FARRAR ON PROXIES:
David Farrar argues that the ethnic targetting issue is not actually as simple as
I made out earlier, when I said:
race-based funding that is not simply a proxy for need is bad; race-based funding that is simply a proxy for need is not.
He's partially right. I purposefully tried to make things seem simpler than they were to try to get people to understand the fundamental point that race-based and need based funding are not mutually exclusive. What I actually should have said was:
race-based funding that is not simply a proxy for need is bad; race-based funding that is simply a proxy for need is not neccessarily bad.
That, I think, is still sufficient to dispose of the
Steven Franks' comments to which I had taken exception. However, David makes three more nuanced points, which are worth responding to individually - even if ultimately, I think only one of them really hits its mark (and even then, it's inconsistent with Dr. Brash's own sloganeering, so it's a little rich to expect it to stick as a criticism of Labour).
#1
[I]t isn't that simple. As Maori are over-represented in almost every negative statistic, then one can justify any programme aimed at trying to help Maori in that sector as needs based.
I think this misunderstands the term "proxy". Over-representation in a negative social statistic isn't all that's required for ethnicity to be a good proxy. You have to control for other things as well. If all Maori overrepresentation in poor health or education outcomes is completely explained by their lower socio-economic status, then ethnicity is
not a good proxy. The problem for Dave here is that the evidence suggests that a differential remains even after other factors are controlled for.
#2
There is also a big debate about correlation and causative effect. The former does not mean one automatically has the latter, and if not then targeted funding is inappropriate.
If a correlation still exists between A and B, even once you've controlled for other variables, then the main reason for doubting that A causes B is the possibility that causation runs the other way: that B causes A. But, as it seems rather unlikely that poor health or educational outcomes cause people to be Maori, David seems on slightly shaky ground here.
More importantly, even if the argument that there's no causation here works, I fail to see how it makes targeting inappropriate. It might do so if you were looking at a correlation between, say, smoking and poor health: if you establish that particular causal link, you can try to discourage people from smoking in order to improve health. But note how this doesn't work with ethnicity: the point is not to discourage people from being Maori in the hope they'll get healthier. Rather, it is to say "this group of people is likely to have greater health need; consequently, they're likely to need more treatment, which (surprise) will probably need more money". Causation is irrelevant to this reasoning.
#3
It is simplistic to conclude that (for example) because Maori on average die younger than non Maori, that paying Doctors more if lots of Maori live in the neighbourhood will actually produce benefits.
On this point, I completely agree. Although we might suspect that putting more money into areas where there is greater need, this may not be the case. Indeed, many public sector agencies are notorious for gulping down greater and greater amounts of money for little return. This is the area where real debate is sorely needed. If targeted funding doesn't produce results, then we need to look for better ways of getting them. However, I would add two caveats. First, there's probably a legitimate presumption that need based funding is likely to produce better results - indeed, Dr. Brash's own slogan accepts as much. Second, if you don't think targeted funding works, you should be consistent about it and question all targeted funding, not just that which is
ethnically targeted. To date, National haven't been willing to say "let's scrap decile funding" or "let's stop funding health on the basis of need." (I'd suggest with good reason.) Until they do, it's tough to take David's claims seriously.
