Sir, – As the authors and publisher of the research report A Minimum Income Standard for Irelandwe wish to respond to Dan O'Brien's article (Opinion, February 7th). His piece notably contrasted with the coverage and editorial elsewhere in your newspaper and in our view inappropriately questioned the integrity and robustness of the research.
The report was not a commissioned piece of research by the Department of Social Protection, rather it was an output from a one-year research project funded via a research grant from the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS). In late 2010 the department made some funds available to the IRCHSS to fund a competitive call for research focused on income adequacy across the lifecycle in Ireland – an area relevant to government commitments under the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion and other policy areas. Applications were assessed by an independent international peer review process and the Minimum Income Standards project was awarded funding.
Providing funding for research projects is not unusual for government departments and plays an important role in the ability of government to enhance its use of evidence-based policy making – an objective to which we all aspire.
The report published last week essentially examined four questions: 1. What is a minimum standard of living in Ireland today; 2. How much expenditure must any household (rich or poor) incur to achieve this minimum; 3. How much income does a household need to be able to afford a minimum standard of living; and 4. How do households on fixed incomes (welfare-dependent households and those on minimum wages) compare to this minimum. The research addressed these questions in a detailed way using an established research methodology well documented in the academic literature: a consensual budget standards methodology. As part of that process the researchers established representative focus groups across Ireland and consulted these to establish the composition of the household expenditure budgets. While O’Brien’s article dismissed this process, in fact it followed detailed methodological guidelines. Research should be methodologically sound – this is.
Despite O’Brien’s suggestion, the report does not represent a piece of advocacy. Rather, it pursued the aforementioned questions in a detailed way and provided answers to them for various household categories across the lifecycle. A reading of the research findings demonstrates that some households had sufficient income to be able to afford a minimum standard of living while others did not. Understandably, attention fell on the cluster of households who received insufficient income to be able to afford this minimum standard, particularly given their concentration among groups of welfare-dependent households and low-income working households.
If anything, the research offers a clearer insight into the reality of the difficult choices these households have to make on a week-to-week basis. However, the key objective of the research was to provide detailed empirical answers to the research questions. The use of these findings, in making cases for increases or decreases to welfare payments, public services, minimum wages, taxes or other pay rates is for others – it would not have been appropriate for a research report of this nature.
The article also questioned the appropriateness of the TCD Policy Institute in publishing this research as part of its Studies in Public Policy series. Like all contributions to that series, the report was subject to peer review – in this case one international expert and one national expert – who read the research, commented on it and recommended that the work was sufficiently detailed, robust and methodologically sound to publish.
Similarly, while the authors rather than the Policy Institute are responsible for the content of any research published, the function of the research series is to provide a forum for detailed research on policy issues of major importance. The Studies in Public Policy series serves as a key outlet for such research; unfortunately it is one of very few.
While O'Brien is fully entitled to dismiss this research with "a pinch of salt", he should note it comes served with a large spoon of substance. Others may judge for themselves. The report is available at www.tcd.ie/policy-institute. – Yours, etc,