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.

Income, deprivation, and economic strain. An analysis of the European community household panel

This paper is concerned with the relationship between household income and life-style deprivation, and their combined impact on households' perceptions of economic strain. It takes as a point of departure findings from a number of European countries showing that the relationship between income and deprivation is weaker than widely assumed and that relative income poverty lines may perform poorly in terms of identifying the most deprived households. It proceeds to examine how far these conclusions about income and deprivation can be generalized to the countries included in the first wave of the European Community Household Panel. Results show that five distinct dimensions of deprivation emerge from an overall European analysis and that these are consistent across individual countries. While a good deal of similarity is observed in the income-deprivation relationship, countries differ in the strength of relationship between income and what is termed 'current liferstyle deprivation' with the relationship being generally weakest in the richer countries. The implications of these findings for the use of relative income poverty lines are developed. Extending this analysis to an assessment of how income and deprivation combine to influence perceptions of economic strain, we show that within-nation reference group processes operating in a uniform manner across countries can account for the bulk of the variation in strain. Cross-national differences can be accounted for by corresponding variation in income and deprivation levels.

Explaining levels of deprivation in the European Union

In this paper we seek to explain variations in levels of deprivation between EU countries. The starting-point of our analysis is the finding that the relationship between income and life-style deprivation varies across countries. Given our understanding of the manner in which the income-deprivation mismatch may arise from the limitations of current income as a measure of command over resources, the pattern of variation seems to be consistent with our expectations of the variable degree to which welfare-state regimes achieve 'decommodification' and smooth income flows. This line of reasoning suggests that cross-national differences in deprivation might, in significant part, be due not only to variation in household and individual characteristics that are associated with disadvantage but also to the differential impact of such variables across countries and indeed welfare regimes. To test this hypothesis, we have taken advantage of the ECHP (European Community Household Panel) comparative data set in order to pursue a strategy of substituting variable names for country/welfare regime names. We operated with two broad categories of variables, tapping, respectively, needs and resources. Although both sets of factors contribute independently to our ability to predict deprivation, it is the resource factors that are crucial in reducing country effects. The extent of cross-national heterogeneity depends on specifying the social class and situation in relation to long-term unemployment of the household reference person. The impact of the structural socio-economic variables that we label 'resource factors' varies across countries in a manner that is broadly consistent with welfare regime theory and is the key factor in explaining cross-country differences in deprivation. As a consequence, European homogeneity is a great deal more evident among the advantaged than the disadvantaged.

Marginalization, deprivation, and fatalism in the Republic of Ireland. Class and underclass perspectives

The emergence of large-scale long-term unemployment in the Republic of Ireland suggests that it might provide an interesting case to which to apply the concept of an 'underclass'. In this paper we explore the relationship between labour-market marginality, deprivation, and fatalism. The available evidence in relation to both social isolation and milieu effects suggests that the term 'underclass' can have only a very limited applicability in the Irish case. Instead, what we ate confronted with is different types of working-class marginalization arising from the rapid and uneven nature of class transformation in Ireland and changing patterns of emigration. In relation to what we have termed 'pervasive marginalization' the costs of economic change have been borne disproportionately by those members of the younger cohorts originating in the lower working class rather than by those in particular locations. The evidence relating to the social and psychological consequences of labour-market detachment, rather than providing support for the value of an 'underclass' perspective, confirms the continued relevance of class analysis.

The relationship between income and deprivation: A dynamic perspective

Income poverty lines may fail to distinguish households experiencing deprivation/exclusion. Analysing a large sample of Irish households, we find that current income is an important influence on deprivation levels, hut so are many other aspects of a household's current situation and how it arrived there. It is also important to distinguish different dimensions in using deprivation indicators with income to measure poverty.

RESOURCES, DEPRIVATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY

Ringen has advocated the use of both income and deprivation criteria in identifying those excluded from society due to lack of resources, a widely accepted definition of poverty. We illustrate with Irish data how this might be done, paying particular attention to how appropriate indicators of deprivation are to be selected. The results show that employing both income and deprivation criteria rather than income alone can make a substantial difference to both the extent and composition of measured poverty. This highlights the restrictive nature of poverty conceived in terms of exclusion rather than minimum rights to resources.

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.

Economic vulnerability, multidimensional deprivation and social cohesion in an enlarged European community

In this article we have sought to combine regional and social exclusion perspectives on economic exclusion in the enlarged European Community. Our analysis, based on the European Quality of Life Survey, confirms that while the economically vulnerable, identified through latent class analysis, constitute substantially larger groups in the poorer economic clusters, they are much more sharply differentiated from others in the richer clusters. While the economically vulnerable are also disadvantaged in relation to measures of multidimensional deprivation and social cohesion, between economic clusters differences on these dimensions cannot be accounted for by corresponding variations in levels and intensity of economic vulnerability. In fact, the impact of such vulnerability on social cohesion is greater in the more affluent clusters. Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications.

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.