Analyzing Intergenerational Influences on Income Poverty & Economic Vulnerability with EU-SILC

The European Union Statistics of Income and Living Conditions
(EU-SILC) 2005 wave includes a special module on inter-generational
transmission of poverty. In addition to the standard data relating to income
and material deprivation, information relating to parental background and
childhood circumstances was collected for all household members aged over
24 and less than 66 at the end of the income reference period. In principle,
the module provides an unprecedented opportunity to apply a welfare regime
perspective to a comparative European analysis of the relationship between
poverty and social exclusion and parental characteristics and childhood
economic circumstances. In this paper, we seek to exploit such potential. In
pursuing this objective, it is necessary to take into account some of the
limitations of the data. We do by restricting our attention to a set of
countries where data issues seem less extreme. Finally, we compare findings
from one dimensional and multidimensional approaches to poverty and social
exclusion in order to provide an assessment of the extent to which our
analysis of welfare regime variation provides a coherent account of the
intergenerational transmission of disadvantage.

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.

Identifying childhood deprivation:How well do national indicators of poverty and social exclusion in Ireland Perform?

In the context of the significance that the life-cycle has been afforded in social policy discussion in Ireland, current national measures of poverty and social exclusion have been criticised for failing to capture such phenomena accurately in relation to particular stages of the life-course. In this paper we have taken advantage of the inclusion of a special module on childhood deprivation in EU-SILC 2009 to create reliable measures of both household basic deprivation and childhood deprivation. Overall, our analysis leads us to the conclusion that those exposed to childhood deprivation are generally a sub-set of the children captured by population indicators. Adopting a multidimensional and dynamic perspective on household resources and deprivation enables us to capture the large majority of children exposed to childhood deprivation. Restricting our attention to childhood deprivation would lead us to miss out on a significant number of children living in households experiencing basic deprivation but not exposed to childhood deprivation. It would be unwise to assume that such deprivation has no consequences for children. While there is clearly a value in supplementing existing national measures with child specific indicators, it would not appear sensible to rely solely on the latter.