Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union – determinats and policy practices –

1. Gyermekszegénység és gyermekjólét Magyarországon és az Eu-ban EU-képviselet, Budapest 2010. június 16. Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union – determinats and policy practices – András Gábos TÁRKISocial Research Institute

2. Main tasks carried out within the project Task 1. „An in-depthempirical analysis of child povertyand the related key challenges for each Member State, starting from the analytical framework developed up by the EU Task-Force report.” Task 2. „Anassessment of the effectiveness of policiesfor combating child poverty and promoting social inclusion among children and the identification of policy mixes that seem to be most effective in tackling the specific factors underlying child poverty.” Task 3. Recommendations for a limited set of child well-being indicators

3. How to take use of the portfolio of child well-being indicators? • An example: international benchmarking and key challenges for each Member State to assist national policy practices • Aim: to assess the performance of countries in the field of child poverty relative to (EU Task-Force 2008) • the national average/adult population • the EU-average • Tools: main indicators of material well-being: income poverty and labour market attachment • Four dimensions • Child poverty risk outcomes • Joblessness • In-work poverty • Impact of social transfers

4. Child poverty outcomes • Indicators included in this task: • at-risk-of-poverty rate • relative median poverty gap • both based on EU-SILC • z-scores based on • the difference between thenational figurefor children and the overall national figure • the difference between the national figure and the EU average for children • z-scores added together, without weighting • Six clusters • to maximise the “steps” betweenthe groups • to minimise the variations within the groups • Performance • +++ highest performance • - - - lowest performance • Good performers: Northern countries, CY, SI, DE, FR • Bad outcomes: Southern countries, PL, LT • Hungary: somewhat below average

5. Joblessness • Input indicators: • share of children in jobless households • based on EU-LFS • z-scores based on • the difference between the national figure for children and the overall national figure • the difference between the national figure for children and the EU average for children • z-scores added together, without weighting • Six clusters • to maximise the “steps” betweenthe groups • to minimise the variations within the groups • Performance • +++ highest performance • - - - lowest performance • Good performers: Northern countries, SI, EL, LU, IT, CY, AT • Bad outcomes: UK, HU, IE

6. In-work poverty • Input indicators: • in-work poverty: at-risk-of-poverty rate for those living in hhs with WI>=0.50, • based on EU-SILC • z-scores based on • the difference between the national figure for children and the overall national figure • the difference between the national figure for children and the EU average for children • z-scores added together, without weighting • Six clusters • to maximise the “steps” betweenthe groups • to minimise the variations within the groups • Performance • +++ highest performance • - - - lowest performance • Good performers: IE, SE, BE, DK • Bad outcomes: Southern countries, PL, LU, LT • Hungary: somewhat above average

7. Impact of social transfers • Input indicators: • at-risk-of poverty rate after and before social tranfers (excl. pensions), • poverty reduction effect of transfers • based on EU-SILC • z-scores based on • the difference between the national figure for children and the EU average for children • z-scores added together, without weighting • Six clusters • to maximise the “steps” betweenthe groups • to minimise the variations within the groups • Performance • +++ highest performance • - - - lowest performance • Good performers: Northern countries, AT, HU, SI, FR, DE • Bad outcomes: Southern countries, LT

8. Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants Group A: good performers in all dimensions

9. Dtereminants and policies in place in Group A countries • Adequate income support • DK, SE, FI: high level of universal income support and extensive support for parents to enter/re-enter employment • Slovenia: high level of support targeted on low-income families in SI • Income support narrowly targeted, focus on maternity benefits in France • High levels of economic activity and employment generally – high share of dual earner families in most countries • The Netherlands: the second earner being in part-time job is predominant • Austria: the single earner model is dominant, high earnings and income support compensating for the lack of a second earner; the model featuring one full-time earner and a part-time earner is also considerable • Extensive and affordable childcare provision • Cyprus: informal childcare arrangements

10. Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants Group B: joblessness is key challenge

11. Determinants and policies in place in Group B countries • Large number of children living with lone parents (BE, DE, EE, IE, UK) • Children with migrant background are at high risk and count for a large share of those at risk of poverty in most of these countries • Relatively effective income support • Inadequate childcare provision – limited in number of place, opening hours and affordability • Low level of support to help women with children into employment • Inflexible working hours

12. Determinants and policies in place in Hungary • Key challenge: large number of children in jobless and low work intensity households • Main charecteristics of the poverty profile: • large families (two parents with 3+ children) are affected most • the role of education is very strong • the settlement gradient exists • important regional inequalities • strong effect of the ethnic background • Income supports are effective in a cross-EU comparison • There are important obstacles for parents to enter the labour market: high costs od searching jobs, regionally inequal demand, the lack of adequate human capital, inadequate childcare opportunities, countre-incentive effect of income supports

13. Relative outcomes of countries related to child poverty risk and main determinants Group C: relatively bad performance in all dimensions Group D: in-work poverty is key challenge

14. Determinants and policies in place in Group D countries • Low levels of income support, especially for older children • Support narrowly targeted – in PL on very poorest or lone parents (6% of children), in EL on large families (10%) • Lack of childcare provision • Traditional reliance on extended family for childcare in IT, ES+EL • Employment rates low generally and support policies limited; fixed term jobs common except in IT • No minimum wages in EL or IT and set at low level in PL • But in ES especially, signs of change – reduction in fixed-term jobs, rise in minimum wages, new child tax allowances