Clara Fischer: Ireland’s next budget is only around the corner, and people all over the country are bracing themselves for what is set to be another harsh exercise in cuts and tax increases. While much of this will be presented in abstract terms – a few percentages increased here, a few numbers decreased there – the very real effects of Budget 2013 will be keenly felt, especially by those already marginalised within our society.
Given the government’s reluctance to equality-proof or gender-proof the budget, it is more than likely that Ireland will continue in the current trajectory toward increased inequality and poverty, thus exacerbating a situation that has been worsening since the beginning of the economic crisis. In 2010 alone, there was a 25% increase in inequality in Ireland, with the top 20% earning 5.5 times the income of the lowest 20%. The percentage of people in Ireland living in consistent poverty increased, as did the percentage of children at-risk of poverty, which stands at 19.5%. Just recently, it was established that one in ten people in Ireland experiences food poverty.
Those are harrowing statistics, especially in light of the fact that people at the higher end of the socio-economic spectrum increased their wealth by 8% in 2010. The research clearly shows that ‘burden-sharing’, ‘collective belt-tightening’, or whatever similar misnomer successive governments have used and continue to use as a means of justifying disproportionate hardship for those at the bottom, is simply that – empty rhetoric that is not based on fact. The truth is that, at present, the government simply doesn’t have the required information to devise, implement and review policies that might actually result in a more level spreading of the economic burden across different sections of society. Instead, we are seeing the continued,disproportionate targeting of lone parents, people with disabilities, and women, to name but a few, as impact analyses are not undertaken, data is not collected, and information is not made available.
While one could be uncharitable about the political motives behind this, it is important to note that other countries do things differently. In Scotland, for example, it is common practice to publish a draft budget in September, which can then be debated before being finalised in January. Importantly, the draft budget is published alongside an “Equality Statement”, which provides a full impact analysis by equality category (such as gender, age, disability, etc.), as well as by budget theme (e.g. “health and wellbeing”). The budget process itself is also significantly at variance with the Irish process, as an Equality Budget Advisory Group, made up of civil society and government actors, ensures that equality is fully integrated in economic policy-making and planning. The meeting minutes of this group are readily available on the Scottish Government’s website, as are the draft budget, and the attendant Equality Statement.
The Scottish approach is far more transparent, and affords equality a central role in economic policy-making, planning and review. There is no reason why such an approach could not be introduced in Ireland. Given the pressure the government currently finds itself under, especially with regard to economic policies being perceived as unjust and unfair, adoption of an approach more akin to the Scottish model would actually take some of the sting out of the debate. The government would be able to point toward impact assessments and research, and could show that its decisions are based on evidence and carefully planned examination of the circumstances of different sections of Irish society with a view to implementing the most equitable policies. Equality budgeting would also halt the increases in inequality and poverty we’re currently experiencing in Ireland, while satisfying citizens’ demands for economic justice and true ‘burden-sharing’.
For the last number of months, the Equality Budgeting Campaign has been working toward the introduction of such a more transparent and equitable approach to economic policy-making, and has successfully won the support of the Sinn Fein parliamentary party, and of Labour, Independent and ULA representatives. More pressure must be brought to bear, however, upon the powers-that-be if a substantial reform like this is to be made a reality. The urgency of doing so cannot be stressed enough, as the brunt of the economic crisis continues to be borne by those least able to do so. For anybody interested in pursuing equality budgeting with us, we invite you to contact us or to follow us on Facebook, Twitter, or via our website. We also have a petition for the introduction of equality budgeting here. For further details on equality budgeting, see our information booklet here.
Contact:equalitybudgetingcampaign@gmail.com
Dr. Clara Fischer holds a Ph.D. in political philosophy and is a co-ordinator of the Irish Feminist Network. The network is part of a broad-based coalition of civil society organisations and concerned individuals seeking the introduction of equality budgeting in Ireland.
8 comments:
"Instead, we are seeing the continued,disproportionate targeting of lone parents, people with disabilities, and women ..."
To what extent have women been targeted by the budgetary adjustments?
To be targeted is to be deliberately and selectively singled out for particular treatment, on the basis on gender in this case.
Did the cabinet sit down and ask themselves "how can we make women suffer more?"
Do senior civil servants in the Revenue or Dept of Social Protection wake up in the morning and ask "how are going to make pick women's pockets today?"
Of course they don't, that would be ridiculous.
Now if women are disproportionately dependent on welfare and the welfare budget is squeezed, then obviously they feel the impact of that.
But they've been no more targeted for ill-treatment than the men who suffered disproportionately from job & income loss when the construction industry collapsed.
They weren't targeted for unemployment by virtue of being men - rather they lost their jobs because their skills weren't needed any more, regardless of gender.
The blog post does not speculate on the motives of civil servants or similar. It simply notes that one could be uncharitable about the political motives behind the disadvantaging of certain groups, but does not further elaborate upon this point. While one might argue about the semantics of the word 'targeting', there is a case to be made for use of this term in light of successive budgets that have clearly impacted disproportionately upon the same groups in spite of existing research highlighting such disproportionality. Some of said research can by found by following the links above.
Clara Fisher
"one could be uncharitable about the political motives behind the disadvantaging of certain groups"
Clara,
I thought economics was a science.
One wouldn't be uncharitable about the gravitational motives of a distant galaxy, nor the infectious motives of a virus.
Rather one would follow the scientific method - develop a hypothesis, collect data to prove or disprove, refine or discard the theory.
@Anonymous,
You're in the wrong shop if you're looking for an application of the scientific method here. Yes, I know this Tasc Network thingy has some sort of a legal status as a charitable entity promoting research and education, but the crew running the shop will search high and low for any shred of evidence that will support their cherished ideologically driven hypotheses. And they will studiously ignore and avoid engaging with any evidence that refutes these cherished ideologically driven hypotheses:
http://www.dublineconomics.com/papers/energy.pdf
Anon and Paul, if I read you right, you accept that women, lone parents and those with disabilities have suffered disproportionately during the crisis. And you have put forward no defence as to why this should be so.
I can see an argument as to whether this is due to targetting or an indifference to their suffering, but is it an important one?
Throughout this crisis the left - especially those here - has constantly put forward well argued, well researched alternatives backed up by statistics. The right has constantly relied on unproven and untrue statements about public service, taxation and the welfare state.
Is there such a climate of fear in this country that so few people are prepared to reveal their identities when commenting? Of course, psuedonyms and anonymity provide cover for ad hominem attacks or water-muddying - and the latter seems to be the case for the latest 'anonymous'.
These alleged 'well argued, well researched alternatives' advanced by the so-called left count for very little when they turn a dereminedly blind eyes to the rip-offs perpetrated by firms and institutions which they favour - and particularly when these rip-offs impact proportionately more on those on low and fixed incomes than those of higher incomes.
The dishonesty, disingenuousness and hypocrisy simply stinks.
if I read you right, you accept that women, lone parents and those with disabilities have suffered disproportionately during the crisis. And you have put forward no defence as to why this should be so.
Actually, you read me wrong.
In the early part of the recession men suffered far more in terms of job losses.
Now in the order to "gender proof" that impact, was the state supposed to run around firing female nurses and teachers, so that the unemployed construction workers wouldn't feel so singled out?
As the recession developed, some of the impact turned on women through pressure on social welfare budgets.
But overall, its been swings and roundabouts between the genders.
On the lone parents, they weren't singled out for any mistreatment as compared to parents who have regularized their situation. In fact, formalizing one's relationship still puts parents at a serious disadvantage compared to how lone parents are treated by the welfare code.
@ anon 3/12: 3.03.
"Throughout this crisis the left - especially those here - has constantly put forward well argued, well researched alternatives backed up by statistics. The right has constantly relied on unproven and untrue statements about public service, taxation and the welfare state."
Care to give some empirical substance to these assertions?
Statistics? Robust are they? So now we have Left Statistics and Right Statistics? This looks like an exhibition of Willy Waving. Stats are neutral. But its the user and promotor who is the problem.
Answer me this (if you can). What is the REAL purpose of statistical analysis? And please - be real careful with your reply.
The national deficit is 12 bil/annum. That's 33 mil per day!!! Now can you explain, using Left Stats only, how this little quandry will be closed out without regressing our economy back toward the 1970s.
Post a Comment