The Role of Data in Public Policy
[email protected]
www.shillington.ca
Accuracy and / or Truthfulness
• Advertising
• Accounting
• Public Policy / Government Documents
Accuracy is good enough
"Canada's job creation exceeded Germany, France, Great
Britain and Italy."
Mr. Donolo defended the statement as accurate, (the charade
depended on massive German job losses). Asked if that
was good enough a standard, he replied that he thought so.
Overview of Presentation
1. How do we measure things…
2. Do data matter?
3. Spin… absolute misrepresentation
Overview of Presentation
1. How do we measure things…
– By what metric, how often, how published, by whom
– How current are our statistics.
• Stock market, exchange rates.
• Unemployment
• GDP
• poverty
2. Do data matter?
3. Spin… absolute misrepresentation
How do we measure things
1.
Changes over time…
“Government spending on the arts has increased by 18%”
“Government spending has not increased as a percent of the GDP”.
“The Government is spending more on X than any previous
government.”
•
•
•
•
We could report changes in dollars or as a percent.
We may, or may not, report values adjusted for inflation.
We may, or may not, adjust for population growth.
We could report values in dollar times or as a percent of GDP,
percent of government spending.
•
Andrew Coyne
How do we measure things
1. Changes over time…
•
•
•
•
We can compare the proposed benefit level to what it
would have been otherwise.
We can compare the proposed benefit level to what it
is now (constant or current dollars).
We can choose our geography; are we talking
municipal, provincial, federal, or all combined.
Are we talking monthly benefits or annual benefits.
Impact of 1992 Budget
1991
Family Allowance
$35 per month ($419 per
year)
Refundable Child Tax
Credit
$601 max per child per
year reduced for families
with incomes over
$25,921
Child Credit (reducing
income taxes)
$71 per child off income
taxes
Value of system to poorest
of families
$ 1,020
$419 at $35 per month +
$601 delivered annually
1992
$ 1,020
at $85+ per
month
1
This comparison excludes present benefits under the child credit
and refundable child tax credit which are not delivered monthly.
Federal Budget Documents
"Some 1.4 million families with 2.5 million children would
receive higher federal benefits."
Working Together Towards a National Child Benefit
System, Finance Canada, Feb. 1997.
Budget of 1992
"Lower-income families with one child will receive a monthly
payment of up to $144, significantly more than the monthly payment
of $35 they now receive. Approximately two million families with
incomes below $50,000 will receive larger monthly payments than
they do now."
Health and Welfare Canada, The Child Benefit - A White Paper on
Canada's New Integrated Child Tax Benefit, Feb. 1992.
Before a house committee
Mr. Karpoff: Your officials and your parliamentary secretary have
confirmed that people earning less then $3,750 will receive no more under this plan.
...
Mr. Mazankowski: The difference with this program is that they won't have to wait
until the end of the year or go to a tax discounter to get their money.
Mr. Karpoff: But they will get no more.
Mr. Mazankowski: From family allowance, their monthly cheque will increase from
$35 to $85.
Mr. Karpoff: But they'll get no more money in a year. Is that not true?
...
[here an official runs to the rescue of his trapped Minister]
...
Finance Official, Department of Finance: "If I could add this, you're quite right on
the actual total dollars; there isn't more. However, what's really quite important here
and one of the interesting features of this program, and one of the reasons it's such a
gem from a bureaucrat's point of view, is that it delivers assistance in a very timely
way to the people who need it ..."
Media Home Run
“The plan will allow Ottawa to make monthly payments of up to $144
for each child in a low-income family, four times the current family
allowance. About two million families with incomes below $50,000 a
year will receive larger monthly payments than they now do."
Globe and Mail
------------------------------------------------------------------------Official before house committee
“you're quite right on the actual total dollars; there isn't more. ”
White Paper for the 1992 Budget
Finance Official: We have mailed out 350,000 copies of the
white paper that we tabled at the time of the February
Budget, which probably, in terms of white
papers, makes it a runaway best seller. ...
Health and Welfare Official: The intent [of the white paper]
was to inform Canadians of the changes.
Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology, Oct. 7, 1992.
Child Tax Benefit – 1997
• Federal Increases in the Child Tax Benefit
• Most provinces claw-back increases from welfare so that
those on welfare see no benefit.
Assurances to International Bodies…
‘Families on social assistance will continue to receive at
least the same level of income support from governments
as under the previous arrangement.”
‘ …a new National Child Benefit (NCB) system was
implemented on July 1, 1998 as a collaborative initiative
by federal, provincial and territorial governments; about
half of the beneficiaries are single-parent families
headed by women.’
Canada, July 1999, Implementing the Outcomes of the World
Summit on Social Development: Canada’s Response,
Canada’s submission to the U.N.)
What Government said in Geneva
about Canada
"As far as he [ --------] could tell provinces were still meeting basic
needs for social assistance, but with approaches that were more
flexible than previously."
"A new national child tax benefit would increase the economic
autonomy of low-income families, he added. "
Averages for Comparison: Are
comparing comparable populations?
Salary of Male and Female Faculty
Mythical Unversity
Male
Average Salaries
Overall
Female
$ 80,000 $ 60,000
Salary of Male and Female Faculty
Mythical Unversity
Average Salaries
Overall
Social Science
Fine Arts
Mathematics
Computer Science
Numbers
Total
Social Science
Fine Arts
Mathematics
Computer Science
Male
Female
$ 80,000
$ 40,000
$ 30,000
$ 80,000
$ 120,000
$ 60,000
$ 40,000
$ 30,000
$ 80,000
$ 120,000
400
90
55
96
159
400
110
125
99
66
Salary of Male and Female Faculty
Mythical Unversity
Average Salaries
Overall
Social Science
Fine Arts
Mathematics
Computer Science
Numbers
Social Science
Fine Arts
Mathematics
Computer Science
Male
Female
$ 80,000
$ 40,000
$ 30,000
$ 80,000
$ 120,000
$ 60,000
$ 50,000
$ 38,000
$ 90,000
$ 135,000
400
100
40
110
150
400
123
143
125
8
Ratio of Female to Male Average Earnings
for those Employed Full-Time Full-Year
by Education and Marital Status, 1998
Married
Divorced/
Widowed/ Single (never
Separated
married)
Total
Less than H.S.
60%
67%
-
63%
H.S. Graduate
71%
79%
87%
75%
Some PSE
66%
76%
91%
70%
Degree
67%
76%
97%
72%
Total
68%
75%
96%
73%
Source: Calculatins by the author using the Statistics Canada Survey of Labour Income
Dynamics
Ontario's Income Tax Cut by Income Group
Income Groups
In dollars
less than -$15,150
$15,150-$19,675
$19-675-$24,135
$24,135-$28,610
$28,610-$33,130
$33,130-$38,245
$38,245-$44,890
$44,890-$54,040
$54,040-$68,025
$68,026 +
Total
$255,000 +
$145
$240
$360
$480
$605
$765
$975
$1,275
$1,710
$3,450
$1,001
$15,540
Ontario's Income Tax Cut by Income Group
As % of
Previous
Income Groups
In dollars
Tax
less than -$15,150
$15,150-$19,675
$19-675-$24,135
$24,135-$28,610
$28,610-$33,130
$33,130-$38,245
$38,245-$44,890
$44,890-$54,040
$54,040-$68,025
$68,026 +
Total
$255,000 +
$145
$240
$360
$480
$605
$765
$975
$1,275
$1,710
$3,450
$1,001
41.4%
34.1%
33.9%
33.1%
32.5%
31.5%
30.9%
30.5%
30.3%
25.4%
$15,540
18.0%
Ontario's Income Tax Cut by Income Group
As % of
Previous
Income Groups
In dollars
Tax
less than -$15,150
$15,150-$19,675
$19-675-$24,135
$24,135-$28,610
$28,610-$33,130
$33,130-$38,245
$38,245-$44,890
$44,890-$54,040
$54,040-$68,025
$68,026 +
Total
$255,000 +
As % of
Income
$145
$240
$360
$480
$605
$765
$975
$1,275
$1,710
$3,450
$1,001
41.4%
34.1%
33.9%
33.1%
32.5%
31.5%
30.9%
30.5%
30.3%
25.4%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
1.8%
2.0%
2.2%
2.4%
2.6%
2.8%
3.1%
$15,540
18.0%
3.5%
Median Income of those at the Poverty Line for Various Measures - 2008 Ontario - Single Person
$25,000
Income
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$LICO (1992) - Before
Tax
LICO (1992) - After
Tax
LIM - Before Tax
LIM - Ater Tax
MBM - lowest
Poverty Rates for Manitoba - 2000; Females 65+
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
LICO-Before Tax
LICO-After Tax
LIM-After Tax
MBM
LICOs based on Spending Patterns in Various Years
Current Dollars
$25,000
$20,000
Income
$15,000
$10,000
1968 based
1972 based
$5,000
1986 based
1992 based
* Family Size 1 in cities of 500,000+
Year
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
$-
Public Income Subsidies as % of Income
1,000-10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000-30,000
Family Income
30,000-40,000
40,000-50,000
50,000-60,000
60,000-70,000
70,000-80,000
80,000-90,000
90,000-100,000
100,000 +
0%
10%
20%
50%
40%
30%
% of Income
OAS/GIS
CPP
Pensions
60%
70%
80%
Average Dollar Value of Public Income
Subsidies
1,000-10,000
10,000-20,000
20,000-30,000
Family Income
30,000-40,000
40,000-50,000
50,000-60,000
60,000-70,000
70,000-80,000
80,000-90,000
90,000-100,000
100,000 +
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$20,000
$15,000
Average Value
OAS/GIS
CPP
Pensions
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
Overview of Presentation
1. How do we measure things…
2. Do data matter?
– Setting the public consensus –
• Makes more real
– Margaret Mitchell
– GIS take-up example
– Climate change
– CPP Retroactivity - $1.5 B over 5 years
– Once you’ve got the attention… how much is this
going to cost.
3. Spin… absolute misrepresentation
Overview of Presentation
1. How do we measure things…
2. Do data matter?
3. Spin… absolute misrepresentation
What is •
“Spin” ?
Misrepresentation by selective use of
information. Accurate statements may
still be misleading
• Tools for Spin
– Time is a slippery concept…
• real dollars or current dollars.
• months and years.
• choice of base case.
– Federal or federal/provincial
benefits
– Benefits measured as $’s, % change
or % of income.
1987 Version of “Fairness”
"Exempting food from sales tax gives higher-income people a
greater absolute tax benefit than those at lower-income
levels. This is because higher-income people spend more
on food and, in particular, more on expensive foods and
restaurant meals.
"This result is generally true for most basic commodities.
Exemptions provide grater relative benefit to lower-income
households but greater absolute benefits to higher-income
households. …
The refundable, prepaid credit accomplishes the goal of
enhanced fairness."
(The White Paper, Tax Reform 1987, June 18, 1987)
"Another instrument for addressing fairness in sales tax
burdens is to exempt from taxation some commodities that
are more heavily consumed by low-income individuals.
Key examples are the tax-free treatment of basic groceries
….”
(Tax Fairness, Finance Canada, Budget of February 1997).
E.I. Issues
• Access to EI Benefits
• HRDC:
– “88% of the Paid Labour Force would be eligible for EI
benefits if they were laid off.”
• Canadian Labour Congress:
– “only about 35% of unemployed Canadians receive EI
benefits.”
Impact of EI on marginalized Canadians
“Overall, there are many important messages about the
incremental impacts of EI showing that the EI reform
policy is producing results as intended. The generally
positive findings are tempered by the recognition that
the effects are different for different sub-groups
women, youth, low-income groups
Spinning the language
“…the quality of academic writing is fair to good in most
reports. That being said, the committee has suggested
editing to replace some technical terminology that may
not seem value-free in popular discussion (e.g.
EI tax, winners-losers, regressive, inequitable, etc.)
Internal HRDC documents obtained under Access to
Information
Evaluation of the Family Income
Supplement of EI
Finally, in terms of the gainers and losers, men have in
general gained access to the programme, as have lone
mothers, while married mothers are the biggest losers. For
women, approximately 29 per cent received DR and 14
percent received FIS. Whereas, for men, approximately 8
percent received DR and 9 percent received the FIS. The
decline in access to family-related benefits is particularly
pronounced for married women, a drop from
approximately 29 to 6 percent. Thus, the FIS is
disadvantageous for women, particularly married women.
“While the information reported is factually correct, in
many cases the Commission did not report all the key finds
and emphasized positive findings.”
“However, we found that reporting of evaluation results is
often selective…”
Auditor General’s report…
“Not all persons would be equally believed, Demerzel. A
mathematician, however, who could back his prophecy with
mathematical formulas and terminology, might be understood by no
one yet believed by everyone.”
---------------------------------Prelude to Foundation
Isaac Asimov
“Second, in 1970, median income of married women between the
ages of 60 and 64 was $0. Indeed, 55% percent of these women
reported receiving no income in 1970. Assuming that a 60 to 64 year
old married woman with median income of zero was married to a 65
years of age or older male receiving the median income of $ 2,800 for
65 and older males, the implied family income would have been
$2,800 or $ 1,400 per person. The married women in this family
would have received less income than women age 60 to 64 in of any
other marital status, and married men age 65 and older would have
been receiving less income than men of other marital states who
were 65 and older.”
A Report in the Matter of Collins versus the Queen
A Professor of Economics
University of Toronto