Labour income, social transfers and child poverty
Description: Labour income, social transfers and child poverty (Bruce Bradbury, Markus Jäntti Lena Lindahl) Extreme Child Poverty in Rich and Poor Nations: Lessons from Atkinson for the Fight against Child Poverty (Yixia Cai Timothy Smeeding)
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Labour income, social transfers and child poverty" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Labour income, social transfers and child poverty (Bruce Bradbury, Markus Jäntti & Lena Lindahl) Extreme Child Poverty in Rich and Poor Nations: Lessons from Atkinson for the Fight against Child Poverty (Yixia Cai & Timothy Smeeding) Discussion
Anne-Catherine Guio (LISER)<br>
slide2. Labour income, social transfers and child poverty Aim: Explain the cross-national variation in the relative income of the bottom fifth of children
Decomposition approach, very instructive
Care about data quality (sensitivity analysis re impact of self-employment income)<br>
slide3. Still curious about… Focus on low wage, low hours, transfers… but:
Which transfers play the largest role? (unemployment, old-age pensions (complex hhds), family benefits, social inclusion?).
What are the characteristics of low-income hhds with children in different countries (repartition jobless hhds, part-time etc.)
Greece (before/after the crisis): Results are very interesting in terms of (the lack of) the impact of transfers, but not interpreted. Lack of data on evolution.<br>
slide4. Real mean income per capita, EU-SILC (Index 2005 = 100) (Source: Atkinson, Guio, Marlier, 2017)<br>
slide5. Severe deprivation, children, EU-SILC<br>
slide6. Decomposition summary<br>
slide7. Extreme Child Poverty in Rich & Poor Nations Aim: Measure deep and extreme child poverty in a set of rich & poor nations and analyse the influence of the different components of hhd resources
Middle-income nations: BR, CN, IN, SA High-income (EN-speaking) nations: AU, CA, IE, UK, US
Deep: < 20 (HICs) or 25% (MICs) national income Extreme: < 2$/day (MICs) – 4$/day (HICs)<br>
slide8. Sceptical about… Choice of threshold:
statistical and/or substantive criteria for choosing such a low threshold?
poor data quality at the very bottom end of the income distribution (self-employment, negative income, outliers)
why choosing a different threshold in a relative approach (20% in HICs and 25% in MICs vs 60% in all 28 EU countries [BG/RO and LU])? The median is country-specific, why then choosing also a country-specific % of median
Focus on 0.5-2% of pop. in HICs (except US: 4%). Statistical significance of figures and their evolution? Including CI is crucial
At EU level, since just a few years, it is now (finally!) common practice to publish indicators together with CI
Income-based measure vs deprivation to capture extreme poverty?<br>
slide9. EU Child-specific deprivation measure: 17 items New indicator agreed in 03/2018
Focus on specific conditions of children; children’s deprivation may differ from parents’ deprivation
17 items, threshold 3+
Robustness analysis by Guio et al (2012, 2017)
Data will be collected each three years in EU-SILC rolling modules
Complement annual monitoring of whole population deprivation<br>
slide10. EU Child-specific deprivation and deep child poverty In the UK:
Only one third of children in deep poverty (i.e. < 20% of hhd median income) suffer from child-specific deprivation (despite the low threshold of EU child deprivation: 3+ out of 17 items)
58% do not suffer from any deprivation at all.
These children are less disadvantaged than the children living in hhds < 60% median income (47% deprived, 26% no deprivation at all)<br>
slide11. Cross-fertilisation between two conferences (Net-SILC3 and LIS conferences) Tony: Scientific advisor to the 1st and 2nd Networks for the analysis of EU-SILC (Net-SILC1 and Net-SILC2)
Network funded by Eurostat and coordinated by LISER
Brings together experts from National Statistical Institutes and academics
Develops common tools and approaches regarding various aspects of data production and indicator development<br>
slide12. Cross-fertilisation between two conferences (Net-SILC3 and LIS conferences) Tony: Scientific advisor to the 1st and 2nd Networks for the analysis of EU-SILC (Net-SILC1 and Net-SILC2)
Network funded by Eurostat and coordinated by LISER
Brings together experts from National Statistical Institutes and academics
Develops common tools and approaches regarding various aspects of data production and indicator development<br>
slide13. Cross-fertilisation between two conferences (Net-SILC3 and LIS conferences) Self-employment income: indeed a crucial issue (Veli-Matti Törmälehto)
Income poverty gap: quality issues at the bottom of the income distribution (Iryna Kyzyma)
Self-consumption: not negligible for some low-income groups (Tijana Comic)
Impact of transfers on poverty: gross/net concept matters (Chrysa Leventi)
Micro and Macro drivers of child deprivation
(Guio, Marlier, Vandenbroucke and Verbunt)<br>
slide14. Comparison of total sums of EU-SILC and NA: Coverage rates of wages and salaries (Source: Törmälehto, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide15. Comparison of total sums of EU-SILC and NA: Coverage rates of self-employment income (Source: Törmälehto, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide16. Share of observations with small values at the bottom end of the income distribution (Source: Kyzyma, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide17. Percentage of households reporting own-consumption income by income quintiles, 2015 (Source: Comic, Net-SILC3 conference) Q1/Q5
3.0<br>
slide18. Change in the poverty rates after inclusion of own consumption in total household income, for different sub-groups of the population, 2015 (Source: Comic, Net-SILC3 conference) + Increase of poverty threshold of 1-2.5%<br>
slide19. Decrease of S80/S20 after inclusion of own consumption in total household income, 2015 (Source: Comic, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide20. Gross transfers are estimated to reduce the at-risk-of-poverty rate by 28.1 pp at EU level; the impact is estimated at 26.6 pp if transfers are net
larger differences in some countries anti-poverty effectiveness of transfer systems depends on whether transfers are measured gross or net
(Source: Leventi et AL, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide21. EU Child-specific deprivation and relative income<br>
slide22. Multi-level analysis: Micro and macro drivers of differences between EU countries (Guio, Marlier, Vandenbroucke, Verbunt, Net-SILC3 conference Between-country analysis: main results
In-kind social benefits, pro-poor social transfers and GDP per capita/ median national income reduce child deprivation
Cushioning effect of cash social benefits operates mainly through household income. Significant at macro level only when household income is omitted.
Why are GDP per capita/median national income significant?
Hidden contextual context & proxy of “level of social development” ?
Average household wealth, size of gifts between households, less volatile incomes at bottom end of the income distribution, higher quality of public services
Notion of “affordability” changes with the societal level of affluence?<br>
Anne-Catherine Guio (LISER)<br>
slide2. Labour income, social transfers and child poverty Aim: Explain the cross-national variation in the relative income of the bottom fifth of children
Decomposition approach, very instructive
Care about data quality (sensitivity analysis re impact of self-employment income)<br>
slide3. Still curious about… Focus on low wage, low hours, transfers… but:
Which transfers play the largest role? (unemployment, old-age pensions (complex hhds), family benefits, social inclusion?).
What are the characteristics of low-income hhds with children in different countries (repartition jobless hhds, part-time etc.)
Greece (before/after the crisis): Results are very interesting in terms of (the lack of) the impact of transfers, but not interpreted. Lack of data on evolution.<br>
slide4. Real mean income per capita, EU-SILC (Index 2005 = 100) (Source: Atkinson, Guio, Marlier, 2017)<br>
slide5. Severe deprivation, children, EU-SILC<br>
slide6. Decomposition summary<br>
slide7. Extreme Child Poverty in Rich & Poor Nations Aim: Measure deep and extreme child poverty in a set of rich & poor nations and analyse the influence of the different components of hhd resources
Middle-income nations: BR, CN, IN, SA High-income (EN-speaking) nations: AU, CA, IE, UK, US
Deep: < 20 (HICs) or 25% (MICs) national income Extreme: < 2$/day (MICs) – 4$/day (HICs)<br>
slide8. Sceptical about… Choice of threshold:
statistical and/or substantive criteria for choosing such a low threshold?
poor data quality at the very bottom end of the income distribution (self-employment, negative income, outliers)
why choosing a different threshold in a relative approach (20% in HICs and 25% in MICs vs 60% in all 28 EU countries [BG/RO and LU])? The median is country-specific, why then choosing also a country-specific % of median
Focus on 0.5-2% of pop. in HICs (except US: 4%). Statistical significance of figures and their evolution? Including CI is crucial
At EU level, since just a few years, it is now (finally!) common practice to publish indicators together with CI
Income-based measure vs deprivation to capture extreme poverty?<br>
slide9. EU Child-specific deprivation measure: 17 items New indicator agreed in 03/2018
Focus on specific conditions of children; children’s deprivation may differ from parents’ deprivation
17 items, threshold 3+
Robustness analysis by Guio et al (2012, 2017)
Data will be collected each three years in EU-SILC rolling modules
Complement annual monitoring of whole population deprivation<br>
slide10. EU Child-specific deprivation and deep child poverty In the UK:
Only one third of children in deep poverty (i.e. < 20% of hhd median income) suffer from child-specific deprivation (despite the low threshold of EU child deprivation: 3+ out of 17 items)
58% do not suffer from any deprivation at all.
These children are less disadvantaged than the children living in hhds < 60% median income (47% deprived, 26% no deprivation at all)<br>
slide11. Cross-fertilisation between two conferences (Net-SILC3 and LIS conferences) Tony: Scientific advisor to the 1st and 2nd Networks for the analysis of EU-SILC (Net-SILC1 and Net-SILC2)
Network funded by Eurostat and coordinated by LISER
Brings together experts from National Statistical Institutes and academics
Develops common tools and approaches regarding various aspects of data production and indicator development<br>
slide12. Cross-fertilisation between two conferences (Net-SILC3 and LIS conferences) Tony: Scientific advisor to the 1st and 2nd Networks for the analysis of EU-SILC (Net-SILC1 and Net-SILC2)
Network funded by Eurostat and coordinated by LISER
Brings together experts from National Statistical Institutes and academics
Develops common tools and approaches regarding various aspects of data production and indicator development<br>
slide13. Cross-fertilisation between two conferences (Net-SILC3 and LIS conferences) Self-employment income: indeed a crucial issue (Veli-Matti Törmälehto)
Income poverty gap: quality issues at the bottom of the income distribution (Iryna Kyzyma)
Self-consumption: not negligible for some low-income groups (Tijana Comic)
Impact of transfers on poverty: gross/net concept matters (Chrysa Leventi)
Micro and Macro drivers of child deprivation
(Guio, Marlier, Vandenbroucke and Verbunt)<br>
slide14. Comparison of total sums of EU-SILC and NA: Coverage rates of wages and salaries (Source: Törmälehto, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide15. Comparison of total sums of EU-SILC and NA: Coverage rates of self-employment income (Source: Törmälehto, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide16. Share of observations with small values at the bottom end of the income distribution (Source: Kyzyma, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide17. Percentage of households reporting own-consumption income by income quintiles, 2015 (Source: Comic, Net-SILC3 conference) Q1/Q5
3.0<br>
slide18. Change in the poverty rates after inclusion of own consumption in total household income, for different sub-groups of the population, 2015 (Source: Comic, Net-SILC3 conference) + Increase of poverty threshold of 1-2.5%<br>
slide19. Decrease of S80/S20 after inclusion of own consumption in total household income, 2015 (Source: Comic, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide20. Gross transfers are estimated to reduce the at-risk-of-poverty rate by 28.1 pp at EU level; the impact is estimated at 26.6 pp if transfers are net
larger differences in some countries anti-poverty effectiveness of transfer systems depends on whether transfers are measured gross or net
(Source: Leventi et AL, Net-SILC3 conference)<br>
slide21. EU Child-specific deprivation and relative income<br>
slide22. Multi-level analysis: Micro and macro drivers of differences between EU countries (Guio, Marlier, Vandenbroucke, Verbunt, Net-SILC3 conference Between-country analysis: main results
In-kind social benefits, pro-poor social transfers and GDP per capita/ median national income reduce child deprivation
Cushioning effect of cash social benefits operates mainly through household income. Significant at macro level only when household income is omitted.
Why are GDP per capita/median national income significant?
Hidden contextual context & proxy of “level of social development” ?
Average household wealth, size of gifts between households, less volatile incomes at bottom end of the income distribution, higher quality of public services
Notion of “affordability” changes with the societal level of affluence?<br>