« | Home | »

Excuses for Inequality

Tags: |

The National Foundation for Educational Research, analysing the data in a Tellus Survey carried out in autumn 2009, last month drew some conclusions about what makes it more or less likely that a child will be happy – or say that she’s happy, which isn’t quite the same thing. The government decided in June to stop running the national survey (it’s an unnecessary drain on local authorities’ resources, they say), but the NFER analysis may have made them think twice about that, as one of the apparent findings is that poverty does not affect happiness.

The NFER, admitting that this is surprising, explains that no significant association was found between poverty and happiness once other influences had been taken into account. It doesn’t say, however, if it considered the association between poverty and those other influences – which include worrying about parents, worrying about money, being a victim of crime, and whether or not the family sits down to eat a meal together.

It looks as if policy-making may increasingly be justified by this sort of analysis. David Cameron has asked the Office of National Statistics to find a new way to measure ‘wellbeing’ in Britain – so that we measure progress not by ‘how well the economy is doing’ (or how many children are living in poverty) but by how happy we are (or say we are). He can then justify making the poorest families even poorer. The government may be scrapping the education maintenance allowance, child trust funds and the health in pregnancy grant; freezing child benefit (for those that still receive it); changing tax credits (removing some elements, cutting or freezing others);cutting housing benefit; and making it harder to get emergency grants for families in crisis – but let’s not worry about any of that because happiness doesn’t result from living above the poverty line anyway.

Child Poverty Action Group has calculated that a baby born to a low-income family after April 2011 will be around £1500 worse off compared to a sibling born in April 2010, and that a couple with children, one working 20 hours a week on minimum wage and the other on contributory employment and support allowance, could lose £168.31 a week. And those families won’t be less happy? We’ll see about that.

Comments on “Excuses for Inequality”

  1. Oliver Rivers says:

    As you imply, the survey seems more notable for what it didn’t look at. In particular, I’d want to check whether there wasn’t a correlation between, say, sitting down to eat together, or being able to talk to parents, and family income level.

    Other aspects of the survey design raise concerns. The question “I feel happy about life at the moment” is open to more than one interpretation by survey participants–how many interpreted that to mean “right now”, how many as “in general”?

    The question of the relationship between happiness and poverty was only addressed by asking the children whether or not they were eligible for free school meals. That’s a purely binary measure; it wouldn’t capture, for example, whether happiness increases with income level.

    To be able to say with confidence that there is no correlation there you’d want to be able to show no increase in the probability of saying “yes, I’m happy” as income goes up. There’s nothing here that enables the researches to say that, so the claim that there is no correlation between income and happiness is spurious.

    There’s also an implicit assumptions that the children both knew whether or not they’re eligible, and gave truthful answers to the question. I’d be curious to know whether any tests were done on either of those points.

    I’d mark this down as “raises more questions than it answers.” As a piece of field research it seems pretty shoddy, frankly.

  2. Geoff Roberts says:

    Who defined ‘happiness’? Seems to be pretty ephemeral if you look at your life ‘right now’ – if that’s the add-on, as opposed to ‘in general’ or ‘always’. As Ms Jones says, it seems as if the government is looking for ways to justify more cuts and more austerity for the poor, while they dream up new ways to say ‘poor but happy’ – how about ‘financially challenged but emotionally up there.’?

  3. blue bayou says:

    Surely the key is whether you can be “happy” while in poverty having once known wealth.

    Diddy Dave and his cohorts can now be content that those who have only known poverty can be left there in a state of “blissful ignorance”.

    What I fear is the follow-up research demonstrating that real “unhappiness” comes from a reduction in circumstances from a level of relative wealth.

    This would prove that any serious attempt at redistributing income or “improving” the condition of the “poor” (above the minimum to level to ensure male conscription into the armed forces can be successfully achieved when required), is against the greater good as it would spread “unhappiness” by taking much needed resource from the better off as they struggle to remain “happy”.

    Indeed the thrust of policy would need to be directed at keeping those who require wealth in order to remain “happy” in that position, particularly in the event of inflation corroding their assets.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement