Social Transfers and Child Poverty in European Countries: Pro-poor Targeting or Pro-child Targeting?

Bárcena‐Martín, Elena; Blanco-Arana, M. Carmen; Pérez‐Moreno, Salvador

doi:10.1017/s0047279418000090

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally speaking, families with and without children are not equally well off in terms of the disposable income that is needed for adequate social participation (Penne et al, 2020). This ties in with the important role of social transfers in tackling both child (Bárcena-Martin et al, 2018) and single mother poverty (Van Lancker et al, 2015). The socio-demographic characteristics associated with child poverty are single parenthood, a large family, low education and lack of employment (Gornick & Jäntti, 2012;TARKI, 2010).…”

Section: Risk Of Poverty Varies Between Age Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The peculiar patterns of age-specific at-risk-of-poverty rates: An analysis of poverty trends in 30 European countries

Ilmakunnas¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU’s at-risk-of-poverty threshold is set at 60% of national median disposable equivalent income. Changes in median income therefore shift the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is likely to affect at-risk-of-poverty rates for some population subgroups more than for others. However, there is only scarce research on how the choice of poverty threshold affects the overall picture of poverty trends. This study aims to find out whether there are typical patterns related to changes in age-specific at-risk-of-poverty rates. This is done by analysing how the size and direction of changes in at-risk-of-poverty rates vary between age groups. Furthermore, the aim is to establish how changes in age-specific at-risk-of-poverty rates are associated with changes in poverty thresholds, income and employment. The study uses EU-SILC microdata and focuses on the development of poverty rates in 30 European countries in the mid-2010s. The results show that, on average, older age groups have experienced larger changes in at-risk-of-poverty rates than children or the working-age population. The increases or decreases in old-age at-risk-of-poverty rates are typically in an opposite direction to those seen in working-age poverty. Furthermore, different poverty thresholds can give a different picture of poverty trends, especially for the older population. Lastly, increases in the employment rate and income tend to be associated with decreases in child and working-age poverty, but even an opposite pattern can be found for old-age poverty. Overall, the findings imply that especially for short periods of time, caution is warranted when drawing conclusions about changes in old-age at-risk-of-poverty rates.

show abstract

Section: Risk Of Poverty Varies Between Age Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The peculiar patterns of age-specific at-risk-of-poverty rates: An analysis of poverty trends in 30 European countries

Ilmakunnas¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Committee on the Rights of the Child considers that early childhood is a particular crucial time when babies and infants are especially vulnerable to poverty, family breakdown and multiple other issues that violate their rights and undermine their well-being (2006). This is of particular concern in the context of family breakdown because in most countries lone parent families are at the greatest risk of poverty (Barcena-Martin et al, 2018;Bradshaw et al, 2018;Gornick and Jäntti, 2012).…”

Section: The Best Interests Of the Childmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child Support and the Government’s Children’s Socio-economic Rights Obligations

Walker

2020

Int. J. Child. Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the recovery of child support is a vital aspect of ensuring children’s socio-economic rights. The UK Government has a legal responsibility to assist parents to meet the needs of their children, whether by providing specialist support or through welfare payments. The Government cannot fulfil this responsibility by requiring parents to reach private agreements and failing to provide suitable additional support. The current law and policy focus purely on the duty to maintain. It is assumed that each parent has the responsibility to provide for their children, and there is no back up support under the Child Support Act where the parents are unable to do this. This fails to acknowledge and resolve wider social issues which are crucial to ensuring that child support is received, and children are not living in unnecessary poverty. The article argues that by taking this approach the Government is failing to fulfil its responsibility to protect children’s socio-economic rights. This article sets out a socio-economic rights framework for amending child support legislation and policy, highlighting the bare minimum Government obligations.

show abstract

“…Likewise, we assess the effectiveness of every item of social spending to reduce poverty from the correlation of that expense type with the value of efficiency measures. A wide range of studies have evaluated the efficiency of public interventions, both from the fiscal policy perspective (i.e., taxes and direct monetary transfers; Bárcena-Martín, Blanco-Arana, & Pérez- Moreno, 2018;Marchal, Marx, & Van Mechelen, 2014;Smith & Shone, 2016;Vaalavuo, 2013) and the perspective of nonmonetary social benefits, such as health and education (Alfonso & St. Aubyn, 2005, 2006Clements, 2002;Gupta & Verhoeven, 2001;Kapsoli & Teodoru, 2017). The effectiveness of social policies and the efficiency of SEs to reduce inequality and poverty indexes have also been investigated: Herrmann et al (2008) in the context of EU-27 countries (EU-28 less Croatia); Afonso, Schuknecht, and Tanzi (2010) for OECD countries; and Lefebvre, Coelli, and Pestieau (2010) in EU-15 countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficiency of Social Expenditure Levels in Reducing Poverty Risk in the EU‐28

Fonayet

Eraso

Sánchez

2020

Poverty & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluate the efficiency of social expenditure (SE) to reduce poverty in the European Union (EU) between 2007 and 2015. The data are programs provided by the EU‐SILC and the ESSPROS. Incorporating efficiency analysis improves the results of the analysis of that complex relationship. We found that the correlation between SE and the levels of poverty (and the correlation between SE and the capacity to reduce poverty) is not strong. In addition, the correlation between SE and the levels of poverty before SE (and the correlation between SE and the levels of inequality before SE) is not significant. Our analysis of the efficiency identifies four groups of countries. The first group has a correspondence with the Continental and Nordic Welfare models (Esping‐Andersen, 1990). They have a great level of SE, and their efficiency is above the EU‐28 average. The second group presents the highest efficiency values. The third group is formed by the Mediterranean welfare states, which present a moderate level of expenditure but have low efficiency. A fourth group composed of non‐EU‐15 countries presents a low SE with under/on average efficiency. We also observe that SEs in family/children, housing, and sickness/healthcare are significantly and positively correlated with efficiency measures. Likewise, in the EU‐15, social exclusion expense exhibits a great positive relationship with the efficiency in poverty reduction.

show abstract

Social Transfers and Child Poverty in European Countries: Pro-poor Targeting or Pro-child Targeting?

Cited by 22 publications

References 32 publications

The peculiar patterns of age-specific at-risk-of-poverty rates: An analysis of poverty trends in 30 European countries

The peculiar patterns of age-specific at-risk-of-poverty rates: An analysis of poverty trends in 30 European countries

Child Support and the Government’s Children’s Socio-economic Rights Obligations

Efficiency of Social Expenditure Levels in Reducing Poverty Risk in the EU‐28

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About