Multiple deprivation and persistent poverty in the European Union

The literature on Social exclusion has focused attention on the processes leading to exposure to multiple disadvantage. Despite the influence this perspective has had on both academic and policy discussions, conceptual analysis has remained imprecise and empirical evidence modest. We have made use of the European Community Household Panel (ECHP) in order to examine the extent to which persistent income poverty results in multiple deprivation. Our analysis shows that only a modest proportion of the persistently poor can he characterized as being exposed to such deprivation. While persistent poverty and multiple deprivation combine to produce extremely high levels of economic strain, there is no evidence that they interact in a significant fashion. We argue that understanding deprivation is not facilitated by focusing on a cleavage between a multiply deprived minority and a comfortable majority, and we consider the policy implications of this argument.

Persistent income poverty and deprivation in the European Union: An analysis of the first three waves of the European Community Household Panel

Poverty research has increasingly focused on persistent income poverty, both as a crucial social indicator and as a target for policy intervention. Such an approach can lead to an identification of a sub-set of poor individuals facing particularly adverse circumstances and/or distinctive problems in escaping from poverty. Here we seek to establish whether, in comparison with cross-sectional measures, persistent poverty measures also provide a better measure of exclusion from a minimally acceptable way of life and relate with other important variables in a logical fashion. Our analysis draws upon the first three waves of the ECHP and shows that a persistent poverty measure does constitute a significant improvement over its cross-sectional counterpart in the explanation of levels of deprivation. Persistent poverty is related to life-style deprivation in a manner that comes close to being uniform across countries. The measure of persistence also conforms to our expectations of how a poverty measure should behave in that, unlike relative income poverty lines, defining the threshold level more stringently enables us to identify progressively groups of increasingly deprived respondents. Overall the persistent poverty measure constitutes a significant advance on cross-sectional income measures. However, there is clearly a great deal relating to the process of accumulation and of erosion of resources, which is not fully captured in the persistent poverty measure. In the absence of such information, there is a great deal to be said for making use of both types of indictors in formulating and evaluating policies while we continue to improve our understanding of longer-term processes.

Comparing poverty and deprivation dynamics:Issues of reliability and validity

In this paper we seek to establish if earlier findings relating to the relationship between income poverty persistence and deprivation persistence could be due to a failure to take measurement error into account. To address this question, we apply a model of dynamics incorporating structural and error components. Our analysis shows a general similarity between latent poverty and deprivation dynamics. In both cases we substantially over-estimate the probability of exiting from poverty or deprivation. We observe a striking similarity across dimensions for both observed and latent outcomes. In both cases levels of poverty and deprivation persistence are higher for the latent case. However, there is no evidence that earlier results relating to the differences in the determinants of poverty and deprivation persistence are a consequence of differential patterns of reliability. Taking measurement error into account seems more likely to accentuate rather than diminish the contrasts highlighted by earlier research. Since longitudinal differences relating to poverty and deprivation cannot be accounted for by measurement error, it seems that we must accept that we are confronted with issues relating to validity rather than reliability. Even where we measure these dimensions over reasonable periods of time and allow for measurement error, they continue to tap relatively distinct phenomenon. Thus, if measures of persistent poverty are to constitute an important component of EU social indicators, a strong case can be made for including parallel measures of deprivation persistence and continuing to explore the relationship between them. © Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006.

Persistent and consistent poverty in the 1994 and 1995 waves of the European Community Household Panel Survey

This paper focuses on the mismatch between income and deprivation measures of poverty. Using the first two waves of the European Community Household Panel Survey, a measure of relative deprivation is constructed and the overlap between the relative income poor and relatively deprived is examined, There is very limited overlap with the lowest relative income threshold. The overlap increases as the income threshold is raised, but it remains true that less than half those below the 60 percent relative income line are among the most deprived. Relative deprivation is shown to be related to the persistence of income poverty, but also to a range of other resource and need factors. Income and deprivation measures each contain information that can profitably be employed to enhance our understanding of poverty and a range of other social phenomena. This is illustrated by the manner in which both income poverty and relative deprivation are associated with self-reported difficulty making ends meet.

Understanding the mismatch between income poverty and deprivation: A dynamic comparative analysis

In this paper we seek to shed light on the mismatch between income poverty and deprivation through a comparative and dynamic analysis of both forms of disadvantage. By extending analysis over five waves of the ECHP we are able to take into account the key dimensions characterizing poverty profiles overtime. Our conclusions turn out to be remarkably stable across countries. While persistent income poverty measures are systematically related to both cross-sectional and longitudinal measures of deprivation, the scale of mismatch is no less at the latter than at the former level. There is some evidence that although rates of volatility for income and deprivation measures are roughly similar, the processes of change themselves are somewhat different. Further light is shed on the underlying processes by cross-classifying the forms of deprivation. Those exposed to both types of deprivation are differentiated from others in terms of need and resource variables. Conclusions relating to the socio-demographic influences on risk levels are influenced by choice and combination of indicators. The results of our analysis confirm the need to devote considerably more attention than heretofore to the analysis of multi-dimensional poverty dynamics.