ADAM SMITH argued in “The Wealth of Nations” that, whereas the ancient Greeks and Romans lived comfortably without linen shirts, in 18th-century Europe “a creditable day-labourer” would be ashamed to appear in public without one. That would denote a “disgraceful degree of poverty”, he wrote. The passage is often used to justify the view that poverty is relative. So Smith might be alarmed at what the Conservative government is doing to the definition of child poverty in Britain. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill is likely to be passed early in the new year. It is part of an ongoing attempt to bring down the welfare bill (working-age benefits amounted to £94 billion, or $141 billion, in 2014-15) and reform the system so that work is the best way out of poverty. The focus has been on the bill’s proposal to limit benefit payments for children and to cap the amount that any one family can claim. But it also proposes to change the way child poverty is measured: instead of monitoring income, as now, a series of other measures, such as education and employment, would be used. The government describes these as measures of “life chances”....
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.economist.com |
