Kevin Baldeosingh
I do not know if it was poor reporting or a poor report, but the 2014 Poverty Survey gives a very skewed picture of living conditions in T&T.
According to the report, prepared by Kairi Consultants which is headed by economist Dr Ralph Henry, more than 300,000 people in T&T are living on less than $985 a month. Yet, somehow, 40 per cent of these people own a car; 95 per cent have cellphones; and 92 per cent have televisions. So, immediately, this indicates a fundamental measurement problem.
Of course, ideologues who have a vested interest in promulgating the idea that poverty is a severe problem in T&T have tried to rationalise away this anomaly. One "explanation" is that people are ashamed of being poor and so, even though they can't afford it, they buy luxury goods to conceal their low status.
The problem with this explanation, however, is that if an individual really earns only $985 a month, he will not be able to afford even the cheapest cellphone, let alone a TV or car. A more likely explanation is that the respondents who told Kairi's field staff that they made $985 were understating their income, perhaps because they thought a higher income would have been taxed, or because they omitted to mention financial support from other people, or because they were earning money in not entirely legal ways.
There are other misleading aspects of either the report or the reporting by Dr Sheila Rampersad in last week's Sunday Express.
For example, her article stated that "Households headed by women are still more likely to be poor than male-headed households." This is an example of feminist bias skewing analysis. Female-headed households are usually households headed by single mothers, widows, or grandmothers. Male-headed households are usually two-parent homes.
So a fair comparison cannot simply be between female-and male-headed households: it will have to be between single-father households, widower households, and grandfather households. Additionally, an income measure would still be misleading–rather, a more accurate measure will be expenditure, since women-headed households often get assistance that male-headed households do not.
Then there is the controversial race comparison. Stereotypically, people believe there are more wealthy Indo-Trinidadians than wealthy Afro-Trinidadians. From this perception, people then leap to the conclusion that Afros are poorer on average than Indos, even though one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. According to Dr Rampersad, the Kairi report finds there are more indigent Afros (37 per cent vs 25 per cent Indos); more very poor Afros (39 per cent vs 30 per cent) and more not poor but vulnerable Afros (37 per cent vs 32 per cent).
But then the report says these statistics "may be an artefact of sampling design". Kairi in its 2005 Survey of Living Conditions issued exactly the same caution, so one would have thought they would have solved this problem during the past nine years.
In any case, other data sources suggest that Afros and Indos are at least on par income-wise, or that Afros on average are wealthier than Indos.
The 2009 Household and Budgetary Survey shows little difference in the average household income of households headed by Afro-Trinis or Indo-Trinis, while my own analysis of (unadjusted) 2000 figures from the Central Statistical Office for ethnicity and income found that 42 per cent of Afro-Trinis had monthly incomes below $3,000 as compared to 49 per cent of Indo-Trinis.
The proportion of middle-income persons in both groups is about equal (ten per cent), as is the ratio of wealthy persons (one per cent). The largest proportion of high-income individuals (over $15,000 per month) within their ethnic groups are Syrian-Lebanese and Chinese (both 14 per cent) and white (21 per cent).
The 2014 survey also found that these last three groups were unrepresented among the poor, which naturally has been interpreted by the racial ideologues as evidence of ill-gotten gains (whether because of history or capitalism or both).
Such an assumption, however, does not explain why Lebanese and Chinese immigrants in many different societies have come from poverty to prosperity within three generations.
Despite all this, the report boldly asserts: "Whatever the underlying causes, the data point to structural inequality among the ethnic groups in the society."
This, however, is nothing but an ideological statement masquerading as an empirical conclusion. It is premised on the assumption that all ethnic groups are equally capable of being equally wealthy.
Such an assumption, however, has no basis in history, anthropology, and certainly not in economics which, among other things, is the study of how resources are allocated.
Put another way, one could argue that the differential poverty rates among ethnic groups is the outcome of cultural norms, which may range from marriage rates to parental practices to consumption habits.
Even the report itself notes that educational qualifications above basic CXC reduces the odds of being poor. None of these factors can be defined as "structural" without stretching that term to breaking point.
Unfortunately, these deficiencies aren't going to affect how the survey is interpreted by ideologues, politicians and hustlers. And that's because too many well-placed people, in various ways, profit from poverty.
Email: kevin.baldeosingh@zoho.com
Kevin Baldeosingh is a professional writer, author of three novels, and co-author of a History textbook.