Greetings all ...
As someone who makes his living trafficking in international income
distribution statistics, I feel obligated to respond to this misleading
item by Dennis Bueckert - or, perhaps, his recantation of an increasingly
popular but misleading view. My case is simply put.
1. Countries with high levels of inequality do not make their inequality
statistics available for international comparison. So a country
like New Zealand and Japan, which have been experiencing large
increases in inequality, generally don't get included in these
comparisons because this country doesn't participate in international
data pooling projects (such as the Luxembourg Income Study).
2. 10th out of 17 is a very high ranking, considering differences in
the structure of the economies involved. Obviously Sweden, Finland,
Denmark, and Norway will beat Canada on this dimension, for
income and wealth redistribution have been nearly the single
minded objective of these countries. Germany, Austria, France,
Belgium, and the Netherlands may also beat Canada, but these
differences are less remarkable. The difference between Canada
and some of these countries is falling within the margin of error.
3. Canada has the lowest level of disposable income inequality among
countries with similar state structures (Esping Anderson's so-called
liberal welfare state regime) and decentralized economies. Soon
the statistics will catch-up, and the much bandied claim that
Canada has the second highest level of child poverty in the
"industrialized world" will also be shown to be bogus.
4. Along with Finland and Norway (and to a lesser extent France),
Canada is the only country that has been able to offset the large
increases in inequality sweeping the OECD world with its tax and
transfer system. Between 1980 and 1995, Canada disposable income
inequality has remained stable. Only the other countries I've
just mentioned can make this claim.
All of these claims, which can be backed up with the same data sources
used by the UN (if they use the most recent figures this time), suggest
that Canada does quite will with regard to inequality and poverty. I
would also remind everyone that the whole purpose of a summary
indicator like the Human Development Index is to refocus debate away from
single dimensions of lifestyle to look at the whole story. Ideologically
single minded jurisdictions (the US on one side, the Scandinavian
countries on the other) should not fair as well by such measures.
Cheers, Peter.
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Tom Walker wrote:
[ snip ]
> By DENNIS BUECKERT
>
> OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's claim to be the world's best country to live in will
> take a hit when the United Nations releases its annual Human Development
> Report this week.
> For the first time, the much-cited report will include an index measuring
> poverty in rich countries and Canada's position on that scale will not be
> flattering, The Canadian Press has learned.
