Despite Premierâe(TM)s McGuintyâe(TM)s promise to produce a poverty reduction plan, and the earnest hopes of editorial writers and anti-poverty activists, I am of the belief that the next four years will see little if any action on poverty reduction. I base this prediction on my analysis of poverty and its public policy antecedents in Canada and what we know about the forces that create poverty and maintain its presence.

Policymakers and the public have four ways by which poverty in a wealthy nation such as Canada can be explained. The first sees poverty as a result of inherent characteristics of individuals such as bad genes or low IQ. The second sees poverty as a by-product of acquired characteristics such as low motivation, poor work habits and a sense of fatalism.

These views âe” which place the cause of poverty within the individual âe” neglect the role public policies play in creating and maintaining poverty. Nations such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland have virtually eliminated poverty while Canadian âe” and Ontario âe” poverty rates are among the highest in the developed world. Can we assume that people in these nations have better genes, higher intelligence, and are somehow more motivated that Canadians? I think not.

Two other views consider how the organization of the economic and political system causes poverty. The first views poverty as a by-product of changes in society. Economic changes result in less demand for less educated and less skilled workers. The result is increasing numbers of people unsuited for the demands of a post-industrial economy that end up in poverty. Since this view states that no one intends for poverty to happen and no one really benefits from it, poverty reduction will be achieved by developing employment and training programs and showing policymakers that these programs will reduce poverty.

The task then is one of educating and enlightening those in power to these poverty solutions. This view suggests there may be some myopia among policymakers as to the causes and solutions of poverty, but there is little if any malice among these individuals. This appears to be the view adhered to by most anti-poverty groups in Ontario.

I do not subscribe to this view. A fourth view sees poverty as resulting from an imbalance in the influence different sectors have in society. In this view poverty results from the business sector unfairly skewing how resources are distributed within a society. The main idea is that there are powerful and privileged actors who benefit from maintaining poverty and oppose public policy such as raising minimum wages or improving job training that would reduce it. Why would this be the case?

Poverty is profitable because employers âe” by paying wages that keep people in poverty âe” increase their profits and increase tensions between the employed and unemployed. Such tensions make it less likely for low income and middle income groups to come together to recognize the source of their economic insecurity is not their own shortcomings but rather those benefiting from their insecurity. This view of poverty âe” and its causes âe” posits that reducing poverty requires recognizing and confronting the interests that benefit from poverty.

Why do I believe that Premier McGuinty will do nothing to reduce poverty? The âeoeprofit from povertyâe view also argues that policymakers are beholden to these poverty-profiting interests. Sociologist Erik Olin Wright argues, âeoeThe persistence of extreme levels of poverty occurs not because powerful elites have mistaken ideas of what is in their interests and what would solve poverty, nor because they are short-sighted or unenlightened, but because they benefit from the existence of poverty and have unchallenged power.âe

Will Premier McGuinty favour the interests of the poor and insecure in Ontario over those in the business sector who profit from poverty? I think not. Indeed, recent evidence from Statistics Canada shows that over the last ten years the income of the bottom 80% of Canadians has stagnated while that of the top 20% has doubled. These are the economic results of poverty: The rich getting richer and everybody elseâe(TM)s income going nowhere.

It is in this public policy environment that Premier McGuinty has been re-elected with a strong majority government. He enjoys the support of those who profit from poverty and the general public remains unaware of these processes. Premier McGuinty would be foolish to undertake anti-poverty action that would threaten this important source of support. Until the public recognizes how imbalances in influence and power shape their economic lives and confront these sectors and the policymakers who bend to their influence, we can expect little public policy in the service of poverty reduction.