TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Richard Tol: This says more about the ESRI’s professionalism than mine

The academic who co-authored the controversial article which was withdrawn by the ESRI said he stands over his findings.

Richard Tol
Richard Tol
Image: Screengrab via Youtube

RICHARD TOL, THE academic who co-authored the controversial working paper which was withdrawn by the ESRI last night, has said that he stands over his findings.

The working paper, which claimed that 44 per cent of families with young children would be better off on the dole than working, has been taken down from the ESRI website following what the think-tank called ‘serious methodological issues’.

“As far as I know, the numbers are still correct and I still stand over them,” Tol said on RTE Radio One’s Morning Ireland this morning. He said that the figure of 44 per cent is correct in reference to parents with young children who need to avail of private childcare.

He acknowledged that there were “serious issues” with the data as there was no data set “that really goes to the heart of this” but said he was satisfied with the information used in the paper.

Tol said he did not feel that his professionalism is being called into question by the withdrawal of the paper.

I’ve absolutely no problem with my professionalism here. You may say something about the ESRI’s professionalism but not about mine.

Tol said he was not party to the decision to withdraw the paper and said he did not know why the ESRI had done so.

“We sent the paper to a journal, it came back for major revisions but that was mostly in the form of the flow of the paper and the way we set up the argument should be revised, and in addition the journal asked for additional analyses but it did not actually contest the bottom line conclusion,” he said.

“I don’t know why this decision was made or what pressure led to this decision,” Tol said.

He said he had no knowledge of whether political pressure was exerted. “It could have happened, the unions may also have tried to pull strings”.

Told added that the paper is currently being revised but said there is ‘no reason to change the conclusions”. He said that the paper will probably be published as a working paper of the University of Sussex, where Tol is a professor in the department of economics, and re-submitted to the journal.

Frances Ruane, the director of the ESRI, said that colleagues who had examined the paper said there were serious methodological issues with the paper. The nature of working papers is that they are the responsibility of the authors, not the ESRI, and it was not an ESRI publication, she said.

There are over 400 working papers up on the ESRI website and she said she did not know why this particular one found its way into the public discussion.

Ruane emphasised that she had not been in contact with the government before the decision was made.

“It is not a day I would like to have repeated again,” she said.

Read the working paper here >

ESRI paper which said many would be better off on dole withdrawn >

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (51 Comments)

  • Govt pressure, simple as!

    Reply
    • ….or to be more precise “Labour we wont cut the dole” pressure…

      Reply
    • It’s not about the dole itself, it’s about the stacking of benefits on one side and the prohibitive costs of childcare and travel on the other.

      The solution would be:
      - to cap benefits per family to the level of one modest wage (nowhere near average, otherwise what’s the point in working)
      - to provide cheap (state or state-subsidised) childcare
      - to invest heavily into public transport infrastruture (also known as growth stimulus) to provide frequent and affordable transport.

      These simple things would shift the balance enormously.

      Reply
    • Interesting to hear Mary Lou McDonald in the Dáil today on this one. She doesn’t believe that the government stopped the report but that rather the government would try and use this report as an excuse to cut the dole further.

      There’s two sides to this.

      Reply
    • So let me get this right David? You think the government would ensure to make it public that people would be better off on the dole after assuring people they weren’t going to cut it? I can’t speak for sf but that’s a daft assertion. I don’t buy the nonsense that they’d want to use it to say that the dole needs to be cut!

      Reply
  • He is right….. I need 33k to pay for childcare for two kids…. Commute etc…. And that is just to break even compared to staying at home with two kids and dole

    Reply
  • If the report is flawed let the Minister for employment or social protection explain how in the Dail, then withdraw it.nThis govt continues to spin and control information rather than devoting that energy to tackling our problems head on.

    Reply
  • He is pretty much on the money in my mind. The Journal only just published an article a few days back from a woman who got work only to find out she’d have been better off on the dole.

    But people are missing the point- it is not that the dole is too high (€188 per week is a pittance in modern day Ireland) it is that prices here are too high (we all know day to day staples are significantly cheaper abroad).

    This all goes back to property and the cost of commerical & residential rents. The net cost to the Irish public of NAMA putting an artificial floor on the market and the govt refusing to tackle upward only rent reviews means that rents remain expensive. That then filters down into the price of a litre of milk, bar of chocolate, etc. Despite our recession the cost of living in Ireland is still astronomically high compared to our EU neighbours- we pay more than them for virtually everything. These expensive prices means we need a high minimum wage but during a recession there is downward pressure on wages which exacerbates the problem.

    Get us back to a normal functioning property market (and by that I mean affordable for everyone, employer and employee) and much of these problems will be sorted out.

    Reply
  • The statements that “social welfare payments are too high” or “wages are too high” are the sort of statements that are so broad they are essentially meaningless.

    You have individuals who are literally on the breadline on social welfare while you have others who can live very comfortably.

    If you are a single 23 year old male with no car living in rented accommodation it’s possible that you can have a very comfy lifestyle.

    If you are a married couple with 3 kids with a huge mortgage living in a ghost estate in the middle of nowhere trying to keep a car on the road you could be climbing the walls trying to keep body and soul together.

    These are just two samples – given the amount of people receiving social welfare there is obviously going to be a massive amount of difference in terms of individual’s cases.

    As such anyone who makes the blanket statement that social welfare is too high is obviously taking nonsense

    Are there abuses of the system? Of course there are.

    Was money given away for nothing during the Boom years?

    Massively – I know of two people who received welfare payments as a result of a casual acquaintance with a social welfare employee. Neither of them knew they were entitled and neither remotely needed it but were told to check it out by the social welfare employee. Lo and behold free money. Given these were people who clearly didn’t need it but were entitled to it, it shows how massively flawed the system was even in the good times.

    Is there a disincentive to work because of social welfare payments? Of course there is.

    What’s the solution?
    Look at the cases where there is a disincentive and adjust the system based on this. However just removing the disincentive isn’t going to make jobs appear. Labour is never going to allow this as any change to social welfare will cut into their support

    People use the cost of childcare when drawing up examples. This ignores the fact that this is a cost which varies massively depending on the age and number of children i.e it’s not going to be there for ever. While kids still cost a lot once they enter the education system the cost of childcare (in the sense of paying someone to mind them will drop substanialy – they’ll still cost money but the burden of childcare will drop massively)

    Is there a disincentive to work in certain cases because of the social welfare system? Yes of course there is.

    Reply
  • Shoot the messenger?
    I believe you are more likely to get the truth once you are free of the shackles of Government leaning.
    Ireland is still a cosy little network where everybody knows their place and how to handle things and as soon as somebody steps outside that they get shot down.
    The cosiest institutions in Ireland are the ones where a spotlight never shines, where they are deemed absolutely necessary and nobody understands what they do anyway.
    Prime example is The Irish Aviation Authority. My neighbour works there, makes huge money and by his own admission does very little.
    These are great places to hide for your working years.

    Reply
  • “400 working papers…”. Is this figure correct? If so, how many people are being paid by this Quango?

    Reply
  • Try starting a business in this country. Your first ?1000 goes to accountants so they can tell the government: guess what? I didn’t earn enough this year to be liable for tax. Same next year probably, right? Get off your pompous high horses anyone who hasn’t experienced unemployment.

    Reply
  • He makes an impressive case. Sure, there are “serious issues with [his] data” but “as far as [he] knows” the conclusion is correct. Well, I’m convinced!

    Reply
  • @Daniel I sincerely hope you never have to survive on SW. You’re obviously in very secure employment and this is evident in your po-faced, smug finger-wagging. The dignity of people need not be your concern as by your comments they cease to be of consequence once they can no longer pay into the system. I am continually disappointed by the lack of empathy on display from too many people on The Journal. . .but not surprised given the way the country has gone.

    Reply
  • Richard is wearing a White Stripes t-shirt. Awesome.

    Reply
  • Prof. Richard Tol: “I spurned ERSI to concentrate on my music, chinchillas and growing my own lentils.”

    Reply
  • Dole may or may not be too high, its probably not. The real problem is there are a significant number of people (even whole families) who are unemployed by choice and have never looked for jobs – such as the unemployable idiots going round town in dreadlocks and combat trousers and of course the poor travelling community not to forget the “single” parents making litters of kids for the state to support. If you dont like that opinion tough!

    Reply
  • Like the drunk in the street roaring and shouting about bankers and the government. Sure, he is off his head.
    But he still speaks the truth.

    Reply
  • I’ve just realised who this joker is, he’s the same guy who was criticising investment in wind farms. in a country with no oil, coal and very small gas extraction. no wonder he believes people spend 11 euro a day on lunch and 140 a month on clothes for work. he couldn’t be more out of touch if he tried.

    there is possibly a case for a welfare cap, but its not easy to implement as the pro-poverty industry will be up screaming.

    Reply
    • Can you explain the term “pro poverty industry”? I understand each of the words, but I have no idea what they are supposed to mean put together like that.

      Reply
    • C’mon Laura – his criitcism of wind farm investment is based on doing it in a ‘joined up thinking’ way rather than willy nilly. We all know that even if we had wind capacity that would provide twice (or more) of Ireland’s electricity requirement we’d still need an almost full capacity fossil-fuel/nuclear/solar electric generation capability for those times when there’s little or no wind (e.g. this happened for several days during the big freeze of 2010/11). This can be done correctly, particularly with good co-operation with countries, and the correct investment strategy in windpower here is part of that.

      On the working paper here I’d say he may have got some of his figures wrong (or maybe accepted too readily those provided by CSO) but I’d say he has a point.

      Reply
  • I probably spend somewhere between €60 and €70 a week on food – but thats because of the pressures of running my own business I succumb to the odd Subway or Burrito. If I’ve the time to cook its less. €50 a week for just myself wouldn’t be hard because I’m always looking for bargains, €2.31 for two Chicken Kievs in Tesco -for example – so throw in a few spuds and carrots youre looking at two main meals in your week for less than €4 I reckon. Its not hard to do this – in fact its fun, just takes effort and a bit of time.
    As I said about the €30 a week thats SURVIVAL only. As in thats the limit he could spend in a week and survive before starting to go hungry.
    I personally think the dole should give you enough to pay your rent, feed you (within reason – I couldnt eat my way through €100 of food per week unless I was eating out regularly) and allow you a certain amount for discretionary expenditure – but €83 a week? Seems excessive, especially when, em, we have NO MONEY!
    We’re at the mercy of the EU, IMF and the markets because no-one, not the social welfare, not the consultants, not the lawyers, not the bankers, not the politicians, not thecivil service feel they should take a hit.
    Don’t get me wrong I would start right at the top and incrementally make it easier as you head towards the most vulnerable but I don’t buy into the myth that all social welfare recipients are at their wits end. Some yes, for sure, because they have commitments they entered into when in well paying jobs, or they have other circumstances hanging over them, but some like my friend are doing just fine thank you very much. and to deny that this cohort exists just weakens your argument.
    That guy is still my friend by the way

    Reply
    • Don’t forget that welfare is not only a support to individuals – a “cost” to the state. It is also a payment into the domestic economy – as welfare receipts are spent, they prop up jobs and businesses in retail and other industries that pay taxes – a “benefit” to the state. Both sides of this cost benefit analysis should be taken into consideration.

      Reply
    • Perhaps if you put a little more consideration into how important the type of food you eat was you wouldn’t consider €30 enough to feed yourself..nnLet’s take those tesco chicken kievs.. Did you not see the BBC thing on this a while back? There’s probably less than 30% chicken in them, and that chicken doesn’t necessarily have to be decent meat. Another ingredient is cellulose. As we were taught in biology in school this is the name of what makes up a plant cell wall, in the food industry it means wood pulp.nThen there’s additives, preservatives, flavour enhancers, flavourings.. Many of which come with their own health implications.nAnd the nutrient value is considerably less than an actual chicken breast with the same sauce..nnThat is barely existing in terms of nourishment, indeed these calorie heavy nutrient lacking foods are a large factor in the obesity epidemic. It is possible to be overweight and still malnourished. nnYour colon is your closest relationship to the environment outside (technically your digestive tract is considered outside the body and the membrane separating you from what passes through it is considerably thinner than skin). What you eat is intensely important to your health. It may be cheap to get by on this processed junk now, but the subsequent healthcare costs wouldn’t be..

      Reply
  • Gotta give it to the professional PR teams that business lobby groups and the government hire to manage “news”. So instead of the facts being described as “Wages are so low that many people are not much better of when they actually find work” this research is spun as “Oh the dole is far too high, probably need to cut that”

    We can see through that.

    Reply
    • I think the point is not that wages are low, but that social payments are too generous…

      Reply
    • Right click on this and you can read it for yourself http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/WP436/WP436.pdf

      Reply
    • try and live off the dole for a month and come back here and say that.

      Reply
    • Daniel “the point” is a matter of political perspective. Social payments are not too high, ask anyone living on them

      The substantive argument is that for many people there is not a lot of difference between working in low page jobs and getting social payments. That’s an arithmetic fact.

      The conclusion drawn and how that is framed is a subjective political question. The ESRI, and business lobby groups want to keep wages low to maximise profits. It is entirely in their interest to frame this as dole is to high.

      Im on the dole, I know its not too high. After rent, bills and feeding myself Ive about 30 euro a week left on “non-essentials”. Its not a great existence, and it is not too generous. In fact social payments have nothing to do with ‘generosity’ at all. Is social welfare meant to be understood as charity?

      Reply
    • Francis – the dole is not to be “living on”. Dole is to support when you loose your income.

      Otherwise what would be the point of work in the first place?

      Reply
    • Agree with Mark.
      Seems like this paper set out to prove something, rather than drawing conclusions based on data.
      It includes things like haircuts (Does Toll cut his hair?) and new clothes as being essential for work. That may be true, but things like new clothes are a luxury for those of us on social welfare.
      It’s just as valid to look at this report as proving that low-paid jobs don’t reach the minimum standard of living accepted by society and that it should be raised.
      Also, RTE said the report is 7 years old! A lot has changed since 2005!!

      Reply
    • @Mark Malone: The link is dead.

      Reply
    • Answer that one yourself Daniel. What is the point of work exactly?

      Reply
    • Daniel, when you cut through the report is main point is not about the relationship between welfare and wages, but about the relationship between wages and the cost of living.

      Reply
    • If people want to read the report – kinda useful if you gonna comment on it – a working link is here http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0612/esri_report.pdf

      Reply
    • mark,

      I am working and each week after mortgage, loans (car loan),bills and diesel for my car, I am left with 20 Euro to feed myself.. you are lucky to have 30 euro disposable income even though you are not working… there are many like me who would love to have disposable income…

      Reply
    • @ Daniel, 400,000 people unemployed, and you’re saying they and their dependants should be given enough to exist not live. 100,000 are long term unemployed, 300,000 recently unemployed, don’t tell me these 300,000 people would rather be on SW because there are thousands emigrating every week. The time to encourage the 100,000 to take up employment and reduce SW was when we had full employment. None of these people caused our economic collapse but they, like the 1.5 million in employment are being made suffer for it.
      Show some solidarity with your fellow citizens, the elite in this country don’t care about you whether you work or not

      Reply
  • This is a simple case of an ongoing gripe between Toll and his ex-employer – the real news story is why this relationship broke down in the first place.

    Reply
  • See we don’t have a Tory party here who can just come out and say explicitly, “people on the dole are lazy and we need to slash it”. So we need more subtle mechanisms to attack the unemployed. The ESRI is one of them. It sounds kind of left wing and socially conscious. But in reality it’s just the academic wing of government policy. I wouldn’t trust a word they say.

    Reply
  • I think if youre a single person and only just surviving on the €186 a week of free money you need to look at your budgeting.
    Buddy of mine is a former fund accountant – decided to do a spreadsheet on his incomings and outgoings. Reckoned he had about €83 of disposable income after food and rent (he gets RA)……
    Sorry I meant after food, rent, gym membership, mobile broadband, unlimited cinema pass and nominal loan repayments to his banks….
    He’s a canny shopper – seeks out bargains and special offers, cooks his own stuff (why would he be too busy to?), and reckons you can eat like a king for €50 a week – he could probably just about survive but no more on €30 for food.
    Now he doesn’t have a mortgage or kids, which makes all the difference in the world, but he finds it hilarious that if he is disciplined, and saves just €50 of that €83, he’ll be able to afford a three week holiday in Thailand every year courtesy of the state.
    This as I say is not the case for somone who has kids to feed and a mortgage to pay but he reckons he could take up to a €50 a week hit without suffering major discomfort.
    #dontshootthemessenger

    Reply
    • Hard to know where to start. Dont have a lot of time for the “I have this mate” storytelling. Its usually trolling, and sure we all have great story telling mate.

      Especially when “your mate” says he could survive on 30 euros a week for food. If you want to a base line of “surviving” for people in this country, whilst before the end of the month 500,00,000 will be handed over to a bank still under police investigation, your opinion is kinda messed up.

      How much do YOU spend on food each week Hakuin and how much above survival level do you consider something called a society should accept as normal in 2012? I would be genuinely more enlightening than stuff your former mate told ya.

      Reply
    • That’s what I said….. I need with my spouse working 33k to break even… On the dole I got by on 20 a day….. Iaw was able to save.

      Government should pay or sponsor childcare if they want people back working.

      Alternatively offer one half of a couple a stay at home allowance to mind their own…. Freeing up a place in the workforce for someone who does not have a “need” to stay at home.

      Reply
  • So freedom of speech huh- did we sign that away to- I don’t know if fine geal politicians read this but when the next election comes around -Fine Geal will be decimated bit like The last crowd nIt’s like sometimes The Country feels Lost

    Reply
  • And whist the argument rages the real heist goes on and on on – If only our views were as ferocious when it comes to the indisputable unequal society we live in where you’re a criminal if you can’t pay a fine but bankrupt a country and you’re in Poznan watching football on sitting on your arse raking in 3.5K a week in pension payments. Still, you have to hand it to the old government ploy of divide and rule.
    Still works a treat.

    Truth – Dole’s going to get cut more. Much more. One way or another. And lo-pay workers are going to be hit again – through taxes. It will either be played out slowly like since 2008 – or if the Euro goes wallop – then it’s going to be overnight. It’s also going to leave politics in a bit of a mess – having been led into this by most of the mainstream Europhile parties. What credibility are any of them going to have left?
    Worrying times.

    Reply
  • He could do with a bit of grooming

    Reply

Add New Comment