The authors of the book, Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, conclude that politics and race are the explanations for the differences in outlook:
America's political structures differ from Europe's. They are older—not something most people on either side of the Atlantic usually realise—and more governed by conservative forces. Most countries in Europe have undergone turbulent political change in the past century; America has at least the bones of a structure created more than two centuries ago. Europe's upheavals have installed proportional representation in most countries, a structure that has facilitated the growth of socialist and communist parties. “There is a general relationship between the age of institutions and their unfriendliness to the welfare state,” they argue.
The second cause seems to getting most of the focus:
The other half of the explanation lies in America's racial diversity. In spite of 20 years of unprecedented immigration, European countries, particularly smaller ones like Portugal and those of Scandinavia, are still highly racially homogenous. America, by contrast, has great diversity, which is especially wide in some states. In addition, the poor in America are disproportionately non-white. Non-Hispanic whites are 71% of America's population but only 46% of the poor.
Racial diversity in individual states is correlated with the generosity of welfare. For instance, the authors find that in 1990 Aid to Families with Dependent Children ranged from over $800 per family per month in mainly white Alaska to less than $150 in Alabama and Mississippi, where almost one-third of the population is black. Even after adjustment for inter-state differences in average incomes, the correlation with race remained strong. Across countries, too, racial diversity goes with low government spending on poverty relief.
The reason, argue the authors, is that “race matters”, and they marshal statistical evidence, much of it from opinion surveys, to back this up. People are likely to support welfare if they live close to recipients of their own race; but are antipathetic if they live near recipients from another race. The divergent attitudes of Europeans and Americans to the poor are underwritten by the fact that the poor in Europe tend to be ethnically the same as most other folk. In America, their skin is often a different colour.
So our diversity might not be our strength? This is a fascinating theory and one that will surely merit more discussion when the book is published next month. I'm not going to get into the race aspect now, but I found these other statistics showcasing differences between Europe and America most interesting:
NOTHING better encapsulates the different attitudes of America and Europe to the poor than a table towards the end of Alberto Alesina's and Edward Glaeser's remarkable book, due to be published later this month. It compares the prevalence of three beliefs: that the poor are trapped in poverty; that luck determines income; and that the poor are lazy. The first is held by only 29% of Americans but by 60% of citizens of the European Union; the second, by 30% of Americans and 54% of Europeans; and the third, by contrast, by 60% of Americans and 24% of Europeans.
These beliefs are so broadly stated that I would be hesitant to say they apply across the board. But if forced to choose, my message to the Euros would be, "Three strikes and you're out".
It continues:
Americans, by contrast, are much more likely to give money privately. They appear to have given $691 per head in charitable donations in 2000, compared with contributions of $141 in Britain and a mere $57 in Europe as a whole.
That is a huge difference. I'm sure that part of the reason for it would be the decline of organized religion in the lives of many Europeans. There is a well established correlation between those who practice a religion and charitable giving. Of course, secularists can, and often do donate money and time to charities. But on average they don't do it as much as those who are religious.
The other explanation is that Europeans view much of the work typically done by charities as a government function. The onerous tax burden that they have to bear pays for these activities so in their minds they've already "donated" to the cause. Rather than "I gave at the office", it's "I gave in my paycheck".
Instead of individuals evaluating various charities and directing their money where they feel it is most needed and would do the most good, the government confiscates whatever monies it determines it needs from everyone and distributes these funds through a political and bureaucratic process that the average citizen probably neither understands or has influence over.
Again the choice to me seems pretty clear.
The next time you hear the tired plea, usually on such issues as vacation time, public transportation, or health care, "Why can't we be more like Europe?", just remember that the answer is actually quite simple.
We don't want to.
No comments:
Post a Comment