Family Policies and Child Poverty in the Nordic Countries

Conference on Child and Family Welfare Nordic Council of Ministers

5 September 2014 Rekjavik, Iceland

Tapio Salonen Professor, Social Work

Malmö University, Sweden tapio.salonen@mah.se

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

Definitions of Child Poverty.

Risk-of-poverty among families with children in The Nordic countries and UK 2004-2012.

Source: Flötten et.al. 2014

Risk-of-poverty = 60 % of median income

Risk-of-poverty in Nordic countries 2012.

Risk-of-poverty = 60 % of median income

Source: Eurostat 2014.

Czech RepublicDenmarkHungaryIceland

Slovak RepublicAustria

NetherlandsLuxembourg

FranceSloveniaNorwayFinlandSweden

SwitzerlandGermanyBelgiumIrelandPoland

New ZealandOECD

United KingdomCanada

ItalyGreecePortugalSpain

EstoniaAustralia

KoreaJapanTurkey

United StatesChileIsrael

Mexico

Panel A. Percentage of persons living with less than 50% of median equivalised household income, late-2000s

Panel B. Annual average change in poverty rate between mid-1980s and late-2000s, percentages

5,46,1

6,46,56,7

7,27,27,27,2

7,87,87,9

8,48,78,99,1

9,810,1

11,011,111,311,411,4

12,613,613,7

13,914,6

15,015,7

17,017,3

18,919,9

21,0

0510152025

2,90,10,1

2,73,2

1,4-0,2

0,92,1

3,7

2,1-1,9

2,9

2,51,0

2,2-0,2

0,4-1,1

-1,3-0,2

1,9

1,30,2

-0,1-0,7

2,20,1

- 2,0 - 1,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0

Child Poverty in OECD-countries.

Source: OECD Family Database www.oecd.org/social/family/database

Point changes in child poverty rates between mid-1990s and 2008.

Source: OECD Family Database www.oecd.org/social/family/database

Popular notions about poverty in Nordic countries and UK 2008/2009.

Responses: None of these Part of modernity Unjustice Unlucky Lazy

Source: Flötten et.al. 2014

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

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5Tax breaks towards families Services Cash

OECD-33 average =2.6%

Public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures, in per cent of GDP, 2009.

Source: Social Expenditure Database (www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure), November 2012.

Source: Thevenon 2011

Source: Provisional data from OECD Income distribution and poverty database (www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality).

EQ2.2. Poorer pensioners or poorer children? EQ2.3. Income growth is no poverty solution

AUS

AUT

BEL

CAN

CHL

CZE

DNK

EST

FIN

FRA

DEU

GRC

HUNISL

IRL

ISR

ITA

JPN

KOR

LUX

MEX

NLD

NZL

NOR POL

PRT

SVK

SVN

ESP

SWE

CHE

TURGBR

USA

OECD

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30

Pov

erty

am

ong

peop

le o

f ret

irem

ent

age,

pe

rcen

tage

s, la

te-2

000s

Poverty among children, percentages, late-2000s

AUS

AUT

BELCAN

CHL

CZE

DNK

FIN

FRADEU

GRC

HUN

IRL

ISR

ITA

JPN

LUX

MEXNLD

NZL

NOR

PRTESP

SWE

TUR

GBR

USA

OECD

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

- 2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4

Rea

l ave

rage

ann

ual

chan

ge in

med

ian

hous

ehol

d in

com

e, b

etw

een

mid

-198

0s a

nd

late

-200

0s,

perc

enta

ges

Average annual change in poverty rate between mid-1980s and late-2000s, percentages

Higher child poverty

Higher pensioner poverty

Income distribution among families with children in Sweden 1991, 2000 och 2011.

Income standard

1991 2000 2011

– 1

1 – 2

2 – 3

3 –

7

64

25

4

8

61

25

6

7

31

40

22

1,0 = Level of minimum livelihood Source: Statistics Sweden

Malmö högskola

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

Source: Statstics Sweden

Risk-of-poverty among families with children in Sweden with and without family policies 1998 – 2012.

Källa: FK 2013:49

Risk-of-poverty = Disposible income under 60 percentage of median income-

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

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

Risk-of-poverty among persons 20-64 year in Sweden

by labour market status 1991-2012.

Malmö högskola Source: Statistics Sweden

2012: 30,2 %

-- Sick, unemployed and early retirement -- Employed persons

Contradictions in the development of the Nordic welfare state.

• Increased economic growth but clear signs of growing inequalities and risks of marginalisation and exclusion.

• Traditional understandings of social cohesion is challenged by multicultural diversity. • Diverging understanding of citizenship • Tentions between internal rationalities in welfare systems and structural changes.

Strategies to Fight Child Poverty

• A national or local responsibilty? • Differens focuses:

- Minimise effects or tackling causes?

- Reactive or proactive measures?

- Selective or universal approaches?

Malmö University

Overall Policy Strategies

”Work-first” versus ”human-relation” Family Inclusive Child Poverty Meusures Social investment strategy

A Review from Nordic countries and UK. Flötten et. Al. 2014

Family-inclusive child poverty measures Different responses in Nordic countries; Norway – national programmes supporting local initiatives Denmark – special focus in day care services Finland and Sweden – paid work for parents as primary strategy Iceland – Increased debate after bank crash Child poverty a growing concern in all Nordic countries but different debates and policies.

Recommendations: • A clear commitment to eradicate child poverty. Every country should ensure child poverty is explicitly on their agenda, and included as appropriate in national plans, policies and laws. • Expand child sensitive social protection systems. Child sensitive social protection has been shown to reduce the depth of poverty and improve child wellbeing. • Improve access to and affordability of quality services for the poorest. While there is extensive understanding of quality service provision, more needs to be done to ensure the poorest are able to effectively access high quality services. • An inclusive growth agenda to reach the poorest. It is widely accepted that to eradicate extreme poverty shared prosperity is crucial.

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

KEY MESSAGES: 1. More child specific

recommendations

2. Specific targets to tackle child poverty and social exclusion

3. Ensure a balanced approach between the economic and social aspects in the CSRs

4. Provide sufficiently detailed recommendations

5. Strengthen child poverty and well-being indicators

Eurochilds assessment on EU- Countries 2013 Reports on Poverty and Social Exclusion. Eurochild is a network of organisations and individuals working in and across Europe to promote the rights and well- being of children and young people. www.eurochild.org

The Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues recommends: 1. Create a common definition of poverty in the Nordic countries. 2. Conduct child impact assessments at a local and national level. 3. Implement longitudinal Nordic research in order to increase knowledge about the long-term effects of child poverty. 4. Develop an inclusive working life with a focus on foreign-born women. 5. Opt for early intervention in schools to give children the opportunity to break the social heritage. Source: NVC 2013