S

W

Aa

b

c

d

a

ARRA

JIJ

KWPCDP

1

Ewtbuppo

pligrfTdaa

T

1d

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

The Journal of Socio-Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Socio-Economics

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /soceco

omen and poverty: A gender-sensitive approach

mélia Bastosa,∗, Sara F. Casacab, Francisco Nunesc, José Pereirinhad

ISEG - School of Economics and Management and CEMAPRE (Centre for Applied Mathematics and Economics), Technical University of Lisbon, PortugalISEG - School of Economics and Management and SOCIUS (Research Centre in Economic and Organizational Sociology), Technical University of Lisbon, PortugalISEG - School of Economics and Management and UECE (Research Unit on Complexity and Economics), Technical University of Lisbon, PortugalISEG - School of Economics and Management and GHES (Research Centre in Economic and Social History), Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 18 July 2008eceived in revised form 20 February 2009ccepted 24 March 2009

EL classification:32

a b s t r a c t

Poverty is not a gender neutral condition as the number of poor women exceeds that concerning men andwomen and men experience poverty in distinctive ways. This paper discusses the relevance of incorporat-ing a gender perspective in poverty studies and provides a portrait of poverty among women in Portugal.Following a multidimensional concept of poverty, the methodology used comprises a cross-sectional anda dynamic analysis of poverty, using data from ECHP (1995–2001). The results point to the importance ofvarious factors contributing to women’s vulnerability to poverty, such as issues related to labor market,

16

eywords:omen

overty dynamics

lone motherhood, ageing and education.© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ross-sectional analysiseprivationortugal

. Introduction

Poverty and social exclusion have a significant expression inurope. According to Eurostat statistics, 16% of EU(25) populationas at risk of poverty in 2005. At the beginning of the millennium

hese statistics also show that 9% of the EU(15) individuals haveeen poor for at least 2 years. In Portugal these numbers are partic-larly high; the incidence of poverty rose to 20% and the persistentoor were around 14%. Poverty and social exclusion are not neutralhenomena with regard to age and gender. In fact children and theld as well as women are more exposed to these problems.

Looking at the EU(25) statistics in 2005, gender issues withinoverty are fundamentally grouped and associated with the fol-

owing areas: economic resources – in 2005 the income povertyncidence was higher for women (17%) than for men (15%) and thisap increases with age; labor market – in 2006 the unemploymentate for women was 25% higher than that for men and this dif-erence is even more significant with long term unemployment.

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

he gender pay gap was around 15% in 2004; education/training –espite equal access to education for men and women, the formerre more frequently enrolled in continuous training (43% for mennd 40% for women in 2005); social involvement – for instance in

∗ Corresponding author at: Rua do Quelhas, 6, 1200-781 Lisboa, Portugal.el.: +351 213925831; fax: +351 213922781.

E-mail address: abastos@iseg.utl.pt (A. Bastos).

053-5357/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

politics, women occupied less than 10% of the political positions in2005; and family and private life – globally speaking men spend lessthan half the time that women do on domestic organization, andchild and elderly care.1 The analysis of these issues will be furtherdeveloped in this paper.

A gender-sensitive approach in poverty analysis involves,however, much more than making a statistical breakdown bygender. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide a com-prehensive understanding of poverty among women, based ona gender-sensitive conceptualization and methodology. The maincontribution to poverty studies stems from the following four spe-cific features. First, it is assumed that the causes and experience ofpoverty are not gender neutral, which means that men and womenmight be exposed to poverty in distinctive ways and by differentfactors, which thus require a gender-sensitive approach for the anal-ysis. Second, poverty is seen as a multidimensional concept, as it isnot conceived merely in terms of insufficient income but, rather,as a deprivation within those domains in which women, due tospecific economic and social processes, may find themselves with

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

well-being deficits in various spheres of their lives. Third, a dynamicapproach is required in order to identify patterns of mobility orpersistence within poverty for both men and women. Finally, theanalysis is focused on intra-household indicators in order to figure

1 The statistics cited were produced by EUROSTAT and refer to the EU-25.

INS

2 Socio-

os

cfageitl

2

cSotlcfd

saihtseWNtmstR

2

wiwi

ctaiiphwdaEo(ipsitv

ARTICLEG ModelOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of

ut gender-related patterns of inequality, regarding the allocation,haring and control of resources within the household.

The paper is organized in five sections. The next section dis-usses the major theoretical and conceptual issues that stemrom the limitations of classical studies of poverty, which require

different approach to the analysis of poverty to focus on aender-sensitive perspective. Section 3 introduces the data and thempirical framework used, and in Section 4 the results of the empir-cal analysis are presented. The last section concludes by discussinghe main findings of our study, its major limitations and furtherines of research.

. Theoretical and conceptual issues

Classical studies on poverty suffer from serious drawbacks, asommonly recognized in modern literature on poverty analysis.uch limitations come either from the concept of poverty usedr from the methodology of measurement, which mostly relies onhe following issues: the conventional use of a monetary povertyine as an objective category, the treatment of poverty as a staticondition primarily associated with material deprivation, and theocus on household aggregate data which ignores intra-householdifferences concerning resources and well-being.

When a gender perspective is incorporated into the analysis,uch limitations become even more prominent. Classical viewsssume the household to be a black box, within which the incom-ng resources are pooled and equally allocated and shared amongousehold members (Pahl, 1983). Nonetheless, a household sta-istically classified as non-poor may include individual members,uch as children and women, who face severe living conditionsither in material or non-material items (Daly, 1992; Findlay andright, 1996; Jackson, 1998; Sen, 1999; Robeyns, 2003; Bastos and

unes, 2009). Moreover, vulnerability to poverty is strongly linkedo particular events in a woman’s life cycle, such as divorce, lone

otherhood, widowhood and old age, which calls for a gender-ensitive conceptualization and a methodology that is able to catchhe dynamic relationships between poverty and gender (Daly, 1992;uspini, 2000).

.1. The contribution of gender and feminist analyses

Gender studies have stressed that poverty is gendered, asomen and men experience poverty in distinctive ways. Poverty

s a situation of deficit of well-being, and to analyze poverty amongomen requires the analysis of the extent to which and the ways

n which women are more likely to be poor than men.The “feminization of poverty” thesis attempted to highlight a

ontradiction: in the USA and in other developed countries, byhe 1970s more and more women were engaged in paid worknd becoming individual earners, yet the number of poor women,dentified by an income below some poverty line, was sharplyncreasing. At the same time, the number of men considered to beoor was declining significantly (Pearce, 1978). However, this thesisas not found consensus. Some authors argue that poverty amongomen is not a new phenomenon; there is greater social visibilityue to changes related to the growth of female employment, as wells transformations taking place in family structures (Daly, 1992;ngland, 1997). These changes, such as the increase in the numberf divorces, of lone-parent families and of older women living alonein part due to increased life expectancy and the life expectancy gapn relation to men) are very likely to cause higher vulnerability to

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

overty. Therefore, one of the greatest paradoxes of contemporaryocieties seems to lie in the fact that women are increasingly pursu-ng autonomous individual projects, both in monetary and symbolicerms, yet their exposure to poverty is gradually becoming moreisible (England, 1997).

PRESSEconomics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

With regard to Portugal, the high participation of women inthe labor market and the relatively high percentage of householdswhere both partners are wage earners have not precluded womenfrom experiencing poverty (Perista et al., 1992). As a matter of fact,some structural and macro-economic tendencies account for therisk of unemployment and job precariousness for either men orwomen. Nonetheless, there are specificities inherent to women,either in the family, the labor market or in society as a whole,that account for their greater vulnerability as individual earners.This requires some further discussion and a different approach topoverty analysis.

2.2. Looking at the structural causes of female poverty

The debate on structural causes of poverty has mainly beenfocused on women’s disadvantages within the household, in thelabor market and in the welfare state institutions (Ruspini, 2000;Pressman, 2003). Human capital theories emphasize the gapbetween men and women in the investment in human capital (ineducation, vocational training and professional experience), whichleads to different results in productivity and individual earnings.Decision-making within the household, which explains the genderdivision of labor between both partners, is based on the rational cri-teria of comparison of expected future earnings prospects with theindividual costs associated with investment. The individual ratio-nal behavior of maximization of gains leads men to invest in humancapital for their professional life, whereas women prioritize invest-ment in family/domestic activities (Becker, 1993; Blau et al., 2006;Ehrenberg and Smith, 2006). This rationale is applied to explainwomen’s greater vulnerability in the labor market (Koeber andWright, 2006), evidenced by an overrepresentation in precariousjobs and in unemployment, as well as gender segregation (Prieto-Rodriguez and Rodriguez-Gutiérrez, 2003), wage gap and greaterexposure to material deprivation.

However, considering the situation in many societies, includingthe Portuguese, this argumentation cannot explain the reason why,even after controlling for educational achievements, the percent-age of women in temporary work and unemployed is higher thanthat for men. In addition, despite some changes in occupationaland employment structures, gender segregation (both horizontaland vertical) and the pay gap in disfavor of women prevail asenduring characteristics of the Portuguese labor market (Ferreira,1993; Lopes and Perista, 1995; Lopes, 2000; Casaca, 2005). There-fore, an explanation based on rational decision-making processes isnot actually gender-sensitive, since it underestimates that genderideologies (as part of the gender system) are embedded in decision-making processes, individual identities, orientations and options.With regard to companies’ practices and labor market dynam-ics, gender ideologies influence the way managers/employers seewomen and men as workers. Managers tend to assume thatwomen’s involvement in professional activity is secondary in rela-tion to the primary role inside the family (Bruegel, 1979). As aresult, less demanding, poorly paid, part-time or temporary jobs aresocially constructed as “more appropriate” for women’s preferencesand life-styles.

The above criticism to human capital theories does not precluderecognizing the role that the gender division plays inside the house-hold as a factor that strongly limits women’s availability to takemore demanding jobs and to continuously invest in qualificationsand in their professional careers. In Portugal, the asymmetrical divi-sion of domestic and caring responsibilities inside the household is

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

very high, in line with the persistence of traditional representationsin relation to “the most appropriate” roles for men and women insociety (Perista, 2002).

Gender relations inside the household are also power relations(Iversen, 2003), rooted in traditional gender ideologies and in the

INS

Socio-

srnmePwwap

(mccsfttl

attotsowr

osdotwshHcadooltbW

sdtpstfedd

2

rr

ing in a balanced panel base with 10,184 observations in the wholeperiod 1995–2001.

The “individual” is assumed to be the central observation unit.

ARTICLEG ModelOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of

ymbolic asymmetry between genders (Amâncio, 1994). Economicesources earned by individuals in the labor market are frequentlyot equally allocated, controlled and shared among householdembers. Women tend to be at a clear disadvantage regarding the

ffective control of household resources (Pahl, 1983; Vogler andahl, 1994; Findlay and Wright, 1996). Moreover, they are also moreilling to sacrifice resources for their children and the family as ahole (Klasen, 2004). The power imbalances inside the household

re even greater when women are economically dependent on theirartners (England, 1997).

In a similar vein, the “capabilities approach” developed by Sen1999) also draws attention to the fact that the command over com-

odities is mediated by how rights and entitlements are informallyonceived within the household. The possession of resources, theapabilities or their conversion into functionings are mediated byocial and cultural settings (including the gender structure). Thisocus requires a shift from an analysis anchored in the householdo one based on each individual. It also pays attention to subjec-ive individual perceptions, since to function in society is seen aseading a life in which a person has grounds to value.

A further contribution comes from those gender analyticalpproaches which emphasize women’s agency. Notwithstandinghe recognition of the analytical progress generated by the focus onhe individual, these approaches emphasize the relational characterf poverty and the relevance of looking at intra-household rela-ionships. Informal rights, power and bargaining relations are nottatic, but continuously dynamized, contested and reformulatedver time. Thus, despite their structurally disadvantaged position,omen do play an active role and are regarded as “knowing subjects

ather than as victims or objects of pity” (Jackson, 1998: 74).To look at the welfare state also sheds a complementary light

n this debate. Welfare states have an important role in eitherhaping women’s access to paid work and, thus to an indepen-ent income or, on the contrary, reinforcing women’s dependencyn men (Lewis, 1992; Orloff, 1996; Sainsbury, 1999). With regardo the situation in Portugal, gender inequality is exacerbated by aeak welfare state. The legal framework of social rights has evolved

ince the mid-1970s (after the democratic revolution in 1974) andas become very inclusive in relation to gender equality policies.owever, public social facilities for families (childcare and elder-are facilities) are lacking, and the social policies to support familiesre generally of limited scope (Torres et al., 2004). Therefore, theeficit in public social care strongly contributes to the persistencef gender inequalities, constraining women’s attainment of betterpportunities as individual earners in their professional and publicife as a whole. For lone-parent families, mainly headed by women,his is obviously a very strong factor in reinforcing their vulnera-ility (Kilkey and Bradshaw, 1999; Ruspini, 2000; Guerreiro, 2003;all, 2003; Bould and Schmaus, 2007).The persistence of traditional gender ideologies seriously con-

trains women’s full accomplishment of well-being in variousimensions of life. This is visible in the over accumulation ofasks and responsibilities within the household, the high level ofarticipation in paid work coupled with intensive working-timechedules, the lack of public care facilities, and the filling of low sta-us and low paid occupations. This is a very critical issue and callsor a concept of poverty that goes beyond the notion of material orconomic deprivation, as women may find themselves profoundlyeprived in various spheres of their lives. This point leads to theiscussion below.

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

.3. A multidimensional and gender-sensitive concept of poverty

Poverty has been traditionally conceived as “lack of access toesources, productive assets and income resulting in a state of mate-ial deprivation” (UNDP, 1998: 5). In this paper poverty is defined as

PRESSEconomics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3

a multidimensional concept, as synonymous to deprivation of basicrights due to the lack of resources in various domains of social life,which constrains or precludes “the possibility of realizing their fullpotential in society and shaping their lives in accordance with theirown aspirations”2 (Pereirinha et al., 2008). This notion is found inthe Beijing Platform for Action, adopted by the Fourth World Con-ference on Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace,within the scope of the United Nations in 1995.

This concept has some relation to the capabilities approach, pio-neered by Sen (1999). As already mentioned, the analytical focushas shifted to what people are able to do and to be, which means tolook at the real freedoms that people have to lead a life with groundsto be valued (Robeyns, 2003). What really matters is to what extentowned commodities allow a person to function in society, as theydo not directly assure a state of being (Jackson, 1998). Capabilitiesare not readily translated into individuals’ effective opportunities toattain functionings in society (achievements in terms of beings anddoings). Gender proves to be a powerful variable considering thepossession of key capabilities. However, the conversion of capabili-ties into functionings is also strongly mediated by either the gendersystem or the wider culture and social settings (Robeyns, 2003).Hence, women and men might end up with different functioningseven when they have the same capabilities (Addabbo et al., 2004;Klasen, 2004).

In a similar vein, in this paper poverty is seen not only in termsof economic/material deprivation, but also as a state of depriva-tion of well-being (Pereirinha et al., 2008), considering the set ofdimensions displayed in Table 1. They reflect the critical areas forwomen’s poverty that are explicit or implicit in the Beijing Platformfor Action and were considered for the framing of the set of indica-tors on Women and Poverty by the Council of the European Union(SOC, 377).

3. Data and methods

The statistical source used in this paper is the Portuguesecomponent of the European Community Household Panel (ECHP),launched by Eurostat and coordinated in Portugal by INE (InstitutoNacional de Estatística), covering the 1995–2001 period. The UDB(user data base) version of this longitudinal database is used, andit is representative of the Portuguese population in 1994. Thesemicrodata contain systematic information on the following items:household incomes, sociodemographic and socioprofessional char-acterization of individuals (demographic characteristics, variablesfor labor market status, health, education, professional skills andtraining and housing conditions). Furthermore, the database cov-ers a wide set of social indicators of living standards allowing thedefinition of several deprivation categories for both households andindividuals.

Since this paper endorses both a static and a dynamic viewon poverty among women, this database admits a sample selec-tion suitable to that purpose. The cross-section sample has 4916households recorded in 1995 which cover 14,826 individuals (ofwhom 11,858 are adults). In 2001, the last available wave of thedatabase, there are 4614 households covering 13,285 individuals(10,915 adults). Longitudinal findings are based on a “balancedpanel” of individuals (that is, the set of individuals who are presenton the database throughout the whole period considered), result-

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

Since the study focuses on women’s poverty, the unit of observation

2 Beijing Declaration (paragraph 12) in: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/beijingdeclaration.html.

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelSOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

4 A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of Socio-Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Table 1Poverty as deprivation of well-being: key dimensions for a gender-sensitive analysis.

Domestic, caring work and family life Being able to raise children and to take care of others in terms ofequality with other family members.Being able to participate in decision-making concerning importantdomestic and family issues, to equal share of power and economicresources.

Economic resources and professional life Being able to integrate occupations which are socially recognized andsatisfactorily rewarded, to adequate working conditions in terms ofworking time, job content, job protection, wage level, social benefits.Being able to benefit from opportunities of promotion and careeradvancement and to undertake fulfilling professional projects,including entrepreneurship.Being able to get a bank loan, to be an income earner with regularincome flow, to be economically autonomous in case of divorce,widowhood or interruption in the labor relationship.

Education, skills and knowledge Being able to be formally educated, skilled, to benefit from lifelonglearning opportunities, to use computer, internet, and access tosources of information, and to produce knowledge.

Housing and environment Being able to live in a safe and pleasant housing environment, both interms of internal conditions and infrastructures (type of construction,basic infrastructure, comfort goods, natural light, habitable spaces) andexternal conditions (residential environment/neighbourhood,proximity to social services, public transportation).

Physical and psychological health Being able to be physically and psychological healthy, to have access tofree heath care services (or partially free) of charge, including topsychological ones.

Safety, security and integrity Being able to be protected against all forms of violence (harassment,sexual abuse and exploitation), attitudes and practices grounded ongender prejudices.Being able to be treated with respect and dignity in all lifecircumstances.

Social relations, participation in public life and political empowerment Being able to participate in policy decision-making processes, both inprivate/business and public sectors, in political system (atsupranational, national, regional and local levels).Being able to participate in social networks, which are fundamentalsource of social capital and social support, as well as to be involved incultural and recreational/leisure activities.

Time-autonomy Being able to exercise autonomy in allocating one’s time and to benefit

S

iaTasavoaidta

3

ihuioltcp

it

ource: Adapted from Robeyns (2003).

s the adult woman (16 years and over) although she is considereds an element of her income-receiving unit, that is, the household.hose household attributes considered to have analytical relevancere then attached to each household member. The poverty mea-urement is made using the classical approach of income povertys well as deprivation analysis, under both a static and a dynamiciew. Deprivation analysis, representing a multidimensional viewf poverty, mostly includes non-monetary indicators. However,mong the deprivation indicators, the economic capacity of thendividual (based on her income) will be considered as a distinctiveimension of deprivation. Making this option will widely embracehe relevant dimensions of well-being, combining non-monetarynd monetary items.

.1. Income poverty

The income poverty analysis involves two major issues: (i)dentification of the poor (given a unit of analysis, individuals orouseholds) and (ii) aggregation of the population’s characteristicspon a unique synthetic indicator of poverty. To identify the poor it

s necessary to define the variable describing the economic resourcesf the household where the individual lives, establish an equiva-ence scale for the economic resource variable in order to be ableo make interpersonal comparisons of income and, finally, define a

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

onventional poverty line which distinguishes between the incomeoor and non-poor.

The main concept of income used in ECHP is net monetaryncome, which is determined after the deduction of all direct incomeaxes and contributions for the social security system. The net mon-

from a balanced individual time management, including enough timeto sleep, relax or to other individual needs.

etary income of the households, expressed in real terms (deflatedby CPI, 1994 = 100), is obtained by adding three distinct com-ponents: (a) net income from work (comprising both wage andearnings from employees and self-employment income); (b) othernon-work private income (like capital income or private trans-fers between households) and (c) social transfers. ECHP microdatado not cover non-monetary components of income, although itis widely accepted that the reduction of the income definitionto its “monetary dimension” may greatly distort the diagnosis ofpoverty. In a country like Portugal, a wider income content thatincluded all types of in-kind income and all sorts of imputedincomes would lead to a better description of the real economicposition of the household (individual) within income distribu-tion.

Since the income was computed at the household level whereall individual incomes are pooled, an equivalence scale had to beused (modified-OECD was chosen) to express individual incomeswithin the household. Attention should be drawn to the underly-ing hypothesis of a homogeneous share of resources within thehousehold, an issue widely criticized in the literature (Jenkins,2000) and already pointed out above as a limitation for povertyanalysis with a focus on gender. Following a static perspectiveof income poverty, a contemporary (smoothed, in dynamics, seeKuchler and Goebel, 2003) relative poverty line was selected as 60%

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

of the median contemporary income (of the median of smoothedincome, in dynamics) per equivalent adult (using the modified-OECD scale).

The aggregate static poverty measure was made using the three“i’s” of poverty (Jenkins and Lambert, 1997) – the incidence, the

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women and poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),doi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelSOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of Socio-Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 5

Table 2Well-being indicators to analyse poverty among women under both a static and dynamic view using ECHP data.

Well-being dimensions andtheir indicators

Categories of deprivation Static analysis Dynamic analysis

(A) Economic resourcesLower limit: national minimum wage Fully deprived Deprived

(A1) Personal income ofwoman

Between lower and upper limit Partially deprived Not deprived

Upper limit: 2.5 × national minimum wage Not deprived Not deprived

1. Easily Not deprived Not deprived(A2) Ability to make endsmeet

2. With some difficulty Partially deprived Not deprived

3. With difficulty Fully deprived Fully deprived

(A3) Ability tomake savings

1. No Fully deprived Fully deprived0. Yes Not deprived Not deprived

1. Not a problem or free rent Not deprived Not deprived(A4) Are housing costs afinancial burden?

2. Somewhat a burden Partially deprived Not deprived

3. A heavy burden Fully deprived Fully deprived

(B) Health1. Good Not deprived Not deprived

(B1) General health state 2. Fair Partially deprived Not deprived3. Bad Fully deprived Fully deprived

(B2) Chronic health problems (physical ormental ones), or invalidity

1. Yes Fully deprived Fully deprived0. No Not deprived Not deprived

(B3) Consultation of a dentist over the lastyear

1. Never Fully deprived Fully deprived0. Once or more times Not deprived Not deprived

(B4) Eating meat, chicken or fish everysecond day, if wanted

1. No Fully deprived Fully deprived0. Yes Not deprived Not deprived

(C) Education and training(C1) Participation in education or training

actions over the last year1. No Fully deprived Fully deprived0. Yes or not applicable Not deprived Not deprived

(C2) Educationlevel

1. Less than the 2nd level (ISCED 0–2) Fully deprived Fully deprived0. ISED (≥3) or are at school Not deprived Not deprived

(C3) Possession ofa colour TV

1. No, cannot afford Fully deprived Fully deprived0. Yes, or no (for another reason) Not deprived Not deprived

(D) Social participation(D1) Can the household afford paying for a

week’s annual holiday away form home1. No Fully deprived Fully deprived0. Yes Not deprived Not deprived

(D2) Can the household affordhaving friends or family for drinkor meal at least once a month?

1. No Fully deprived Fully deprived0. Yes Not deprived Not deprived

1. In most or the time Not deprived Not deprived2. Once or twice a week Partially deprived Not deprived

(D3) How often doeshousehold talk to anyneighbours?

3. Once or twice a month Partially deprived Not deprived

4. Less often than once a month Partially deprived Fully deprived5. Never Fully deprived Not deprived

1. In most of the time Not deprived Not deprived2. Once or twice a week Partially deprived Not deprived

(D4) How often doeshousehold meet friends ofrelatives not living withthem, whether here at homeor elsewhere?

3. Once or twice a month Partially deprived Not deprived

4. Less often than once a month Partially deprived Fully deprived5. Never Fully deprived Not deprived

(E) Housing(E1) Does the

dwelling have bathor shower?

4. Dwelling with bath or shower and WC Not deprived Not deprived3. Dwelling with WC but no bath or shower Partially deprived Not deprived2. Dwelling with bath or shower butwithout WC

Partially deprived Not deprived

1. Dwelling without bath or shower andwithout WC

Fully deprived Fully deprived

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelSOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

6 A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of Socio-Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Table 2 (Continued)

Well-being dimensions andtheir indicators

Categories of deprivation Static analysis Dynamic analysis

(E2) Is the accommodation toodark/not enough light?

1. Yes Fully deprived Fully deprived0. No Not deprived Not deprived

3. The accommodation have no leaky roof,damp walls, floors, etc.

Not deprived Not deprived

(E3) Does theaccommodation havemoistness problems

2. The accommodation have only one of themoistness problems (leaky roof, dampwalls, floors, etc.)

Partially deprived Not deprived

l. The accommodation have two or moremoistness problems (leaky roof, dampwalls, floors, etc.)

Fully deprived Fully deprived

v

ittpaieaa(ptbrfcidwAan–f2

3

pebfitssip1

puBpaomp

(E4) Is there crime orandalism in the area?

1. Yes0. No

ntensity and the severity (inequality) of poverty – in addition tohe FGT family measures of poverty (Foster et al., 1984). Usinghe information as a panel data base, persistence (or duration) ofoverty was included for a dynamic view of poverty. The dynamicnalysis, which is made using the constructed balanced panel ofndividuals, was based on a categorization of poor people in sev-ral groups, given their poverty/non-poverty trajectories (Kuchlernd Goebel, 2003): chronic and transient poor. The chronic poorre those individuals whose average income over a whole periodthe so-called smoothed income) is below the smoothed incomeoverty line. Some chronic poor are persistent poor (poor all theime), while others are intermittent poor (poor but with very shortouts of non-poverty, mostly close to the respective contempo-ary poverty line). The transient poor are those individuals whoace short length episodes of monetary poverty. Applying thislassification to the balanced panel enabled identification of thendividual’s profile trajectory (Nunes, 2005). It is possible to break-own this dynamic characterization by subgroups of the populationhen crosstabs over the sample produce statistically robust cells.dding a dynamic analysis of poverty to the traditional staticpproach reinforces knowledge of the factors that account for vul-erability among women, adding a “new” source of disadvantageduration of poverty, and this offers a new important insight

or political intervention in social policy (Burgess and Propper,002).

.2. Poverty as deprivation

Poverty is commonly recognized as a multidimensional socialhenomenon, since the deficit of well-being of an individualncompasses several dimensions of well-being. This may includeoth material and immaterial deprivation in addition to an insuf-cient monetary income level given some social norm. In ordero measure poverty as deprivation, several steps are necessary:election of a set of indicators that reflect the multiple dimen-ions of well-being, aggregation of the indicators into a deprivationndex and identification of a threshold level that divides the wholeopulation into deprived and non-deprived (Nolan and Whelan,996).

The indicators of deprivation on each dimension might be sim-ly expressed through dichotomic variables: “0” if the observationnit is not deprived on that indicator and “1” if the unit is deprived.ut there are several cases where it might be advisable to have

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

olitomic variables to measure the deprivation status. The propos-ls by Cerioli and Zani (1990) and Cheli and Lemmi (1995), basedn Fuzzy Set Theory, try to allow for the identification of inter-ediate levels of deprivation within each indicator, when using

olitomic variables. This method was applied to the initial and to

Fully deprived Fully deprivedNot deprived Not deprived

the final year of the period under analysis. In the dynamic anal-ysis, only a dichotomic structure was used to define the set ofindicators, in line with the tradition of the pioneering work ofTownsend (1979). In both applications, static and dynamic, a depri-vation threshold of 150% of the aggregate index of deprivation wasselected to distinguish between deprived and non-deprived indi-viduals.

The ECHP data do not provide the information required for alldimensions described in Tables 1 and 2 displays all details aboutthe selected deprivation indicators and their categories, in bothstatic and dynamic approaches: economic resources, health, edu-cational/vocational training, social relationships/participation andhousing.

In order to shed light on the understanding of the causesof women’s vulnerability to poverty, some groups of womenwere identified as tending to be more vulnerable to poverty,given the frame of well-being dimensions selected above. Thesegroups, where the deficit of well-being in some dimensions isan acknowledged fact throughout Europe, are generally the fol-lowing: those who live in large families, in lone-parent familieswith children, with incomes significantly lower than those oftheir partners, with low levels of education, with precarious orpart-time work, unemployed, immigrant, older single, and olderwith irregular contributions to the social protection system (seeAppendix A describing the sample dimension of each group bygender).

4. Research findings

This empirical research used static and dynamic approachesto study poverty among women in Portugal during the period1995–2001. Four dimensions of poverty were considered: inci-dence, intensity, severity and duration. In addition, two comple-mentary routes were pursued: an income-based (using householdincome) as well as a direct examination of living conditions (depri-vation). This two-dimensional approach aims to investigate poverty“within” the household, going beyond the classical studies onpoverty, which assume equal living standards within the aggregate,as pointed out above.

The analysis of the results first investigates the situation ofwomen compared to the whole population, in order to exam-ine their relative position in the context of poverty. Then ananalysis by the subgroups established in the previous sec-

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

tion is undertaken, to identify sub-populations of women whoare particularly vulnerable to poverty and, in doing so, thesources of this vulnerability. Finally, a breakdown by gender isintroduced to analyze gender poverty experiencing differentia-tions.

Pleasecite

this

articlein

press

as:B

astos,A

.,et

al.,W

omen

and

poverty:

Agen

der-sen

sitiveap

proach

.J.

Socio-Econ.

(2009),

doi:10.1016/j.socec.20

09.03.008

AR

TIC

LE

IN P

RE

SS

G M

odelSO

CECO

-866;N

o.ofPages15

A.Bastos

etal./The

JournalofSocio-Economics

xxx(2009)

xxx–xxx7

Table 3Income poverty incidence, intensity and inequality, by main groups and by age. Portugal, 1995 and 2001.

Sex Feminization sharewithin group

Income poverty incidence Income povertyintensitya

Income povertyinequality(severity)a

After socialtransfers (ST)

Before ST Before ST (exceptpensions)

1995 2001 1995 2001 1995 2001 1995 2001 1995 2001 1995 2001

All – – 22.9 20.1 36.6 36.4 27.4 24.4 8.1 5.6 4.3 2.5All 22.2 18.2 37.6 35.8 26.5 22.6 7.7 5.1 4.1 2.2

Adults (aged 16 ormore)

W52.6 52.2

23.9 18.5 40.3 37.6 28.2 22.6 8.3 5.1 4.4 2.2M 20.2 17.9 34.7 33.9 24.6 22.7 7.0 5.0 3.8 2.2

Adult within a largefamily

W50.2 49.6

23.2 21.8 34.3 35.7 28.9 25.3 8.2 5.9 4.5 2.5M 21.2 27.5 31.5 37.8 26.9 32.2 7.5 8.1 4.0 3.6

Single adult with children (aged 24 or less) W66.0 71.2

26.9 44.9 42.3 52.9 36.2 52.0 8.4 13.6 4.1 7.0M 21.8 25.5 34.4 37.4 29.6 30.9 8.4 6.9 4.9 3.5

Working age adult, living within a couple,but without personal income

W95.1 93.8

32.8 30.8 41.2 44.0 36.5 36.2 13.7 10.1 8.6 5.4M 59.1 39.7 71.5 55.0 71.5 40.7 25.3 19.4 15.6 11.6

Working age adult, living within a couple, with lessthan 50% of the income of their partner

W83.2 86.5

13.5 16.2 26.0 28.3 19.2 21.9 4.1 3.9 1.8 1.4M 33.8 24.7 45.3 40.5 38.9 32.0 13.5 8.3 7.4 3.9

Working age adult, living within a couple,with 50–70% of the income of their partner

W82.8 85.9

6.7 3.2 15.4 10.0 10.9 7.3 1.9 1.0 1.0 0.4M 8.8 2.5 16.3 17.6 13.6 9.2 2.8 1.1 1.3 0.7

Working age adult witha precarious work

W49.9 47.1

19.7 10.1 33.4 23.6 26.0 16.7 6.6 2.7 3.4 1.1M 24.6 22.2 34.2 37.6 29.3 30.3 8.1 5.4 3.9 2.4

Older unemployedadult (aged 45–64)

W42.8 57.9

19.1 6.5 45.7 33.6 40.1 20.8 6.3 2.3 3.3 1.1M 24.4 16.9 49.4 39.6 43.5 39.1 8.2 3.3 5.4 1.4

Single older adult W75.9 82.2

58.1 47.9 98.4 95.1 59.4 49.4 18.7 13.8 8.0 5.3M 53.8 36.0 87.6 92.2 53.8 36.6 17.8 10.7 8.2 4.1

Note: Income poverty measures of incidence, intensity and inequality are based upon Foster et al. (1984).Working age: 16–64.Source: INE – ECHP, 1995.

a After social transfers.

Pleasecite

this

articlein

press

as:B

astos,A

.,et

al.,W

omen

and

poverty:

Agen

der-sen

sitiveap

proach

.J.

Socio-Econ.

(2009),

doi:10.1016/j.socec.20

09.03.008

AR

TIC

LE

IN P

RE

SS

G M

odelSO

CECO

-866;N

o.ofPages15

8A

.Bastoset

al./TheJournalofSocio-Econom

icsxxx

(2009)xxx–xxx

Table 4Overall deprivation index (ODI), structure of ODI by well-being dimension and deprivation riska by groups. Portugal, 1995 and 2001.

1995 2001 1995 2001 Deprivation riskWell-being dimensions Well-being dimensions

ODI (S.D.) COI (S.D.) A B C D E A B C D E 1995 2001

All 0.249 (0.15) 0.197 (0.12) 18.1 21.3 9.5 26.4 24.6 19.8 22.1 7.9 26.8 23.3 16.5 16.2Adults (aged 16 or more) W

52.20.257 (0.15) 0.199 (0.11) 18.2 21.9 9.4 25.8 24.6 20.2 22.4 7.9 26.4 23.1 17.5 16.0

M 0.241 (0.15) 0.195 (0.12) 17.9 20.6 9.7 27.1 24.6 19.4 21.8 7.9 27.4 23.6 15.5 16.3

Adult within a largefamily

W49.9

0.265 (0.15) 0.206 (0.11) 18.6 20.7 8.3 26.9 25.5 21.0 18.7 7.5 27.2 25.7 19.5 16.6M 0.254 (0.15) 0.220 (0.13) 18.4 20.7 8.9 27.9 24.1 18.6 22.1 7.5 26.6 25.2 17.0 22.7

Single adult with children (aged 24 or less) W66.3

0.250 (0.14) 0.233 (0.12) 19.6 17.7 9.0 26.5 27.2 16.6 16.5 7.1 38.2 21.6 15.0 31.0b

M 0.256 (0.17) 0.191 (0.09) 17.4 15.5 12.6 27.7 26.8 18.9 18.7 8.0 26.1 28.3 19.0b 16.7b

Working age adult, living within a couple,but without personal income

W93.4

0.246 (0.13) 0.193 (0.10) 19.8 21.8 11.3 24.9 22.1 22.5 22.1 8.4 25.3 21.7 14.8 14.1b

M 0.296 (0.15) 0.234 (0.06) 18.1 19.3 12.0 25.4 25.1 20.5 24.5 6.1 21.6 27.2 15.6b 21.4b

Working age adult, living within a couple, with less than50% of the income of their partner

W84.1

0.233 (0.13) 0.184 (0.09) 19.4 22.8 8.7 25.8 23.3 21.7 23.5 8.5 24.0 22.2 13.2 11.1M 0.242 (0.14) 0.186 (0.11) 19.5 20.8 8.9 29.7 21.2 21.1 21.8 7.3 23.1 26.7 13.5b 12.4b

Working age adult, living within a couple, with 50–70% ofthe income of their partner

W82.5

0.228 (0.12) 0.159 (0.09) 18.6 19.9 8.2 26.3 27.1 24.1 21.7 8.6 30.7 15.0 11.9b 5.7M 0.230 (0.14) 0.155 (0.07) 17.9 21.3 6.2 26.8 27.8 19.4 22.1 9.2 30.6 18.6 13.4b 3.4b

Working age adult witha precarious work

W50.0

0.260 (0.15) 0.172 (0.09) 19.7 14.7 8.7 27.0 29.8 23.1 14.6 7.6 33.2 21.5 18.4 8.2b

M 0.283 (0.16) 0.197 (0.11) 16.8 16.6 11.9 27.3 27.4 21.3 14.5 8.0 29.6 26.6 22.7 16.2

Older unemployedadult (age 45–64)

W43.4

0.295 (0.13) 0.206 (0.09) 15.9 25.7 9.5 20.0 29.0 20.3 28.1 7.9 24.0 19.7 26.0b 15.1b

M 0.272 (0.16) 0.192 (0.11) 17.9 27.5 8.3 20.5 25.8 18.0 24.0 8.9 26.4 22.7 15.8b 11.1b

Single older adult W76.4

0.386 (0.18) 0.308 (0.10) 13.5 25.4 13.2 23.4 24.5 13.3 26.8 10.3 22.9 26.7 40.8 45.8M 0.369 (0.19) 0.272 (0.17) 12.2 24.1 13.9 22.7 27.2 14.6 25.4 10.7 23.1 26.3 48.7 37.5b

Working age: 16–64.Source: INE – ECHP, 1995.

a Deprivation threshold: 150% of the overall deprivation index (ODI).b Very low number of observations (less than 30).

Pleasecite

this

articlein

press

as:B

astos,A

.,et

al.,W

omen

and

poverty:

Agen

der-sen

sitiveap

proach

.J.

Socio-Econ.

(2009),

doi:10.1016/j.socec.20

09.03.008

AR

TIC

LE

IN P

RE

SS

G M

odelSO

CECO

-866;N

o.ofPages15

A.Bastos

etal./The

JournalofSocio-Economics

xxx(2009)

xxx–xxx9

Table 5Longitudinal income poverty typology and turnover of poverty (outflows and inflows) by groups. Portugal 1995–2001 (%).

Groups Persistent Intermitent Transitory Never poor Poverty outflow Poverty inflow

All 10.7 6.4 23.9 59.0 49.0 10.3Adults (aged 16 or more) W 12.0 6.4 25.4 56.1 48.1 10.7

M 9.2 6.4 22.1 62.4 50.2 10.0

Adult within a large family W 9.4 6.0 32.4 52.2 58.9 12.8M 7.9 9.4 25.4 57.4 58.3 13.3

Single adult with children (aged 24 or less) W 7.1a 8.4a 29.8 54.7 66.7 8.6a

M 7.5a 8.4a 24.1a 60.1 67.3a 5.2a

Working age adult, living within a couple, butwithout personal income

W 17.0 12.5 30.0 40.5 45.8 18.9M 28.3a 20.9a 24.5a 26.2a 62.0a 13.3a

Working age adult, living within a couple, withless than 50% of the income of their partner

W 5.9 3.6 24.5 66.0 51.7 8.8M 14.3a 5.6a 22.9a 57.2 57.4a 5.9a

Working age adult, living within a couple, with50–70% of the income of their partner

W 1.4a 2.1a 21.2 75.2 78.2a 6.5a

M 1.6a 3.3a 11.4a 83.7 84.2a 0.4a

Working age adult with precarious work W 3.8a 4.0a 33.5 58.6 60.2 7.6a

M 11.8a 10.0a 20.8 57.4 41.2 10.0a

Older unemployed adult (aged 45–64) W 4.6a 2.8a 47.3a 45.3 88.5a 19.7a

M 7.1a 4.6a 34.0a 54.4 63.9a 10.6a

Single older adult W 37.9 12.7 26.1 23.4 29.0 24.2M 30.9a 7.8a 33.5a 27.7a 35.0a 17.0a

Working age: 16–64.Balanced panel of individuals for Portugal over the 1995–2001 period.Weighted data.Source: INE – ECHP.

a Very low number of observations (less than 20).

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelSOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

10 A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of Socio-Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Table 6Non-monetary indicators by dimension of well-being and medium score of deprivation. Portugal, 1995–2001: adults, women and men.

% of deprived individuals in each indicatorIndicator Non-monetary indicators 1995 2001

Total Women Men Total Women Men

A. Economic resourcesA1. Personal income 55.4 71.7 36.6 45.8 61.7 27.5A2. Ability to make ends meet 38.6 39.5 37.5 31.4 31.9 30.8A3. Ability to make savings 84.7 85.2 84.1 80.9 81.5 80.2A4. Housing cost as a financial burden 20.6 21.4 19.6 19.4 19.7 18.9

B. HealthB1. Global health state 19.8 24.1 14.8 23.8 27.1 19.9B2. Chronic health problems (physical or

mental) or invalidity22.7 24.7 20.4 28.6 31.1 25.8

B3. Dentist consultation 76.6 73.6 80.0 69.0 67.5 70.8B4. Eating meat, chicken or fish every

second day, if wanted6.3 6.0 6.6 2.9 2.7 3.1

C. Education and trainingC1. Participation in education or training

actions over the last year87.8 87.5 88.2 94.4 93.5 95.5

C2. Level of education 85.6 86.0 85.1 81.9 82.8 81.0C3. Being within a household that has

colour TV8.0 8.3 7.8 1.8 2.1 1.5

D. Social participationD1. Household’s ability to pay for a week’s

annual holiday away from home63.4 64.5 62.3 60.2 61.5 58.7

D2. Household’s ability to have friends orfamily to have a drink or meal at leastonce a month

20.8 21.6 19.8 14.6 15.5 13.4

D3. Frequency of talking to neighbours 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8D4. Frequency of meeting friends or

relatives2.1 2.1 2.2 1.3 1.4 1.2

E. HousingE1. Existence of bath or shower 10.4 10.9 10.0 5.3 5.3 5.2E2. Existence of enough light 18.1 19.0 17.2 12.7 13.0 12.4E3. Existence of damp problems 12.8 14.0 11.4 10.0 10.7 9.1E4. Existence of crime or vandalism in the 18.9 19.3 18.5 20.8 21.4 20.1

S

4

tw1wppwb

t3fdcp

wa

fitli

areaMedium score of deprivation 6.54

ource: ECHP – Portugal. Weighted data.

.1. Cross-sectional analysis

The income poverty indicators3 presented in Table 3 showhat, globally, women were more affected by poverty than thehole population, despite a decrease in poverty registered between

995 and 2001 in absolute as well as in relative terms. In factomen showed a higher incidence, intensity and severity of incomeoverty. Social transfers had an important role in decreasing theroportion of individuals at risk of income poverty, especially foromen. Once again, this demonstrates women’s greater vulnera-ility to poverty.

This was also the case for deprivation. When poverty is analyzedhrough the indicators of well-being, previously defined in Section, and presented in Table 4, it is found that women in general suf-er more deprivation in terms of level (determined by the overalleprivation index) and risk, despite the amelioration of the livingonditions reported by the statistics between 1995 and 2001, as

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

reviously found within the income-based analysis.The differentiations in terms of income poverty and deprivation

ith reference to the whole population vary according to the groupsnalyzed. An analysis by subgroup shows that lone-parent families

3 The incidence, intensity and severity indicators computed here were derivedrom the decomposable FGT measure (Foster et al., 1984). The incidence of povertys given by the headcount ratio which expresses the proportion of poor in society;he intensity indicator represents the relative gap between the standard povertyine and the income level of the poor; the severity indicator somehow shows thenequality of income distribution among the poor.

6.81 6.24 6.07 6.33 5.77

headed by women and old isolated women stand out as the groupsmost vulnerable to poverty, in line with the results already reportedin Section 2 which identified divorce, lone motherhood and ageingas particular events associated with poverty among women. In fact,the definition of the subgroups in Section 3 was based on theseevents as sources of poverty for women.

In 2001 the incidence of poverty for lone-parent families headedby women and old isolated women more than doubled that for thewhole population. In terms of deprivation, old isolated women’sdeprivation intensity (evaluated by the overall deprivation index)was almost 60% higher than that for all individuals and their depri-vation incidence (evaluated by the deprivation risk, which givesthe proportion of individuals whose deprivation index is above thedeprivation threshold) more than tripled the global one.

It is worth underlining that lone-parent families did not showsignificant levels of deprivation. Their risk of deprivation was lowerthan that for all individuals in 1995. Nevertheless in 2000 this risksoared and almost doubled the global one. Concerning deprivationintensity, it should be noted that the differences with reference tothe whole population were much less, suggesting the existence ofinformal network supports in the daily life of these families thatwere able to attenuate their deprivation level but not avoid poverty.Regarding this group it should be noted that the sample size forthese families was quite small in 2001 (80 individuals, 58 of them

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

women), which calls for particular caution in the analysis of theresults and demands further studies in order to corroborate theconclusions previously drawn.

For lone-parent families headed by women and old isolatedwomen, social transfers had a particularly important role in

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelSOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of Socio-Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 11

Table 7Deprivation score mobility between 1995 and 2001: adults, women and men.

Adults Deprivation score in 2001 Total

1–2 3–6 7–11 12+ Line %

Deprivation score in 19951–2 69.0 30.2 0.8 100.03–6 12.2 68.0 19.5 0.3 100.07–11 1.7 32.5 62.2 3.6 100.012+ 6.2 66.3 27.5 100.0

Women Deprivation score in 2001 Total

1–2 3–6 7–11 12+ Line %

Deprivation score in 19951–2 66.3 32.1 1.6 100.03–6 11.3 66.4 21.9 0.4 100.07–11 1.1 29.9 65.8 3.2 100.012+ 7.2 69.9 22.9 100.0

Men Deprivation score in 2001 Total

1–2 3–6 7–11 12+ Line %

Deprivation score in 19951–2 71.8 28.2 0.0 100.03–6 13.1 69.5 17.3 0.2 100.07–11 2.6 36.1 57.3 4.0 100.012+ 4.5 60.6 34.8 100.0

BWS

die2ii

iiwfitTf

mgwupd

TD

D

D

B

alanced panel of individuals for Portugal over the 1995–2001 period.eighted data.

ource: INE – ECHP.

ecreasing the incidence of income poverty. In 1995 the povertyncidence for these groups was 60% lower after social transfers. Theffect of social transfers declined for lone parents between 1995 and001, and this is certainly associated with an increase of about 70%

n their income poverty risk and of over 100% in their deprivationncidence.

In Portugal lone parenthood is generally the result of women’snvoluntary separations that leave them with the children. Accord-ng to the last census, 80% of these families were headed by

omen. Often these women receive no monetary contributionsrom the fathers, creating serious financial problems. Furthermoren a society where labor market participation is still gender condi-ioned, unemployment accentuates their vulnerability to poverty.herefore social transfers are particularly important for theseamilies.

Participation in the labor market was in fact a key factor in deter-ining low levels of deprivation and preventing income poverty. In

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

eneral, the groups with jobless women or precarious employmentere those with higher levels of poverty. The former had a partic-lar characteristic: poverty penalized more men than women. Aossible explanation for this could lie in the restructuring of tra-itional industries where men had been employed as well as in

able 8eprivation mobility score between 1995 and 2001, by income poverty dynamic typology

Adults Women

Persistent Intermitent Transitory Never poor Persistent Intermitent

eprivation score, 19951–2 5.3 94.73–6 3.6 3.2 20.5 72.7 4.2 3.37–11 16.7 10.0 29.2 44.1 17.1 9.312+ 35.9 13.1 30.0 21.0 37.8 12.0

eprivation score, 20011–2 0.3 9.4 90.3 0.63–6 4.1 4.1 21.8 70.0 4.6 3.87–11 19.4 9.7 30.2 40.7 19.6 9.612+ 36.2 20.1 24.0 19.7 43.8 14.9

alanced panel of individuals for Portugal over the 1995–2001 period. Weighted data. Sou

the expansion of low status social and personal services combinedwith women’s lower expectations concerning their participation inthe labor market, which leads them to accept jobs that men wouldprobably refuse (Pereirinha et al., 2008).

The analysis of deprivation by areas of well-being (Table 4)shows that Social Participation was the most relevant domain. Aspreviously reported, this result derives from the traditional divi-sion of domestic responsibilities that still exists in Portugal, wherewomen are supposed to carry out most of the domestic and childcare activities. It should also be mentioned that in 1995, Housing wasa critical area of deprivation, in line with the results from other stud-ies such as Eurostat (1993). Finally, it is worth noting that Health wasthe most important domain of deprivation for old isolated women,as a consequence of the financial constraints derived from the lowpensions that they generally receive.

Introducing the gender perspective in the analysis underlinesthe importance of poverty among the groups cited above. Lone-

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

parent families headed by women and old isolated women werealso the groups with higher gender gaps, despite their significantfeminization rate, which accentuates their vulnerability to poverty.According to the statistics presented, the poverty incidence gapincreased from 1995 to 2001 especially among lone-parent families,

and by main groups (adults, women and men).

Men

Transitory Never poor Persistent Intermitent Transitory Never poor

4.3 95.7 6.3 93.722.1 70.4 3.0 3.2 18.9 74.830.2 43.3 16.1 10.7 27.8 45.330.1 20.1 33.1 14.3 29.9 22.7

8.0 91.4 10.4 89.623.2 68.4 3.5 4.4 20.4 71.631.7 39.1 19.3 9.8 27.8 43.117.4 24.0 27.8 25.9 31.5 14.8

rce: INE – ECHP.

INS

1 Socio-

wdspc

o2sdgap

grftftsrp

ssmaade

4

etatwi

sngppapl

wacdac

trtbwuri

ARTICLEG ModelOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

2 A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of

here the proportion of poor women heading families is almostouble that for men. This is also the case for poverty intensity andeverity, demonstrating the higher vulnerability of this group tooverty and suggesting a significant deterioration in their livingonditions during the period under study.

It is also worth noting that while women showed a higher riskf deprivation than men in 1995, this situation was inverted in001. Despite this trend, women still presented a higher inten-ity of deprivation in 2001, which means that women at risk ofeprivation fare worse than men. These results are in line with thereater vulnerability of women as individual earners and as sociallyctive participants, underlining the fact that poverty is a genderedhenomenon as mentioned in Section 2.

Old isolated individuals and lone-parent families were theroups that presented a higher gender gap concerning deprivationisk, in absolute terms as well as in evolution terms. Concerning theormer group, deprivation risk was around 20% higher for womenhan men in 1995 and, over the period under study it decreasedor men while it rose for women. For lone-parent families, evenhough in 1995 the deprivation risk penalized men, in 2001 thisituation was inverted and lone-parent families headed by womenegistered a deprivation risk that almost doubled that for men. Thisattern also applied to old isolated women.

According to the cross-sectional analysis that has been doneo far, ageism and lone-motherhood seemed to be importantources of poverty and deprivation. In fact they underpin theost vulnerable groups, who registered higher gender differenti-

tions disfavoring women. Participation in the labor market waslso found to be an important factor in determining poverty andeprivation. Therefore, these factors accentuate women’s particularxposure to poverty.

.2. Poverty dynamics

A dynamic gender-sensitive approach was followed in thempirical research. The analysis of poverty as a process extendshe portrait of poverty among women given so far by introducingn important element of study – poverty persistence. According tohe empirical results obtained from the dynamic analysis, womenere in a disadvantaged position regarding the duration of poverty,

n terms of income as well as deprivation.Concerning income poverty, the statistics included in Table 5

hows that the longitudinal poor population share was more sig-ificant among women, with reference to the whole population (aap of around 7 pp). This was particularly the case for persistentoverty, which includes the most severe situations. Moreover, theoverty turnover statistics, also in Table 5, consolidate these results,s the inflow rate for women was higher than that for the wholeopulation and the outflow rate for women was low, suggesting

onger spells in poverty.The deprivation analysis also points out this disadvantage:

omen presented a higher medium deprivation score as well ashigher incidence of deprivation on almost all indicators, when

ompared with the whole population (Table 6), despite an overallecrease registered between 1995 and 2001. This pattern suggestsn amelioration in the living conditions, as already found in theross-sectional analysis.

The deprivation structure presented in Table 6 was very muchhe same in both years – the indicators related to economicesources showed an enforced lack, in both absolute and relativeerms, with reference to all individuals, in line with the income-

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

ased poverty analysis. According to the statistics, more than 2/3 ofomen were deprived concerning personal income while this sit-ation only applied to around half of the whole population. Thisesult is consistent with the prevalence of the breadwinner modeln the Portuguese society, as discussed in Section 2.

PRESSEconomics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Deprivation mobility also highlights the vulnerability of womento poverty. Table 7 shows that the proportion of women who regis-tered an increase in the deprivation score was globally higher thanthat for the whole population.

The key findings emerging from the analysis by the groups pre-viously established (Table 5) is that the group more affected bychronic poverty was old isolated women: half of the women expe-riencing chronic poverty belonged to this category. Most of thesewomen receive low pensions as a consequence of irregular or lowparticipation in the labor market when active, and they live withserious constraints in terms of health. This is in line with the resultsalready mentioned in the previous point. This is also the case fordeprivation (Table 6). Their medium score of deprivation was thehighest, around 50% higher than that for the whole population.The turnover statistics also highlight the group’s vulnerability topoverty (Table 5). Poverty persists longer for them as their inflowrate more than doubles that for the whole population while theoutflow rate was around 60% lower.

Also noteworthy in relation to income poverty is the relativeposition of women who live within a couple but who do not haveindividual income. Around 30% were chronic poor even though theirmedium score of deprivation almost equaled that for all individuals,suggesting enforced lack of income but acceptable living standards.

Concerning deprivation, it is worth drawing attention to the rel-ative position of unemployed women over 45 years old. This groupregistered a high level of deprivation, 30% higher than the mediumscore of deprivation for the whole population.

The scarcity of observations for lone parents – one of the mostvulnerable groups identified in the cross-sectional analysis – pre-cludes investigation of their position in dynamic terms. For them,transitory poverty seemed to be the most important longitudinalcategory, as the statistics on the turnover suggest, in line with theresults obtained in the previous section.

The introduction of an analysis broken down by gender cor-roborates most of the results already presented. The dynamicanalysis of data highlights gender differences concerning povertyduration. In line with the turnover statistics (Table 5), the lon-gitudinal categorization of income poverty suggests that womenhave longer spells in poverty than men. The proportion of per-sistent poor among women was 30% higher than that for men.This gap was also significant for the transitory poor, especiallyfor the individuals with precarious work, which may be associ-ated with different forms of discrimination in the labor market(Table 5).

Gender differentiation was also evident in the context of depri-vation dynamics, as, globally speaking, women were more affectedby poverty than men in longitudinal terms (Table 6). The mediumdeprivation score was higher for women and the gender differen-tiation increased between 1995 and 2001. During the period understudy, women were also more affected by adverse mobility thanmen (Table 7).

Concerning the deprivation indicators defined, the gender gapwas particularly significant in terms of personal income – the pro-portion of men deprived is around half that of women – in keepingwith the breadwinner model still prevalent in Portugal.

The dynamic analysis of the data points out ageism, lone-motherhood and participation in the labor market as importantsources of poverty for women. This result corroborates the con-clusions derived from the cross-sectional analysis previouslyestablished. Besides incidence and intensity, duration also penal-ized these groups.

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

4.3. Income poverty and deprivation

The in-depth analysis of the statistics that come from the inter-face between income poverty and deprivation helps to assess and

INS

Socio-

ultptm(

t2ltlmswcl

pwpn

iiirpipc

wuwtfa

5

csoogaFgdiit

apytctwav

tuguese Commission for Citizenship and Gender Equality (CIG),

ARTICLEG ModelOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of

nderstand the relation between income poverty dynamics andiving standards. Once again, women were in a disadvantaged posi-ion; in general, regardless of their status in terms of incomeoverty, they always had a higher incidence in the top depriva-ion category (score 12 or above, which means being deprived in

ore than half the indicators) with reference to all individualsTable 8).

The introduction of an analysis broken down by gender confirmshis result. Concerning deprivation mobility between 1995 and001 in terms of the poverty longitudinal typology, Table 8 high-

ights considerable gender gaps. The statistics show that, in general,he share of women with high levels of deprivation increased for allongitudinal poor classes, except for the transitory poor, while for

en this pattern only applied to the intermittent poor and the tran-itory poor. It should be noted that the highest increase for womenas registered among the persistent poor, suggesting an intensifi-

ation of poverty in this group which, already, includes the direstiving conditions.

As expected the top category of deprivation tended to be occu-ied by the persistent poor. In fact, this was particularly true foromen, suggesting again their greater vulnerability. The transitoryoor also make up a significant share of this category and in 1995o gender gap was apparent.

Nevertheless, in 2001 the proportion of transitory poor womenn the top category of deprivation was almost half, while for men,t rose slightly. For women, this decrease was associated with anncrease in the persistent poor, as referred to earlier. For men, theise in transitory poor within the top deprivation category was cou-led with a rise in the intermittent poor and a pronounced fall

n the never poor. This evolution emphasizes once again women’sarticular exposure to poverty and deprivation, especially whenomparisons with men are made.

Even among the never poor, women tend to be more deprivedhen compared with the whole population and with men in partic-lar. In fact in 1995, 20.1% of women with high levels of deprivationere never poor. This number increased to 24% in 2001. The evolu-

ion accentuates women’s vulnerability to poverty and deprivationor this pattern was the inverse of that for the whole populationnd for men.

. Conclusion

The relationship between gender and poverty is complex. Theoncept of poverty used in this paper has relied on a gender-ensitive approach; it is assumed that both causes and experiencesf poverty are gendered. A new and broader concept of poverty –ne that goes beyond the monetary dimension and incorporates aender perspective – is needed. To be poor means to experiencestate of deficit of well-being in various dimensions of social life.

urthermore, poverty has a dynamic dimension. The use of lon-itudinal data can offer important insights into such a dynamicimension in poverty analysis. Finally, the use of intra-household

ndicators is crucial in order to figure out some patterns of gendernequality regarding the allocation and sharing of resources withinhe household.

This paper puts forward a gender-sensitive approach to povertynalysis and uses it in both a static and dynamic analysis of femaleoverty in Portugal during the period 1995–2001. The static anal-sis reveals a higher level of income poverty and deprivation forhe female population, despite an amelioration registered in living

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

onditions between 1995 and 2001, both in absolute and in rela-ive terms. Not only do women face higher poverty rates than men,ith poverty rates above those of the whole population, but they

lso experience a more intense and severe form of it. The depri-ation analysis consolidates these conclusions as women appear

PRESSEconomics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 13

to be more deprived in terms of level and risk of deprivation thanmen.

The longitudinal analysis corroborates the previous results.The major findings show that poverty spells for women lastlonger than for the rest of the individuals. Persistent povertyis quite important among women, in line with the statisticson turnover, which show a higher entry rate and a lower out-flow rate for women. This is also the case for deprivation, aswomen tended to present regressive mobilities. The crossed-dataanalysis by income poverty and deprivation dynamics is quiteconsistent with these results. Irrespective of their poverty status,women were always more deprived than the rest of the popula-tion.

Old isolated women and lone-parent families headed by womenwere found to be the groups most affected by income poverty anddeprivation. However, it should be noted that men without individ-ual income who live within a couple and old unemployed men, werealso quite exposed to poverty and showed a gender differentiationthat penalized them.

Labor market participation was found to be a key determinantof poverty. This is not surprising as the particular vulnerability ofwomen to poverty is mostly due, on the one hand, to the discrimina-tion insights that are still embedded in the Portuguese social systemand, on the other hand the social condition of being a woman eitherin the family or in the society.

An even more comprehensive study of poverty as a gen-dered phenomenon would require a complementary micro-levelanalysis, combining both quantitative and qualitative methodsin order to disclose the complexity inside the black box, i.e. tounderstand gender relations as power relations within the fam-ily, to look at both patterns of cooperation and conflict, as wellas the division of labor, and the processes of bargaining anddecision-making around the allocation, sharing and control ofhousehold and individual resources. A qualitative approach wouldalso shed light on the subjective perceptions of poverty heldby both men and women, given that a descriptive statisticalapproach is limited with regard to the apprehension of identi-ties, feelings, subjective assessments, experiences and aspirationsfor it tells us little about either the complex relationships thattake place inside the family or the exchange networks of non-market activities, emotional support, affective connections eitherwith the extended family, the neighbors or the community as awhole.

The results demonstrate that lone mothers represent a particu-larly vulnerable group to poverty. With this in mind, the complexityof gendered processes attached to the formation of such familiesand their life experiences, labor market dynamics and the roleof the Welfare State all call for more focused research on thistopic.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for theirconstructive suggestions, to Rita Fernandes for her helpful con-tribution to the discussion on the topic, and in particular toCarla Machado for her meaningful participation in the quan-titative analysis carried out throughout the project “Womenand Poverty – Impact and Determinants of Poverty amongWomen”. The study was developed within the scope of the Por-

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

to which our gratitude is also expressed. We also would liketo thank FCT (Fundacão para a Ciência e Tecnologia) for finan-cial support. This article is part of the Multi-annual FundingProjects: FEDER/POCI/2010 for CEMAPRE and POCI/U0436/2006 forUECE.

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelSOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

14 A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of Socio-Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Appendix A

1995 2001

Non-weighted Weighted Non-weighted Weighted

N N % N N %

All 11,858 11,858 100 10,915 10,915 100Adults (aged 16 or more) W 6,167 6,236 52.6 5,769 5,694 52.2

M 5,691 5,622 47.4 5,146 5,221 47.8

Adult within a large family W 1,356 1,362 11.5 1,098 1,474 23.6M 1,380 1,351 11.4 1,080 1,505 26.8

Single adult with children (aged 24 or less) W 242 291 2.5 61 58 1.0M 149 150 1.3 52 23 0.4

Working age adult, living within a couple,but without personal income

W 1,040 885 7.5 695 623 10.9M 77 62 0.5 28 42 0.8

Working age adult, living within a couple, withless than 50% of the income of their partner

W 623 696 5.9 608 747 13.1M 115 140 1.2 103 113 2.2

Working age adult, living within a couple, with50–70% of the income of their partner

W 305 382 3.2 344 352 6.2M 63 80 0.7 72 60 1.1

Working age adult with aprecarious work

W 388 403 3.4 396 404 7.1M 436 403 3.4 428 456 8.7

Older unemployed adult (aged 45-64) W 73 75 0.6 64 73 1.3M 76 99 0.8 46 56 1.1

Single older adult W 378 355 3.0 420 296 5.2M 148 112 0.9 106 64 1.2

WS

R

A

A

B

BB

B

B

B

C

C

C

D

E

E

F

F

F

G

I

J

orking age: 16–64.ource: INE – ECHP, 1995–2001.

eferences

ddabbo, T., Lanzi, D., Picchio, A., 2004. On Sustainable Human Development: GenderAuditing in a Capability Approach, Materiali di Discussione del Dipartimento diEconomia Politica n.467.

mâncio, L., 1994. Masculino e Feminino. A Construcão Social da Diferenca. Afronta-mento, Porto.

astos, A., Nunes, F., 2009. Child poverty – dimensions and dynamics. Childhood 16(1), 67–87.

ecker, G.S., 1993. A Treatise on the Family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.lau, F., Ferber, M., Winkler, A., 2006. The Economics of Women, Men and Work, 5th

edition. Pearson Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.ould, S., Schmaus, G., 2007. Equal economic independence for men and women.

In: Presented at the Third Symposium COST 34 of the Gender and Well-beingNetwork, June 25–27, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain.

ruegel, I., 1979. Women a reserve army of labor: a note on recent British experience.Feminist Review 3, 12–23.

urgess, S., Propper, C., 2002. The dynamics of poverty in Britain. In: Hills, J., Le Grand,J., Piachaud, D. (Eds.), Understanding Social Exclusion. Oxford University Press,Oxford, pp. 44–61.

asaca, S.F., 2005. Flexibilidade, emprego e relacões de género: a situacão de Portugalno contexto da União Europeia. In: Kovács, I. (Ed.), Flexibilidade de Emprego:Riscos e Oportunidades. Celta Editora, Oeiras, pp. 55–89.

erioli, A., Zani, S., 1990. A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty. In: Dagum,Z. (Ed.), Income and Wealth Distribution, Inequality and Poverty, Studies in Con-temporary Economics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 272–284.

heli, B., Lemmi, A., 1995. A totally fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimen-sional analysis of poverty. Economic Notes 24 (1), 115–133.

aly, M., 1992. Europe’s poor women? Gender in research on poverty. EuropeanSociological Review 8 (1), 1–12.

hrenberg, R., Smith, R., 2006. Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy.Pearson Addison Wesley.

ngland, P., 1997. Dependência sexual dinheiro e dependência económica nos Esta-dos Unidos da América. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais 49, 45–66.

erreira, V., 1993. Padrões de segregacão das mulheres no emprego: uma análisedo caso português. In: Santos, B.S. (Ed.), Portugal: Um Retrato Singular. EdicõesAfrontamento, Porto, pp. 232–257.

indlay, J., Wright, R.E., 1996. Gender, poverty and the intra-household distributionof resources. Review of Income and Wealth 42 (3), 335–351.

oster, J.E., Greer, J., Thorbecke, E., 1984. A class of decomposable poverty measures.Econometrica 52 (3), 761–766.

uerreiro, M.D., 2003. Pessoas sós: múltiplas realidades. Sociologia - Problemas e

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

Práticas 43, 31–49.versen, V., 2003. Intra-household inequality: a challenge for the capability

approach? Feminist Economics 9 (2–3), 93–115.ackson, C., 1998. Women and poverty or gender and well-being? Journal of Inter-

national Affairs 52 (1), 67–81.

Jenkins, S.P., 2000. Modelling household income dynamics. Journal of PopulationEconomics 13 (4), 529–567.

Jenkins, S.P., Lambert, P., 1997. The three ‘I’s of poverty curves, with an analysis of UKpoverty trends. Oxford Economic Papers 49, 317–327.

Kilkey, M., Bradshaw, J., 1999. Lone mothers, economic well-being, and policies. In:Sainsbury, D. (Ed.), Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford University Press,Oxford, pp. 147–184.

Klasen, S., 2004. Gender-related indicators of well-being. World Institute for Devel-opment Economic Research, United Nations University, Discussion Paper n◦

2004/05.Koeber, C., Wright, D.W., 2006. Gender differences in the reemployment status of

displaced workers human capital as signals that mitigate effects of bias. Journalof Socio-Economics 35, 780–796.

Kuchler, B., Goebel, J., 2003. Incidence and intensity of smoothed income ooverty inEuropean countries. Journal of European Social Policy 13 (4), 357–370.

Lewis, J., 1992. Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of EuropeanSocial Policy 2 (3), 159–173.

Lopes, M.C., 2000. Trabalho de valor igual e desigualdade salarial: breve contributona base dos pressupostos do capital humano. Ex Aequo 2/3, 107–116.

Lopes, M.C., Perista, H., 1995. Trends and Prospects for Women’s Employment,Interim Report – Portugal, Experts Group on the Position of Women in the LabourMarket.

Nolan, B., Whelan, C., 1996. Resources, Deprivation and Poverty. Clarendon PressOxford University Press, Oxford.

Nunes, F., 2005. Dinâmica de Pobreza e Eficácia do Sistema de Solidariedade eSeguranca Social. Uma Aplicacão a Portugal, Dissertacão de doutoramento, ISEG.

Orloff, A., 1996. Gender in the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology 22,51–78.

Pahl, J., 1983. The allocation of money and the structuring of inequality within mar-riage. Sociological Review 31 (2), 237–262.

Pearce, D., 1978. The feminization of poverty: women work and welfare. Urban andSocial Review 11, 28–36.

Pereirinha, J., Bastos, A., Casaca, S.F., Fernandes, R., Machado, C., Nunes, F., 2008.Género e Pobreza: Impacto e Determinantes da Pobreza no Feminino. CIG(Comissão para a Cidadania e Igualdade de Género), coleccão Estudos de Género,4.

Perista, H., 2002. Género e Trabalho não pago: os tempos das mulheres e os temposdos homens. Análise Social 163, 447–474.

Perista, H., Gomes, M., Silva, M., 1992. A Pobreza no Feminino na Cidade de Lisboa.CIDM.

Pressman, S., 2003. Feminist explanations for the feminization of poverty. Journal ofEconomic Issues 36 (2), 353–361.

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

Prieto-Rodriguez, J., Rodriguez-Gutiérrez, C., 2003. Participation of married womenin the European labor markets and the ‘added worker effect’. Journal of Socio-Economics 32, 429–446.

Robeyns, I., 2003. Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevantcapabilities. Feminist Economics 9 (2–3), 61–92.

INS

Socio-

R

S

S

e Trabalho. DEEP/CITE, Estudos 1.

ARTICLEG ModelOCECO-866; No. of Pages 15

A. Bastos et al. / The Journal of

uspini, E., 2000. Social rights of women with children: lone mothers and povertyin Italy, Germany and Great Britain. In: Gonzalez, M.J., Jurado, T., Naldini, M.

Please cite this article in press as: Bastos, A., et al., Women anddoi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.03.008

(Eds.), Gender Inequalities in Southern Europe: Women, Work and Welfare inthe 1990s. Frank Cass, London, pp. 89–121.

ainsbury, D., 1999. Gender regimes and welfare state regimes. In: Sainsbury, D.(Ed.), Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.245–275.

en, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Knopf, New York.

PRESSEconomics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 15

Torres, A., Silva, F., Monteiro, T., Cabrita, M., 2004. Homens e Mulheres, Entre Família

poverty: A gender-sensitive approach. J. Socio-Econ. (2009),

Townsend, P., 1979. Poverty in the United Kingdom. Penguin Books, Middlesex.UNDP, 1998. Gender and poverty, Working Paper Series. Report by Nilufer Cagatay.Vogler, C., Pahl, J., 1994. Money, power and inequality within marriage. Sociological

Review 42 (2), 263–288.Wall, K., 2003. Famílias monoparentais. Sociologia - Problemas e Práticas 43, 51–66.