The two poverty reports an strongeconomiststrong’s view - Global.pdfVIP

Patrick Grady The Canadian Forum May 1972 The two poverty reports: an economist’s view We have been recently blessed with two, not one, reports on Poverty in Canada. Abundant ammunition for academic debates has been provided by a Senate Committee that underwent a schism in the process of investigation, and consequently produced the above two reports. The resignation of the four authors of The Real Poverty Repo rt from the Senate Committee and the subsequent recriminations that followed have assured a new hearing for the complaints of the impoverished. Whether or not their actions and proposals will reduce the probability of acceptance for, anti-poverty measures (as Lithwick suggests in a review) remains to be seen.1 The essential difference between the two Reports is their approach to the economic system. Adams et al. argue that poverty is produced by the normal functioning of the Canadian economy, wherereas the Senate Report places far less emphasis on this point. Two thirds of The Real Poverty Repo rt is devoted to the shortcomings of the economic system and recommendations for reform. This book is a product of the left progressive tradition, and, despite its radical rhetoric, it is not Marxist in its orientation. The authors perceive two crucial defects in the economy: 1) that high unemployment is tolerated and even generated by, the government; 2) that the market power of the, large corporations and labour unions has produced wide income differentials among individuals. The Senate Committee does recognize the problem of market power of labour unions, but. any discussion of corporations is conspicuously absent. High unemployment is, according to The Real Poverty Repo rt, a “result of policies chosen by the Canadian government to fight inflation. The authors believe