===social-policy==== At 2002-11-30, 12:47:00 Paul Maginn wrote: =======
>Dear all,
>I have just received a copy of a new monograph/book on poverty - 'Poverty in
>Australia: Beyond the Rhetoric' - by Peter Saunders (former Professor of
>Sociology at Sussex Uni) and Kayoko Tsumori both at the Centre for
>Independent Studies (Australia). The monograph takes issue with defining and
>measuring poverty, social exclusion and posits an alternative policy approach
>- a self-help strategy as opposed to a redistributist one.
>
>I was wondering if any book review editors would be willing to accept a book
>review on this?
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Paul
===========================================================
For those who didn't know, there are two Professor Peter Saunders -- one
ours, the other the antipodean. Both are writers on poverty, and they are,
apparently, at each others' throats as this report below from The Sydney
Morning Herald suggests.
Paul Ashton
[log in to unmask]
Same name but vastly different thinking in the great welfare debate
October 25 2002
Two professors are slugging it out in print on the issue of self-reliance v
dependency, writes Bettina Arndt.
Saunders v Saunders. No, it's not a messy divorce case. This is a far more
cerebral battle where the skirmishes are taking place not over the kitchen
sink but in rarified academic journals. Surprisingly, the two protagonists
have the same name - Peter Saunders.
The original Professor Peter Saunders is director of the Social Policy
Research Centre at the University of New South Wales where he has been for
more than 20 years.
The new Peter Saunders is also a professor, fomerly of the University of
Sussex, who last year was appointed director of social policy research
programs at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), a Sydney-based think
tank.
Same name, similar titles, but diametrically opposed views.
Saunders the New is challenging what he regards as the "old-style socialist
thinking", long favoured by Saunders the Old and most of our academic policy
analysts - particularly on poverty and welfare issues. Next week Saunders the
New will publish a harsh review of Saunders the Old's just published book,
The Ends and Means of Welfare, claiming he used biased evidence to promote
unashamedly one-eyed ideological analysis in a manner which is "quite
ill-tempered and prejudicial".
The review, to be published in the CIS journal Policy, concludes: "What the
book is really about is how awful social welfare policies have been since the
1980s, how unfair it is that some people earn a lot more than others, and how
we need the government to put all this right by spending lots more of our
money than it currently spends."
In The Ends and Means of Welfare, Saunders the Old argues the end goal of
welfare is to provide everyone with a decent income.
Employment is presented as one means to this end, and doling out welfare
benefits as another, and it doesn't seem to matter much which route we
encourage people to take.
He suggests "there may be advantages in allowing those with the weakest
attachment to the world of work to 'opt out"' and live on an "unconditional
basic income" financed by the rest of us.
Saunders the New argues that social policy should be about encouraging
self-reliance, not fostering dependency on welfare payments. His "classical
liberal" position regards it as "immoral for the government to take money
away from people who are maintaining themselves and their families through
their own efforts and to redistribute it to people who have no intention of
even trying to achieve self-reliance".
So there it is - the gloves are off!
How fascinating to have the two Saunders openly debating the assumptions
underpinning our treatment of welfare and poverty issues.
The issues they raise are particularly relevant in the light of the
announcement this week of an inquiry by a Senate committee into poverty and
Amanda Vanstone's discussion paper on welfare reform, due to be released in
the next few weeks.
For instance, Saunders the Old pushes the line that poverty is mainly a
"structural" problem and that poor people are rarely, if ever, responsible
for their own plight. Any attempt to push them towards self-reliance is seen
as "blaming the victim".
Advocates of this position - including many in the media - pour scorn on
anyone who tries to draw a distinction between those who genuinely want to
help themselves and those who don't.
Saunders the New believes this is confusing the question of responsibility
with the issue of blame. "Even if all those who suffer disadvantage were to
turn out to be victims of circumstances beyond their control, it still would
not follow that the best strategy for them would be to absolve them of all
responsibility for getting their lives back on track," he writes in Poverty
in Australia: Beyond the Rhetoric, due to be published next month. He quotes
Jesse Jackson, who once told his black followers in America: "If a white man
knocks you down, it's his fault: if you don't get up, it's yours."
Add to these skirmishes the huge gulf between the two men on the extent of
poverty in Australia - Saunders the Old claims disadvantage is increasing,
while the New cites evidence to show it remains constant - and the scene is
set for challenging new input into the poverty and welfare debates.
|