Opinion Sur Joven

In Argentina, almost half the children population is poor. To be exact, 47.2% of children live with families who are below the poverty line, and 23.5% live in abject poverty [1]; that is, they don’t even have food.

If we project these figures to ten, fifteen or twenty years from now, we may infer that almost half the adult population will have grown up under poverty conditions. And I say “almost” because the statistics will probably be more positive for the politicians who will have to deal with that situation. Many of those currently poor children will inevitably die on the way.

As we have frequently mentioned it in Opinión Sur, poverty is a double-edged sword, and both edges cut the same victim. On the one hand, poverty restricts a person’s development due to the lack of resources. On the other, poor people have less access to information, education, contacts, etc. That’s how a vicious circle -of poverty generating more poverty- is generated.

Over the last days, the creation of a universal incentive for children is being discussed in Argentina. It basically consists in giving a small allowance to every kid under eighteen to guarantee their supply of food. The incentive could vary between 125 and 214 pesos (between 32 and 55 dollars, and depending on the available resources), but every child would receive the same amount, no matter their race, their color, where they live or their social level… A rich kid and a poor kid would receive the same amount. This way, the State’s social plans from would stop creating welfarism and would become a right for all citizens.

In an ideal world, this would be a crazy idea. Wouldn’t it be best to give more to those who have less instead of spending resources in people who don’t need them?

The problem is that we don’t live in an ideal world, region or country. We know that, at least in Argentina, social plans are bought and sold. We also know that those who have no frequent access to information and contacts receive nothing, despite the fact that they’re the ones who need those allowances the most. Universalizing implies democratizing, equalizing, leveling up.

So two questions arise.

1) Where would the allowances money come from? The money is available. It’s just a matter of determining priorities. Just as a family wouldn’t buy a car if they didn’t have money to feed their kids, so should the State put this subject on top of all priorities. In Argentina, the national annual budget is set on more than 52 billion dollars; a plan like this one would cost, at most, 8 billion dollars. So it would only imply 8 per cent of the budget, therefore it’s just a matter of reorganizing the budgetary items and making the political decision of promoting this democratizing social-allowance mechanism. If you want to know how this project could be funded, here’s a chart (in Spanish only) with the different bills proposed at the Congress by all political parties.

2) Does this threaten the culture of work? I believe it doesn’t. First because, unlike other plans, being unemployed isn’t required to receive the allowance. And because those 200 pesos barely guarantee access to food, so in no way would someone resign to such a small income. Saying the opposite would imply thinking “people don’t work because they don’t want to”, but it’s the current socio-economic situation the reason why people are unemployed.

I believe this subject should be a priority. Should this incentive be discussed, and passed, it could become Argentina’s most important step towards democracy and citizenship since 1983.