Beyond the academic definitions of poverty, as raised in a recent debate at the University, the real picture of poverty on the ground is still somewhat disturbing, even though the situation may have improved in some cases thanks to the remedial measures taken by the administration. Yet, however good these measures are in the bid to provide some relief, they still fall short of what those suffering direct hardship require to be lifted out of their misery.
A study by Caritas Malta last year brought into sharp focus the kind of budget people require to live decent lives but, as so often happens in such a keen political environment as that we have in Malta, the subject invariably gets bogged down in meaningless political controversies.
It looks that, at one point, even the debate at the University got somewhat lost in definitions, at least judging by its press coverage. A debate on what constitutes poverty appears to have started when a woman participant argued that, as against the many cases that were genuine, others were self-inflicted.
It was felt that a distinction had to be made between the so-called working poor (those in employment who still have to struggle to make ends meet) and others who lived beyond their means. She held that cases of poverty that were due to illness, low income and expensive housing could not be grouped in the same basket as those whose situation was self-inflicted, such as gamblers who wasted their money on bingo, lotto and manicures.
Caritas director Leonid McKay took exception to this, arguing that it was unjust to say that some deserve to be poor more than others. He held that the idea that poverty was self-inflicted stemmed from a very conservative approach.
Well, there is no doubt that all this presents interesting angles for an academic debate but, at the end of the day, what counts most are the measures the State and communities within the State take to get those in poverty, or who are at the risk of poverty, out of their situation.
As it happens, almost coincidentally, an EU country report on Malta throws added light on the overall picture. It found that the overall risk of poverty and social exclusion decreased in 2015 but remained high for the elderly, children, the low-skilled and people with disabilities. Monetary poverty for people over 65 continued to increase for both men and women. Despite an overall decline in 2015, child poverty increased in single-earner households while, for children with low-skilled parents, this has decreased. The low-skilled were three times more likely to face in-work poverty than the medium-skilled.
In another part of the report, it is pointed out that pension adequacy indicators showed – quite unsurprisingly – considerable room for improvement. The relative income ratio of people aged 65 and over was lower than the EU-28 average. According to the Caritas report, the yearly necessary budget for a family consisting of two parents and two children to live decently was found to amount to €11,446.
However, it was also found at the time that such families who were on one minimum wage and who also received in-work benefits and other allowances, received €9,353. This was not enough for them to have the bare essentials.
Pensioners are facing stiff times, too. With regular income from their savings – money they saved throughout their working lives to supplement their contributory State pensions on retirement – in free-fall, thousands are struggling to make ends meet. The measures taken so far to ease their difficulties are insubstantial.