Don Robotham, Contributor
Agatha Moodie (left), a 95-year-old resident of Benbow Street, is assisted down the steps of the Admiral Town Police Station by a
fellow resident. Ms. Moodie is among many citizens who have been pushed further below the poverty line after being forced to flee their home because of gun violence.- RUDOLPH BROWN/CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHER
THE PUBLICATION of the results of the 2002 and 2003 Survey of Living Conditions (SLC) by the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) is greatly to be welcomed. Jamaica has the distinction among developing countries to have published a continuous series of poverty data based on internationally accepted definitions since 1989. This is largely due to the pioneering work of the late Dr. Derek Gordon and his
colleague Dr. Patricia Anderson of the Department of Sociology at University of the West
Indies two of the most
outstanding researchers that the Caribbean has ever produced.
The SLC is a major treasure trove of information on our society but it is not so easy for the layperson to interpret the data.
To better understand the data we should remember three things. First, the SLC uses expenditure and consumption levels, not income, to measure poverty. It therefore tends to capture very well the effects of the informal and illegal economy. Second, the data presented are very broad-brush. They cannot be directly translated into upper class, middle class and working class without further complex analysis. This is because the SLC breaks up national expenditure into quintiles. So that the top group is really the top 20 per cent of the population in terms of expenditure a very big tent which hides the differences between the topmost 5 per cent and the rest.
The third point follows from the second. The SLC measures growth or declines in poverty. It does not directly capture, without further analysis, growth or declines in inequality. Although the 2003 SLC may show some decline in poverty at the bottom of the society, it does not easily capture the enormous increase in wealth in the top five per cent in recent years. This is what was reflected in the sceptical response of some to the recent anti-crime initiatives of the
private sector. There is an underlying disgruntlement from the middle class downward in the society at the gap which has opened up between the very top and the rest. This is undermining efforts to forge the social unity needed to fight organised crime.
POVERTY TREND UP
Although there is a dip in poverty from 19.7 per cent in 2002 to 19.1 per cent in 2003, this is hardly significant. It would be good if there is really a new trend downwards in poverty but it is too early to tell. The larger point is that the general trend in poverty is up from the decline to 15.9 per cent in 1998. The first point to note here is that the data are for 2002 and 2003l, and not 2004. We have to wait until next year for the results of the most recent survey. This compounds the problem of the average citizen developing a commonsense understanding of the data.
The second point to note is that the 2002 figure puts poverty levels back to where they were in 1997 when the level below the poverty line was 19.9 per cent. In other words, if one looks at the data from 2000-2002, the trend towards poverty reduction in Jamaica has clearly been reversed. Between 1991 and 1998, poverty levels declined from a high of 44.6 per cent to a low of 15.9 per cent. Many people find this 'Jamaican Paradox' hard to believe but, if one takes into account the fall in inflation during those years and the particular dynamics of poverty increase and decrease, it is fully credible. What happened was this: in 1991 when the PNP came to power, the poverty level was 30.5 per cent. In the 80 per cent inflation of 1991, poverty jumped to the 44.6 per cent level. It then dropped steadily from this level as inflation fell.
HARD-CORE POOR
Analyses done by Professor Ashu Handa of the University of North Carolina show that this reduction was not due to the reduction in poverty at the base of the society. What happened was that the groups just above the poverty line in 1989 were the ones who fell down below by 1991. And these very same groups were the ones who recovered their positions by 1998. In other words, in social terms, we are talking about
members of the lower middle class here, many of whom moved into various forms of hustling legal and illegal during those famine years.
From this follows a most important conclusion: the
dramatic movements in and out of poverty and back between 1989 and 2003 have not
significantly affected the core mass of poor in the society. It has been a process affecting those hovering on the brink of poverty, just above or just below the line. In other words, our progress on poverty reduction among the hard-core poor, despite the impressive looking statistics, has been basically zero! THE 2003 SLC has some optimistic remarks suggesting that a new round of poverty reduction is underway. But too much is being made of a drop from 19.7% to 19.1%.
The hard-core poor is essentially, but not exclusively rural. The two certain predictors of poverty in Jamaica is if you are young (20-29) and a small farmer. If you fall into both these categories, it is practically certain that you will fall below the poverty line. This is why parishes such as St. Ann and St. Mary which have large numbers of young small farmers show up so badly. Small farmers are poor because food prices are too low to give them a significant income. That is the reality which is unlikely to change soon, no matter which 'P' you put in power.
But there is an even more alarming point in the data: there is definitely a trend for poverty levels to rise among young people in the towns as well. This is new, and shows how serious our urban social situation is. The young urban poor include those with high school education. The data shows that improved educational levels do not significantly reduce poverty levels among urban youth.
Crime and the economy
Given this reality, we should not be surprised by the steady rural-urban migration not only to Kingston, Spanish Town and Montego Bay but also to parish capitals and rural townships. We should also not be surprised that violent crimes and criminal gangs are spreading to the rural areas as I predicted they would from 1999. Nor should we imagine that social programmes, such as an expanded Lift Up Jamaica or food stamp or school-feeding programmes or more social and economic support funds for politicians can change this fundamental reality. Which does not mean we do not need substantially bigger social programmes, especially for our young people. In fact, these are more urgent than ever. But we must be very clear what such programmes can and cannot achieve. We must not build up illusions here or we will land in hot water.
Nowhere in the history of any country in the world have social programmes eliminated poverty. Social programmes can cushion poverty but never make substantial inroads into it. The purpose of the social programmes is different. It is to ease the pressure on particularly vulnerable groups such as the youth, and to strengthen social unity and solidarity. For we should be clear on one thing: only economic development can significantly reduce poverty in Jamaica as in any country.
This is why the prospect of significant increased investment into the tourist and other sectors of our economy is so vital. This is literally our only hope. The problem however is that this investment, while likely to lead to growth, is not likely to generate substantial employment and poverty reduction. For that to happen, we would need to triple this level of investment and to drastically improve our education and training systems. We also need much more careful study and analysis of our labour market ? especially of the bottlenecks which are present in the expansion of male employment in the personal services sector ? plumbers, electricians and so forth. We must get to the bottom of the mystery of the lack of significant job growth for skilled males, given the expansion of transportation and construction. But all this in turn requires lower violent crime rates and greater social peace than we have now.
Thus winning the battle against organised crime is really the crux of the matter. The fact that increased poverty is the fundamental factor feeding crime understandably leads some to argue that the solution to crime is poverty reduction. The problem with that argument is that not all the 'Lift Up Jamaicas' in the world can significantly reduce poverty. Only increased investment can achieve this. We won't get the investment in sufficient quantity which we need to generate jobs and to reduce poverty, if we do not defeat organised crime. Thus a successful fight against organised crime is the precondition for every single thing in Jamaica today.
