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.

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.

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.