad to nag you really] he looked at whatever qualifications you had and told you here's three choices, you had better go to one of the interviews or there would be hell to pay – and he meant it. That would be regarded as dictatorial today i suppose…and it was a much different world…anyone remember Charlie Drake at all…i doubt it.
            Still, that was the rosy picture, my memory of signing on was approaching a reinforced security window to claim some cash from a miserable, overworked, harassed, scared looking clerk in a room that resembled a set from Kafka…things are definitely better in lots of ways, that's for sure.

          • http://www.twitter.com/neiljedmondson Neil Edmondson

            Has the left ever come up with an idea that didn't involve more taxing and spending?

            "The payments almost always go to women, as they are the most likely to spend the money on their families. "

            Oh great. Men are too busy pouring beer on their cereal I guess, at least in the minds of your average social engineer. Here's some critical analysis: The Bolsa Família Program is far from being universally accepted by the Brazilian society. Among the various criticisms it receives, one of the most recurrent is the assertion that it could discourage the search for employment, encouraging laziness of people. Under this premise, many people would give up trying to find a job, content, instead, to live on the Bolsa Família program, called the cesta esmola ("alms-basket") by many Brazilians.[15] The Catholic Church, through its powerful National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB), maintains[16][17] that "the program is addictive" and leads its beneficiaries to an "accommodation". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia#C…

          • Jan

            You can always count on the Catholic Bishops for the Marie Antoinette response.

          • TimesArrow

            I have heard Brazilians [ at least the better off] are notorious for their lack of charity and empathy when considering those[ when the can be bothered] who are poor, for whatever reason. And the RC Church is a well known liberal entity, wouldn't you say?

  • madeyoulook

    These sound like phenomenally successful, widely distributed, modest programs that don't sound at all like guaranteed income. They sound like rewards for good state-sanctioned behaviour.

    Learn how to read, here is how you should feed your kid, keep your kids' vaccines current, keep them in school, and here's your cash. Makes sense. In Brazil and Mexico.

    Our existing welfare programs guarantee an income and a standard of living far more luxurious than anything that report describes for those two countries. And our access to health care and education is pretty evenly distributed, the former at debatable levels of user-friendliness.

    There: inequality means babies die. Here: inequality means one has to choose between certain luxuries because we can't have them all (basic vs. enhanced cable, high-speed internet, a cellphone, a subsidized bus pass, a car). But the running water and the sewage treatment and the home heating and the electricity are pretty much standard features of life in Canada.

    What was the "idea" for which we needed the alert?

    • TimesArrow

      As Leo states below wefare rates are hardly luxurious here – could you get by on $ 500/mnth?[ hell that was the rate in BC in the 1980s] However, i pretty much agree with you, it must be conditional, young single guys in particular have to get the message: get a job, any job, sponging off the state is no different than sponging off mum and dad.[ well it is really, mum and dad have even less choice in the matter] Shame them to a better life – now let's talk about pathetic minimum wage rates…BC being the worse offender.

      • Leo

        Had a first hand experience in 1986 for six months after the LT Disability ran out. $335.00/month in Vancouver and you attended full day job-re-entry classes. Got lucky by renting an extra room from a single mom for $180.00/mo. Dark days, never to be re-visited again, but it sure taught me how to budget :-)

        • TimesArrow

          Not sure i learned anything…probably explains why i'm still a liberal at my time of life :)

          You're right though, the rate was about 3-400/mnth, not at its present level…except it is i'm sure when you factor in inflation.

  • Leo

    Excellent points. Lived in Mexico for a year back in the '90's. Poor here vs poor there – night and day. Average $550-585.00 monthly welfare in Canada would be for a year, family of four in Mexico.

    • Thwim

      Yeah, and if we had the same prices as Mexico, you might have a point. As it is, however…

  • hollinm

    I know that previous governments had a desire to eliminate child poverty but for whatever the reason child poverty has gone up.
    I am torn as to whether this kind of payment is the answer to the problem. If we are going to do this kind of wealth redistribution then all social welfare programs would have to be reviewed and of course we would need to try to eliminate those that want to game the system.

    • sourstud

      Review welfare programs?!?!?!?!? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR GODDAMN MIND?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!

      No, they would just tack this on top of the existing programs. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that any government in this country would ever touch that with a ten foot poll, unfortunately.

    • Mike T.

      You'll be pleased to learn that welfare fraud is discouraged and actively investigated and punished – sometimes overzealously!

    • TimesArrow

      Good, let's set an example by rolling up corperate welfare in all its guises…tax subs to oil sands companies anyone?

  • s_c_f

    Perhaps Wherry could explain what constitutes the "problem" when he refers to Canada's "inequality problem".

    Incomes are unequal. The sky is blue. The former is no more a problem than the latter.

    • John.K

      Perhaps if you read the linked item….

    • MostlyCivil

      Unless you're the latter. In which case, "the sky is blue" is something you might not be able to confirm first hand, as you're on a bus before it rises, and on a bus home after it sets.

  • s_c_f

    Sounds like the next best thing to communism to me. The state takes money from everyone, then the state pays the money back to people who do what the state tells them to do.

    Might as well put people in cages, feeding and educating them directly.

    And this is what passes for an "idea"? Maybe for a dictator it's an idea.

    And people wonder why Mexico is descending into chaos.

  • Emily

    That's because you have no idea of what communism is, and are also unaware of the drug lords in Mexico servicing the American market through capitalism

  • Amateur Hour

    "The state takes money from everyone, then the state pays the money back to people who do what the state tells them to do."

    That's called tax policy. Harper likes it, too. That's why his government tells people to put their kids in hockey so the parents can get a tax credit. Or to reno their homes. Or to buy tools for their trade.

    But the thrust of the issue in the linked articles is about the negative effects of widening income gaps. Despite the stagnation of earnings and increases in the debt burden for the working and middle classes, they bear the brunt of most taxation. Conversely, the extremely wealthy have not only see their share of wealth skyrocket, they have also had their taxes cut by staggering amounts. And they want more tax cuts, too.

  • Andrew (not PorC)

    I think you're missing the part where the family spends the money they get in any way they please at market rates.

  • s_c_f

    Try actually providing facts or evidence (as opposed to insults) and then I'll show you how you're wrong.

  • Thwim

    Fact: When I was receiving social services, I was required to go to a resume interview preparation course which ran for 3 days in order to continue to receive benefits. Failure to participate would result in the cessation of my benefit. There were about 8 people in my "class"

    Fact: Anybody who uses social services in Alberta needs to indicate that if they have been available for work, they have indeed been looking for work. Often they are required to bring in signed papers from the potential employers indicating that they did indeed apply for work at the company.

    I await your demonstration.

  • s_c_f

    It's pretty easy to show you how you're wrong, I don't even have to write another comment. Just read this one:
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/05/idea-alert-41/…

    Notice the absence of telling people what to eat, how to spend their money and how to live their lives.

  • Thwim

    I think you must have forgotten what we were talking about. We'll chalk it up to the drink.

    At any rate, to refresh your obviously perfunctory memory, "In Canada, you qualify for welfare if you're poor, PERIOD. You don't have to attend re-education camps and parenting classes to qualify for a welfare cheque."

    I actually had to attend a "re-education camp" such as it was, to "re-educate" me on how to write a resume. (Incidentally, the class itself was a load of crap. Completely basic information, and when I submitted my resume for their help, it was returned with merely two suggestions, one of which was to change the spelling of one of my words from the Canadian version to the Americanized spelling, and the other was to add page numbers — it was a 2 page resume)

  • s_c_f

    Well, the resume course is certainly something that is heading in that direction. So it is going down the slippery slope, unfortunately. But it's a far cry from trying to change peoples' eating and spending habits. However, that's where socialism always leads. So I stand by my rebuttal that Canada is nowhere near where those countries have gone.

    Did you enjoy wasting your time because they forced you to do so to get the money back from the EI that you paid into it? Did you enjoy your re-education camp? Was it enlightening for you to have your government paying people to teach you things that you already knew, to waste your time sitting in that classroom, and to waste your tax money with this class? Would you like them to start teaching you proper dietary habits next time? If so, keep voting Liberal.

Previous

Next

From Macleans