Download The Blair Legacy: Child Policy + no Population Policy = 21st Century

The Blair Legacy
The Blair Legacy: Child Policy + no Population Policy = 21st Century Baby Boom
Rozita Mekanikian and Anny Kilbourne
This paper briefly examines three inter-related issues: Child Policy under Tony Blair, aimed at eradicating
child poverty; the absence of any population policy; and the twenty-first century baby boom now being
experienced.
It shows how the presence or absence of policies, combined with short-term perspectives, can singly and
collectively affect national population dynamics.
Child Policy
Tony Blair had an ambitious and admirable social policy agenda. It involved creating equal opportunities for
all in society. He believed in improving the education, skills and capabilities of young people, in order to
improve society's main asset: the quality of its labour force.
One of the main pillars of this social wealth was the eradication of child poverty. The aim was to lift all
children out of destitution within one generation - twenty years. There can be no doubt about the
significance of this plan to improve peoples' lives and social wellbeing. It was pursued by several means,
including the promotion of paid work, increasing certain benefits to make work pay and promoting the
prevention of some causes of poverty [Piachaud 2012].
"Too many children are excluded from life-chances before they are born, because of poverty. They are forced
to leave school at sixteen, not eighteen, to begin earning. They lack the capital to pay deposits or stamp
duty on a first home. They are daunted by the prospect of going to university. Their ambitions are
diminished at an early age. They lack the wealth that is the springboard of opportunity [Blair, 2003]”.
The central idea was that poor families did not have the capital to invest in their children’s educational
development. With poor education came poor job prospects, poor earnings and a poor quality of life. And
the government was responsible for providing that first injection of capital to kick-start a better life for
children born into poorer families. This is a very valuable policy for any government to implement.
Two main components were the Child Trust, launched in 2001 and Working Family Tax Credits, or WFTC
[Easton, 2011]. The Child Trust took the following form:
"For every child born after September 2002, we will establish the fund in its name. Around 700,000 babies
are born each year in Britain. For each new born child, we will make an initial endowment of at least £250,
rising to £500 for the poorest children. It is a universal and progressive reform that will benefit everyone,
with more to those who need it most.
Each child will receive additional payments into their fund and parents and extended family can also make
contributions. At the age of eighteen, the fund will accumulate an asset base of several thousand pounds,
enabling all young people to have the chances only available to some today. The next generation will have
the backing of a real financial asset to invest in activities such as learning, buying a home or setting up a
business [Blair, 2003].”
From 1997 to 2001, the government's spending on children rose by more than £6 billion. As a result of tax
and benefit changes, 700,000 children were lifted out of poverty during the same period. [Assinder, 1999].
The Working Family Tax Credits (WFTC) was only indirectly an investment in children. Nevertheless, it had
1
The Blair Legacy
the admirable intention of providing extra help for couples with children. It was geared towards
encouraging mothers to return to work so they could continue to provide for their children [Easton, 2011].
Both direct and indirect strategies for the eradication of child poverty can, and do, receive a standing
ovation. They are some of the most humanitarian acts carried out by any government.
Population Policy
While much can be said about social development policies, such as lifting all children out of poverty, there is
little that can be to be said about an overall population strategy.
"The British... have traditionally resisted the notion of politicians interfering in family life. As today's Rand
report puts it: Successive UK governments have pursued an essentially neo-liberal policy, leaving decisions
about childbearing to families and maintaining a laissez-faire attitude towards the economy [Easton 2011].”
So, no British government has ever planned or implemented a population policy.
Baby Boom
It is generally accepted that the UK has been experiencing a major baby-boom. Experts point to the year
2001 as the turning point for women deciding to have more children. The situation is the same to this day.
The increase has been such that it has reversed the effects of the lower fertility rates of the 1970s - 1990s.
It is puzzling why a developed country with a wealthy society, an educated and employed female population
and with no "demographic renewal" strategy should experience such a boom [Kingman, 2014]. The Rand
Europe report1 had to analyse several factors before arriving at the real answer. For demographers, it is not
only the birth rate (the number of babies born), but also the fertility rate (number of babies per mother)
that count. The question was: Why are more women deciding to have more children (i.e. more than the
replacement rate of two per couple)? Why did the fertility rate jump in 2001?
"The Rand Europe researchers rule out a number of possible factors: GDP seems unrelated to fertility rates;
high levels of female education and labour force participation don't appear to have had any impact; fewer
and later marriages have probably had a negative effect on fertility because married couples tend to have
more babies (although divorce and re-marriage might mitigate this effect). It was something else. In the end,
the researchers concluded the most likely explanation was a policy never intended to fill the maternity wards:
New Labour's commitment to eradicate child poverty [Easton, 2011].”
The real answer was the Working Family Tax Credits (WFTC). According to one study, the payments
increased the fertility of women in couples by 10%. WFTC was designed to encourage mothers to return to
work, so they could provide more for their children. Instead, they chose to stay at home and have another
baby. Why?
"The difference may be explained by the fact that eligibility for the WFTC depended on one of the couple
working. Many women in couples found that WFTC increased family income without providing any incentive
to enter the labour force and may even have enabled them to drop out of the labour force in response to
their partner's increased earnings [Easton, 2011].”
1. "Low Fertility in Europe - Is There Still Reason to Worry?"
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG.pdf - pp.66 - 67.
How Are Children Doing Today?
2
The Blair Legacy
It is hoped that all children continue to benefit from government policies aimed at improving their lives.
The higher the aim towards completely eradicating child poverty, the healthier is society.
"Raising the floor has been regarded as much more important than lowering the ceiling [Fitzpatrick, 2004;
349].”
And rightly so. However, in reality, there has been both success and failure. According to some estimates,
although 700,000 children were lifted out of poverty by 2005, around 100,000 fell back in again in 2006
[Ivory, 2007].
Others point out that child poverty did decline between 1997 and 2010. In absolute terms, it fell by threefifths, from 28% to 11%, which is a great achievement. This means that, by 2010, child poverty had fallen by
a quarter, not by a half as the government had hoped to achieve [Piachaud, 2012]. So, although Tony Blair
promised an end to child poverty within twenty years, the evidence shows that this target will be missed by
a considerable margin [Fitzpatrick, 2004].
"According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, it will cost £4 billion on top of planned expenditure to get half of
all children out of poverty by 2010 and stay on course for Blair's goal [Ivory, 2007].”
The Coalition government that came to power in 2010 has maintained the broad goals and parts of the
previous strategy, but with many changes to policy [Piachaud, 2012]. Some of these changes have been in
response to the recession, for example, reductions in welfare spending. However, this will have a negative
impact on poor families and their children. The current situation, of low and slow growth, with limited job
creation and rising inequality, could undermine government and social efforts to eradicate child poverty.
In other words, the government keeps ignoring the obvious relationship between the higher rate of
population growth and the difficulty of providing enough services and benefits and redistributing wealth.
The government is forever playing catch-up. The outcome is increasing inequality, as experienced today.
Instead of a laissez-faire approach to population growth, the government must pay greater attention to
several interconnected issues: improving sex- and relationship/family- education amongst young people;
raising public awareness and knowledge regarding family size vis-a-vis population growth; supporting
women’s education and employment as a part of eradicating gender inequality; providing intensive and
extensive family planning and aiming for balanced migration.
Conclusion
Both the presence and absence of policies can have intentional and unintentional effects on the population
size and growth rate within a country. The goal of eradicating child poverty is important and necessary.
However, in this case it appears some elements of such a policy created problems further down the line.
Family Tax Credits have been very effective in supporting families and children. Again, this is admirable. But
they also created the conditions in which more women could stay at home to have another baby and thus
the rise in overall fertility rates.
The more babies being born, the more the government will have to do to provide financial support for
families and children, particularly for poor families. The government can only do this well enough through
continuous economic growth. This allows for more employment-creation and rising income levels, which
benefit individuals and families. It also brings more government revenues, which translate into more money
to be spent on helping poorer families and their children.
3
The Blair Legacy
However, this is only possible in the complete absence of any type or degree of economic down-turn: no
recessions allowed. But within capitalism, this can never be guaranteed. Within this inter-connected global
economy, this is a promise no government can give and adhere to in practice.
Not only is the future unpredictable, but so is human behaviour. So policies must be designed to be
effective in the "here and now", but must also have no negative side-effects in the future. This requires
long-term, broad vision regarding current and future scenarios: If the government implements Policy X,
what positive and negative impacts will there be on society, economy, culture and environment, both now
and over the next fifty years? It must also appreciate fully the "unreliability element" within human
behaviour. There must be more genuine, wide-ranging consultation and consideration and less ideological
narrow-mindedness.
In the meantime, the UK is stuck with relatively high fertility and birth-rates, immigration, a population
explosion, an ageing population and child poverty. No government's job is made easy by this combination.
REFERENCES
ASSINDER, N. (1999) "Pledge to Eliminate Child Poverty". BBC News - UK Politics, 18th March;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/298934.stm (Accessed 15/06/2014)
BLAIR, T. (2003) "The Saving Grace of the Baby Bond: The Child Trust Will Turn Hopes Into Realistic
Ambition." The Guardian, 10th April;
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/apr/10/budget2003.policy . (Accessed 15/06/2014)
EASTON, M. (2001) "Britain's Mysterious Baby Boom". BBC News, 17th June.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13809280 . (Accessed 15/06/2014)
FITZPATRICK, T. (2004) "Time, Social Justice and UK Welfare Reform". Economy and Society; Volume 33,
No.3; pp 335 - 358.
IVORY, M. (2007) "Tony Blair: The Social Care Legacy". Community Care - Inspiring Excellence in Social Care,
9th May. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2007/05/09/tony-blair-the-social-care-legacy/#.U5LkGiia-3A(Accessed 15/06/2014)
KINGMAN, D. (2014) "Can Britain Cope With a Baby Boom and an Ageing Population at the Same Time?"
Intergenerational Foundation: Fairness for Future Generations. http://www.if.org.uk/archives/5172/canbritain-cope-with-a-baby-boom-and-an-ageing-population-at-the-same-time (Accessed 15/06/2014)
PIACHAUD, D. (2014) "Poverty and Social Protection in Britain: Policy Developments Since 1997." Journal of
Public Policy; Special Issue: Poverty, Incomes and Social Protection; Vol.11, Issue 1 - 2; pp.92 - 105.
4
The Blair Legacy
5