Financial Times

Unpacking Financial Times claim that Tel Aviv’s high-tech boom ‘stokes inequality’


Financial Times article (Israel’s tech expansion stokes glaring inequality in Tel Aviv, Dec. 11)  echoes a common MSM narrative about the putative relationship between wealth and poverty in Israel, one that doesn’t appear to be backed up by the economic data. 

FT reports on “the wealth generated by Israel’s surging tech scene”, which, it notes, “employs one-tenth of Tel Aviv’s 4m residents and has brought billions of dollars of investment into the Mediterranean beach town.”  But, this growth, the reporter argues, serves to “exacerbate” social ills such as “income inequality”, pointing to “some 15 per cent of the workforce” who are “below the poverty line”.

At best, this is misleading. According to the most recent report (in 2016) on “Poverty and Social Gaps” by Israel’s National Insurance Institute (NII), poverty rates in Tel Aviv are among the lowest in the country.

The graph shows that, beginning in the 2000s, when the city’s high-tech sector – which now represents 12% of Israel’s gross domestic product – began its remarkable growth, poverty rates have remained steady, and have even declined in more recent years.  From 2015 to 2016, it dropped from 12.5% to 10.3%. 

As far as “income inequality”, whilst we weren’t able to find data broken down by city, in Israel overall, income inequality is – again, per the NII data – at the lowest rate since 2003, a result, NII asserts, of increased social benefits, higher wages and the fact “Israel’s economy has grown faster…than nearly any other in the OECD for the past 15 years.”  The OECD’s 2018 economic report on Israel confirms the NII’s conclusions, stating clearly that “in recent years both gross and net income inequality have come down”.  

Whilst the OECD report does note that, as a whole, Israel’s rate of income inequality is on the higher end of the OECD average, there appears to be no evidence supporting the Financial Times’ claim that Tel Aviv’s high-tech boom is the cause of, or is exacerbating, poverty and inequality in the city.

Related Articles

8 replies »

  1. Tel Aviv has 4 million residents? If this is no typo it explains the silly numbers in the FT piece. TLV has around 400.000 living in it. The FT suddenly throws its capitalist credentials over board to poop on Israel. Why am I not surprised?

  2. FT has been very anti Israel/Jewish in all its articles. It should come as no surprise to find such unsubstantiated material in its published articles. Their journalists are sloppy and exhibit a pronounced bias rather than being impartial and their adjudicated complaints mechanism appears to be self supporting.
    From https://aboutus.ft.com/en-gb/ft-editorial-code/
    FT Editorial Code
    Our commitment
    It is fundamental to the integrity and success of the Financial Times (FT) that we uphold the highest possible standards of ethical and professional journalism, and that we are seen to do so.

    The benchmark for the FT’s journalistic practices is set by our FT Editorial Code. Compliance with the code is an obligation for all FT editorial staff.

    Our actions
    If you wish to request a clarification or correction, please email corrections@ft.com.

    If you wish to make a complaint about any of our editorial content or journalistic activity, please contact editor@ft.com.

    Where any complaint under the FT Editorial Code is unable to be resolved by FT’s senior editors, the Complaints Commissioner will review the matter and recommend any appropriate redress.

    In September 2014 the Financial Times Limited (FT) appointed Greg Callus as its editorial Complaints Commissioner. The role will ensure a continued means of dealing with reader complaints following the closure of the UK Press Complaints Commission. His remit is to support the FT’s existing framework for handling editorial complaints, independent of the editor.

    Read more about the role here.

    Find out more about the Complaints Commissioner and the Appointments and Oversight Committee.

    Read our guide to the policies and processes of the Complaints Commissioner here.

    Adjudicated complaints
    19 September 2018, Valbury Capital. Complaint partially upheld under Clause 1.2.
    28 April 2018, Christopher Chandler. No breach, Clause 1.
    10 April 2018, Mauro Libi Crestani. No breach, Clause 1. Breach, Clauses 2 and 6.
    15 February 2018, Paul Tierno. Breach, Article 7(2).
    22 January 2018, Peter Cheung. No breach, Clause 1.1.
    7 December 2017, Ellie Bennett. No breach, Clause 1.1 or 1.2.
    31 October 2017, Alex Wessendorff. No breach, Clause 1.1 or 1.2.
    8 August 2017, Shaun Whatling. No breach, Clause 1.2.
    16 June 2017, Dr Colin Leci. No breach, Clause 1.
    6 August 2016, Anthony Kay. No breach, Clause 12.1.
    24 May 2016, Paul Stanley. No breach.
    14 April 2016, Jordan Jay. No breach.
    14 April 2016, Owen Angel and Paul Lamm. No breach.
    6 January 2016, Dr Colin L. Leci. No breach.
    29 June 2015, Robert Bartlett. No breach.
    29 May 2015, Jonathan Portes. Complaint partially upheld under Clause 1.2.
    18 June 2015, Dr Bia Labate. No breach of articles 1(2) and 1(4). Article in question here.
    1 March 2015, PA. No breach of Clause 3.
    25 February, Andrew Anderson. No breach, Clause 1.
    29 March 2015, Matt Berkley. No breach, Clause 1 or 1.2.