Child Poverty in Nordic Countries

The 3rd Nordic Family Centre Conference Tromsö, June 10-12 2013

Tapio Salonen Professor in Social Work

Malmö University

Malmö University

Background

• Poverty a non-issue for decades • Rights of the Child (Child Convention)

• Economical crisis in the 90s • Influence of EU

Research of Child Poverty in Affluent Welfare States

• From ”becoming” to ”being” – from a potential adult in

future to a human being with rights here and now

• Relative understanding, regarding norms and values

• Multidimensional

• Dynamic

• Children’s own perspectives

The International Reputation of the Nordic Welfare State

• Extensive – universal? • Equality

• Expensive

Family

State Market

Welfare Arenas

Society’s welfare spheres

Sociatal sphere Driving force Regulation principle

State Justice Redistribution

Market Profit Exchange

Family Commitment Reciprocity

Social expenditures in Sweden 1960 – 2011.

Year Social expenditure (% of GDP) Change last 5 years _____________________________________ 1960 12 1965 14 + 2 1970 20 + 6 1960-1980: + 21 1975 25 + 5 1980 33 + 8 1980-2000: - 2 1985 31 - 2 1990 36 + 5 2000-2011: - 2 1995 36 0 2000 31 - 5 2010: EU15 30,2 2005 31 0 Sw 30,4 2010 30 - 1 7th of EU15 2011 29 - 1

Malmö högskola

GDP in Sweden 1993 – 2012. Index 100 = 2005 Källa: SCB

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Malmö högskola

Income inequality in Sweden 1975 – 2011. Gini-coefficient disposible income per k.e.

Source: SCB:s statistiskdatabas

Income standard among families with children in Sweden 1991, 2000 och 2010.

In percentages.

Income standard

1991 2000 2010

– 1

1 – 2

2 – 3

3 –

7

65

8

4

8

61

25

6

8

34

40

19

Summary Child Well-being in Rich Countries

Source: UNICEF 2007. OECD countries with insufficient data to be included in the overview: Australia, Iceland, Japan, luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic, South Korea, Turkey.

Malmö University

Overall Child Well-Being – Top 11 Countries of 29 Rich Countries. (UNICEF 2013)

Average rank (all 5 dimensions)

Material well-being

Health and safety

Education Behaviours and risks

Housing and environment

(rank) (rank) (rank) (rank) (rank)

1 Netherlands 2.4 1 5 1 1 4

2 Norway 4.6 3 7 6 4 3

3 Iceland 5 4 1 10 3 7

4 Finland 5.4 2 3 4 12 6

5 Sweden 6.2 5 2 11 5 8

6 Germany 9 11 12 3 6 13

7 Luxembourg 9.2 6 4 22 9 5

8 Switzerland 9.6 9 11 16 11 1

9 Belgium 11.2 13 13 2 14 14

10 Ireland 11.6 17 15 17 7 2

11 Denmark 11.8 12 23 7 2 15

Malmö University

DIMENSION COMPONENT

Material Well-being Monetary deprivation

CHILD WELL-BEING INDEX Material deprivation

Child health Health at birth

Child mortality

Preventive health services

Education Educational achievement

Participation

Behaviour and Risks Experience of violence

Health behaviour

Risk behaviour

Housing and environment Overcrowding

Environment

Housing problems

Child Well-Being Structure (UNICEF 2013)

Malmö University

Child poverty rate Child poverty gap

Finland 3.6 17.0

Netherlands 5.9 15.7

Hungary 10.0 11.7

Austria 7.8 16.5

Luxembourg 11.8 11.3

Norway 6.6 18.7

Sweden 7.3 18.9

Iceland 6.5 20.3

Slovenia 7.2 19.5

France 9.5 18.2

Germany 9.4 19.4

Switzerland 9.4 21.7

Czech Republic 9.7

10.0

23.2

23.0 United Kingdom

Denmark 6.3 29.0

Monetory Deprivation (UNICEF 2013)

How to measure children’s material standard of living?

No official poverty line in Sweden

“All attempts to define a limit – a poverty threshold

between the poor and the non-poor are based on contemporary norms and valuations and on the empirical opportunities that are available to measure this.”

Child Poverty in Sweden 2001 -2010.

Relative poverty = - 60 % of disposable median income Absolute poverty = Children in families with means-tested social assistance

Development of Poverty in Sweden 2000-2010.

Contradictory:

Increased relative poverty

& unchanged absolute poverty

Change in households economic standard in Sweden in the 2000s.

Households economic standard (disposable income per consumtion

unit) has increased steadily during the 2000s. The total increase between 1999 och 2009 was + 35 procent.

Income inequality increased during the 1990s and reached a peak in

the year 2000. Following years (2000-2003) the income inequality decreased slightly. 2004–2007 it did increase again and in 2007 measured all time high figures. In 2008 the income distribution falled backed to the 2006-level.

Källa: SCB 2010, Inkomstfördelningsundersökningen

Contradictions in the Swedish case

• Growing economic prosperity at the same time as sharpened economic poverty, i.e. increased inequality

• Homogenic notion of social capital are challenged – from sameness to diversity puts pressure on social contract and relations

Annual Reports

Two separate indicators

1. Low-income standard Based on a lowest

acceptable level of expenditure based on the social assistance norm a norm for housing expenditure.

If income is less than the norm for this expenditure (income standard under 1.0) it is defined as “low-income standard”

(Developed by SCB, Statistics Sweden)

2. Social assistance The definition of social

assistance is relatively easy to study, although there are also disadvantages.

The social assistance norm is based on political decisions which really say more about society’s wish to help people in need than about the actual needs for assistance of the vulnerable.

Child poverty in Sweden Results in brief

• Children’s economic vulnerability increased dramatically until 1997 and then successively decreased until beginning of 2000s.. Since then the rate has been fairly stable: around 12-13 % on the national level.

• Long-term trends show a growing difference between richer and poorer

families with children. • Levels of child poverty vary considerably among the municipalities in

Sweden – from 5 to 31 %. Child poverty is lowest in the suburban municipalities and highest in the three largest cities. In the larger cities there are also marked differences between various districts – from 3 to 62 %.

• The difference in financial vulnerability between children with Swedish and

children with immigrant background is also marked. Immigrant children run three times the risk of living in poor households.

• Risk of financial vulnerability is also three times as high for children with a

single parent as compared to children with both parents living together.

Income Poverty among families with Children in Sweden with and without Family Policies 1998 –

2009.

Family Policies Poverty Reducing Effect in Sweden1998-2009.

Conclusion

Welfare policies towards children and their families does make a significant diffence:

In Sweden child poverty would be 3 times higher

without public policies

i.e. not 10-12 % instead 30-35 %

Welfare policies are not irreversible

Income Poverty among workage persons after status of employment 1991 – 2011 in Sweden. EU-definition (less than 60 % of median income)

Source:: SCB:s statistiskdatabas

Increasing division

Level 1:

Between adults inside or outside the labour market

Level 2: Between insured and uninsured persons

outside of the labour market

Childrens rights and parents position in labour market and public systems –

a growing dilemma

Two contemporary policies with emphasis on: 1. Expanding Child Rights policies; from ”becoming” to

”being” 2. Activation Policies with stricter regulations and

sanctions Policies moving in opposite directions; Childrens rights require

attention to the overall situation for their families

Preconditions för the Nordic Welfare States 1945-.

• Full employment

• Predictable and stable life cycle

• Life long stabile labour participation

• Persistent family conditions

• Labour market incomes covering family needs

Recent Patterns and Trends in the Nordic Welfare State

• Degree of universality / selectivity

• Patterns of commodification

• Focus on activation

• Decentralisation

• Welfare pluralism

Maintaining problems in the Nordic welfare states

Increasing economic inequalities High unemployment levels Youth’s establishment Migrants integration Increasing housing segregation

Strategies to Fight Child Poverty

• A national or local responsibilty? • Differens focuses: - Minimise effects – tackling causes? - Reactive eller proactive measures? - Selective eller generic approaches?

Malmö University

EU Commission Recommendations February 2013:

Investing in Children: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage

Three Key Pillars:

• Access to adequate resources Support parents participation in the labour market Provide for adequate living standards through a combination of benefits

• Access to affordable quality services Reduce inequality at a young age by investing in early childhood education and care

• Childrens right to participate In play, recreation, sport and cultural activities and decisions that affect their lives