Child Poverty in Ontario: The Value Added of Material Deprivation Indicators for Comparative Policy Analysis in North America

Abstract

North America lags behind in the use of outcome-based indicators such as material deprivation to study child poverty. Instead income indicators dominate research and policy-making. A large body of international research concludes that income poverty and material deprivation are complementary indicators because each measures specific but related aspects of material wellbeing. For children this distinction is even more pertinent because children have specific needs and their material circumstances affect both their current and future well-being. This research uses Ontario data to investigate whether material deprivation also contributes to a better understanding of child poverty in North America. It shows that the choice of poverty indicator affects estimates of the level of child poverty, its correlates, and the success of policy interventions in reaching poor children.

Social Transfers and Deprivation in Ireland: A study of cash and non-cash payments tied to housing, childcare, and primary health care services

“…Further, authors often use income poverty as an outcome, rather than measures of material deprivation. However, those who explore the impact of transfers on deprivation routinely find a negative association between the two (Notten, 2015Nelson, 2012;Saunders and Wong, 2011). Our work builds on these contributions but also revisits previous research, which explored the link between social transfers and income poverty in Ireland (Watson and Maitre, 2013).…”

“…While income poverty is calculated using a household's income relative to a benchmark (commonly 60% of median household disposable income), material deprivation is an objective measure of what a household can and cannot afford, using measures of what is generally considered "a customary life" (Nelson 2012;Watson and Maitre, 2013;Whelan et al, 1996). Notten (2015) suggests income poverty is "a monetary, indirect, resource-based indicator", while material deprivation is "an adverse material outcome resulting from a lack of financial means and is thus a non-monetary, direct, outcome-based indicator".…”

“…Broadly speaking, country poverty rates fall with increased social spending (Notten, 2015). Due to pressure from recession and subsequent austerity, welfare states have had to achieve more with less (Watson and Maitre, 2013) and transfers and benefits have become subject to scrutiny for their effectiveness and efficiency (Notten 2015;LeFebvre, 2007;Caminada and Goudswaard, 2010;Esping Andersen and Myles, 2009). In the following, we summarise the main impacts of these transfers below, focusing first on income poverty and then on deprivation.…”

“…Regarding who receives transfers, Notten (2015) finds that most income transfers go to the lowest income quintile, and that households in upper quintiles rarely receive transfers. Notten (2015) also shows wide differences between six European countries (Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK) in the share of respondents receiving transfers and the types of transfers received (housing, family, or social assistance). Ireland has a particularly high share of households receiving any kind of transfer (70%), when compared to the UK (39%) and Sweden (33%).…”

The prevalence and composition of asset poverty in Canada: 1999, 2005, and 2012

“…In the international literature on poverty, there is now broad acceptance that income‐based poverty measures have limitations and should be complemented with other indicators, for example, material deprivation, subjective well‐being, and inequalities in participation and capabilities (Bennett & Mitra, ; Notten, ; Scheidel, ; Sen, ). Several studies have advanced this field by measuring assets as well as income to better understand differences in a household's ability to meet a basic needs standard (Brandolini, Magri, & Smeeding, ; Carter & Barrett, ).…”