In the course of just a few decades Ireland has become a modern, wealthy and interesting nation. And while Canadians might not be in the habit of taking policy advice from the Irish, last year their government solved a problem that has long vexed Canada. It's worth a closer look. The Irish government recently unveiled a new official definition of poverty — what it calls "consistent poverty." Determining exactly who is and isn't poor involves a two-stage process determined by random household surveys. To be considered poor you must, first of all, earn less than 60 per cent of the median income. Then you're measured against a list of 11 standardized necessities, including: a warm waterproof overcoat, "two pairs of strong shoes," meals with meat, chicken or fish (or vegetarian substitute) at least every second day, "a roast joint or its equivalent once a week," a warm house and the wherewithal to buy presents for family members once a year, have guests over for a drink once a month, and a night out every two weeks. Lack any two of the 11 necessities on the list, and you're officially poor.

The Irish government recently unveiled a new official definition of poverty — what it calls "consistent poverty." Determining exactly who is and isn't poor involves a two-stage process determined by random household surveys. To be considered poor you must, first of all, earn less than 60 per cent of the median income. Then you're measured against a list of 11 standardized necessities, including: a warm waterproof overcoat, "two pairs of strong shoes," meals with meat, chicken or fish (or vegetarian substitute) at least every second day, "a roast joint or its equivalent once a week," a warm house and the wherewithal to buy presents for family members once a year, have guests over for a drink once a month, and a night out every two weeks. Lack any two of the 11 necessities on the list, and you're officially poor.

At first blush the list seems rather amusing and trivial. Not everyone might wish for a roast on Sunday or house guests monthly. And even wealthy parents of newborns may question whether a night out every two weeks is a necessity or a luxury. But what's important about this new system is that it includes both relative and absolute indicators of what's considered a basic, acceptable standard of living. And the end result appears to be good news. The Irish rate of consistent poverty for individuals is just 6.5 per cent — lower than previous methods of calculation — and dropping.

Unlike Ireland, Canada lacks an official poverty line. Statistics Canada produces its well-known low income cut-off but this, as the agency itself reminds us constantly, is neither a measure of true poverty nor an officially accepted figure. LICO actually measures a complicated form of relative income inequality. While interesting, this doesn't tell us how many Canadians really face significant deprivation, or what it means to be truly poor in absolute terms.

Canada's flawed LICO rate for individuals — at almost 11 per cent — is much higher that Ireland's poverty rate, although it too has been falling. Yet Canada and Ireland share similar income levels, inequality indicators and unemployment rates. It is likely our true rate of poverty would also be lower if we calculated it using a variant of the Irish method. It would certainly be more reliable.

The need for a better measure of poverty in this country is pressing. The next national election will likely be fought on economic issues — Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has already signalled his intention to make poverty reduction a key plank in his platform. While such a goal is laudable, if we are going to have a real debate on the subject we need to agree on who is poor and why. As the MBAs say, you can't manage what you can't measure. All of which should make strong shoes, overcoats and Sunday dinner menus important topics for all Canadians.

Print Article    Send to a Friend    Write a letter to the editor

Digg this Stumble It!   Post to del.icio.us Seed Newsvine   Share on Facebook Technorati links