Commentary by Brigitte Kitchen
That the fundamental groundwork for the development of all abilities of individuals is laid in childhood, shaping and forming their future in adulthood, was the core idea of Unequal Futures: The Legacies of Child Poverty in Canada (1991), a pivotal joint project of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG).
Identifying the grim realities of growing up poor, the report challenged the comforting belief that all children in Canada were given equal chances to reach their full developmental potential, regardless of the socio-economic circumstances of their parents and their social environment.
Marvyn’s unique and outstanding contribution to Unequal Futures was to delve deeper into the structural and ideological facets of material deprivations and disadvantages that mark the downward cycle of inequalities for poor children from childhood to adult life.
What does inequality look like? In Canada, rising inequality can be easily detected from data on income distribution in quintiles. Traditional poverty research tends to use “a numbers game” approach, focusing on the income gap between the bottom and the top of the income scale but failing to assess the graduations of advantages that mark the social distance between different income levels.
“As income rises an increasing proportion can be spent on satisfying discretionary needs which make life more pleasant and enhance the developmental potential of children.” (Unequal Futures, p.24)
Marvyn proposed five descriptive categories in income graduation: “poor, vulnerable, mainstream, advantaged, and affluent”. Later he suggested replacing “mainstream” with “middle income,” believing it to reflect the social position of this income group more accurately; and a clear contrast to middle-class income that seemed too broad.
Each income category reflected dimensions of economic differences in living standards and social distance between income groups and their impact on children’s futures.
At the lowest inequality level, growing up in poverty meant a childhood spent in the long shadow of poor health, poor education, lack of material security, perilous family and social environments and the likelihood of getting caught up in the criminal youth justice system.
The harm inflicted by these risks is not only a personal tragedy for the children affected but should concern us all. We pay a “collective price” when we allow the entrenchment of child poverty to be passed on as a legacy from one generation to the next.
Unequal Futures placed the causes and responsibility for child poverty squarely on a “free market vision of the economy.” The report also warned that the neoliberal political agenda of social spending cuts by successive Canadian governments, pursuing balanced budgets and tax cuts would lead to a rising and dangerous entrenchment of child poverty. This is exactly what happened during the decades long sequence of austerity policies.
Even when budgetary surpluses were achieved at the federal level they were not used for the “nurturing” of vulnerable family environments but passed on in the form of corporate tax cuts. Marvyn was deeply and bitterly disappointed. A reasonable government would have invested in improving the material circumstances of children and families at-risk. But this was not to be the case and the chance to build a better world for our children and their families was lost.
Unequal Futures offered a radically different way of thinking, not just about the damages of inequality and poverty but about the way we relate to the future of disadvantaged children and our own. A country that fails to invest in its children’s future not only fails them but also itself.
Brigitte Kitchen, PhD is a founding member of the Child Poverty Action Group and a close friend and colleague of Marvyn’s.
The full document Unequal Futures: The Legacies of Child Poverty in Canada can be found here.
