CHILD POVERTY and CASH TRANSFERS Jonathan Bradshaw Child
CHILD POVERTY and CASH TRANSFERS Jonathan Bradshaw Child Poverty, Deprivation and Social Policy in India: Recent Developments in Comparative and National Perspectives on Theory and Research Centre for Economic and Social Studies Indian Social Policy Association Hyderabad 19 September 2014
Outline: Why is poverty important? What is poverty? How is poverty measured? What can be done about it? Cash transfers
Why is poverty important? Children have moral right not to be poor. It is not fair - especially for children It harms us all (human capital) Partly because it costs a lot (child poverty costs £ 29 billion per year in the UK) It generates social problems It is an indicator of the failure of the (welfare) state States have an obligation UNCRC
What is poverty? Or how has it been understood? Lack of physical necessities Rowntree Minimum subsistence Beveridge Relative deprivation - Townsend
Relative deprivation “Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved, in societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average family or individual that they are in effect excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”. (Townsend 1979).
What is poverty? lack of physical necessities minimum subsistence relative deprivation a culture transmitted deprivation the underclass social exclusion Lack of material well -being
Need to distinguish between Measures of poverty Groups at risk of poverty Correlates/associations/(causes) of poverty Consequences of poverty All often muddled (see UK Government consultation on the measurement of child poverty 2013) Poverty is fundamentally a lack of resources (http: //www. jrf. org. uk/sites/files/jrf/Definition_of_Poverty_full. pdf)
How is poverty measured? Budget standards (basket of goods) – Rowntree http: //www. minimumincomestandard. org/ Expenditure shares (% of budget on food) – US poverty line Income/consumption thresholds (eg $x a day per capita) Degree of income inequality (below % median income/expenditure) Deprivation indicators - Townsend Lack of socially perceived necessities – Breadline Britain/PSE studies Subjectively As social exclusion
Bristol domains of child poverty Severe Food Deprivation– children whose heights and weights for their age were more than -3 standard deviations below the median of the international reference population, i. e. severe anthropometric failure (Nandy et al, 2005). Severe Water Deprivation - children who only had access to surface water (e. g. ponds, rivers or springs) for drinking or who lived in households where the nearest source of water was more than 15 minutes away. Severe Deprivation of Sanitation Facilities – children who had no access to a toilet of any kind in the vicinity of their dwelling, including communal toilets or latrines. Severe Health Deprivation – children who had not been immunised against any diseases or young children who had a recent illness causing diarrhoea or acute respiratory infection (ARI) and had not received any medical advice or treatment. Severe Shelter Deprivation – children living in dwellings with five or more people per room (severe overcrowding) or with no flooring material (e. g. a mud floor). Severe Education Deprivation – children aged between 7 and 18 who had never been to school and were not currently attending school (no professional education of any kind). Severe Information Deprivation – children aged between 3 and 18 in households which do not possess a radio, television, telephone or computer.
Ascertaining “enforced lack” of socially perceived essentials of life/necessities Source: Saunders and Wong (2011) 10
Perception of Essential Items in Benin, 2006 “Do you regard as essential, necessary or not that the following items are part of the minimal/basic needs in order to have adequate life condition? ” Essential (%) Yes, rather necessary (%) Need to have access to drinking water Need to take care of oneself when sick Need to have steady work Need to be able to send children to school Need to have access to electricity Need to have three meals per day Need to have a house Need to have a radio Need to have mode of transportation Need to take of own body (soap, barber etc. ) Need to have a good meal on Sundays and holidays Need to have personal care products Need to have tables and beds Need to have several sets of clothing Need to have a spacious house Need to be able to buy a television Need to have several sets of shoes Need to have meat or fish every day Need to be able to take a taxi Need to have birth control 84 84 82 79 77 74 71 71 68 67 64 62 62 61 59 59 58 57 56 55 15 16 18 20 22 24 24 28 30 32 33 36 36 36 37 38 38 36 42 37 0 0 1 1 2 2 5 1 2 1 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 7 2 8 100 100 100 100 100 Need to have cereals or food made from roots or tubers every 51 37 12 100 Need to take vacation 51 43 6 100 Need to be able to take the bus Need to be able to buy presents when needed Need to have vegetables every day Need to work day and night 45 44 43 17 46 51 40 24 9 5 17 60 100 100 Source: weighted data, Benin 2006 DHS; n=17, 511. No (%) Total (%) 11
(%) Respondents believing item “essential”. Access to drinking water Take care of oneself when sick Have steady work Be able to send children to school Have access to electricity Have three meals per day Have a house Have a radio Have mode of transportation Place of residence Age Sex Urban Rural 16 -24 65+ Male Female Religion Ever attended school Ethnicity Traditional (Vodoun) Islam Catholic Adja and Fon and related Yoruba and related No Yes Marital status Never Live Married married together Widowed Divorced 83 83 82 85 84 83 84 84 83 83 83 81 82 78 81 85 84 83 83 82 80 79 80 75 85 85 84 79 77 75 88 87 87 86 86 85 84 84 81 83 84 81 81 84 84 82 89 85 82 86 85 82 83 81 80 79 79 80 77 78 81 78 71 81 76 84 82 78 81 77 80 83 80 75 77 72 72 69 67 77 76 70 72 68 76 73 70 70 69 79 77 73 71 67 77 77 69 72 67 70 64 65 62 63 78 75 74 72 69 75 72 66 68 63 82 80 77 76 71 79 72 70 70 68 76 76 70 70 66 79 73 73 73 70 77 70 71 69 66 77 75 71 71 69 71 64 69 67 65 77 78 74 69 63 75 74 72 69 61 Take of own body (soap, barber etc. ) 68 66 65 70 65 61 69 65 71 66 66 69 66 67 63 70 66 Have a good meal on Sundays and holidays 61 66 61 65 63 65 65 60 63 59 66 62 66 61 59 64 62 67 62 Have personal care products Have tables and beds (furniture) Have several sets of clothing Have a spacious house Be able to buy a television Have meat or fish every day Have several sets of shoes Be able to take a taxi Have birth control 64 63 61 59 59 54 59 55 59 61 61 61 60 59 59 58 56 53 60 61 59 59 58 56 56 55 53 65 64 64 61 60 60 61 57 59 61 62 63 61 60 60 61 55 52 54 53 51 53 50 50 48 47 47 65 64 63 61 61 57 60 58 60 62 64 63 61 61 60 60 52 57 67 66 66 62 64 61 64 59 60 60 62 59 53 58 52 56 57 52 60 60 56 59 57 55 52 65 65 63 59 62 56 60 57 60 61 61 61 57 60 54 58 62 62 61 60 59 57 58 56 55 58 58 50 55 59 48 43 51 58 64 61 65 60 56 61 61 58 54 63 57 61 57 54 56 58 57 53 Have cereals or food made from roots or tubers every 48 53 52 51 50 52 53 47 50 52 53 44 53 48 46 51 48 55 53 Take a vacation Be able to take the bus Have vegetables every day 51 45 38 51 53 48 50 45 46 45 44 46 42 44 42 53 47 44 52 47 45 43 37 42 53 46 41 52 47 46 56 48 43 51 45 36 49 53 45 46 46 39 51 44 40 51 45 43 43 43 40 50 46 48 44 46 43 Be able to buy presents when needed 40 47 43 44 44 45 50 38 44 49 46 41 45 43 40 45 38 44 41 Work day and night 13 19 16 16 17 16 21 18 14 24 13 16 18 14 14 17 23 16 1214 78 74 71 71 69 63 64 63 60 61 57 60 54 58 74 73 70 68 64 58 59 59 59 54 58 56 57 50
Consensual approach in RSA: Source SASAS/HSRC Michael Noble and Gemma Wright Essential to enjoy acceptable standard of living Male Female White Indian/Asian Black African Coloured 16 -24 years Mains electricity in the house 92% 91% 99% 97% 90% 96% 91% 92% 89% 95% A house that is strong enough to withstand bad weather Clothing sufficient to keep warm and dry A fridge Bedrooms for adults and children A flush toilet in the house Ability to pay funeral society 89% 87% 81% 79% 82% 92% 89% 85% 82% 77% 83% 99% 96% 93% 91% 99% 75% 99% 96% 99% 80% 88% 87% 85% 79% 72% 84% 97% 96% 84% 85% 94% 75% 91% 90% 82% 81% 75% 80% 90% 89% 86% 79% 83% 88% 89% 90% 81% 79% 84% 93% 89% 86% 89% 80% 81% People are able to afford medicines prescribed by dr. Parents/carers: be able to buy school uniform A fence or wall around the property A bath or shower in the house Regular savings for emergencies A radio Meat or fish every day Burglar bars in the house Television/ TV Special meal at Christmas A cell phone A sofa/lounge suite Some new clothes A car A garden A landline phone Washing machine A lock-up garage for vehicles A small amount of money to spend on self A burglar alarm system for the house To be able to afford toys 77% 73% 62% 73% 75% 61% 60% 69% 55% 62% 55% 56% 51% 49% 46% 44% 42% 43% 38% 39% 78% 82% 74% 62% 70% 74% 63% 69% 57% 64% 55% 48% 53% 51% 44% 45% 41% 38% 40% 84% 72% 82% 99% 69% 73% 85% 78% 52% 70% 51% 48% 55% 74% 61% 42% 80% 69% 52% 43% 36% 84% 77% 97% 71% 44% 75% 92% 47% 56% 37% 42% 57% 38% 60% 38% 42% 31% 50% 35% 76% 82% 73% 53% 77% 58% 60% 74% 53% 69% 55% 58% 47% 51% 49% 38% 41% 77% 68% 71% 86% 60% 70% 52% 53% 60% 37% 60% 44% 36% 42% 47% 51% 32% 43% 29% 33% 76% 83% 76% 59% 76% 75% 62% 64% 72% 61% 63% 48% 56% 54% 52% 51% 43% 48% 49% 43% 38% 76% 78% 73% 62% 69% 71% 66% 58% 68% 55% 68% 54% 60% 46% 49% 45% 44% 45% 42% 38% 44% 80% 71% 61% 74% 59% 64% 71% 53% 65% 60% 54% 52% 46% 47% 41% 37% 32% 39% 77% 76% 68% 66% 78% 62% 61% 62% 53% 58% 51% 45% 57% 49% 48% 43% 37% 36% Having enough money to give presents on special occasions An armed response for the house A DVD player 39% 28% 27% 44% 29% 28% 33% 28% 21% 20% 38% 14% 46% 29% 31% 26% 19% 15% 42% 28% 31% 47% 33% 40% 22% 20% 37% 30% 24% 25 -34 years 35 -49 years 50+ years
Mean number of deprivations of socially perceived necessities (thought by 50%+ of the population as ‘essential’) which people lacked because they could not afford them (i. e. not because they didn’t want them).
Other sources of poverty data. Not child poverty $ per day World Bank (2009). 'World Development Indicators'. Washington DC: World Bank. HDI UNDP (2009). Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. New York: United Nations. HDI=life expectancy, literacy and enrolment/GDP HPI 1=Prob of not surviving to 40, adult literacy, improved water and underweight Multi-dimensional index Alkire & Santos (2010) Education: Schooling and enrolment Health: mortality and nutrition Living standards: electricity, sanitation, water, floors, cooking fuel, assets
Child deprivation measure (Main and Bradshaw 2012) List of 20 items identified in focus groups. Reduced through pilot data to list of 10, based on scalability and strength of relationship to traditional poverty variables 10 items included in main-stage and quarterly surveys: Some pocket money each week Some money to save each month A pair of brand-named trainers An i. Pod or similar MP 3 player Cable or satellite TV at home A garden or somewhere similar nearby to spend time safely Access to a family car Clothes to fit in with other people their age A holiday away from home for one week each year Monthly day-trips with family
Some issues in poverty measurement What resources? Unit of analysis (child/individual, family, household) Spatial differences in need/costs Equivalence Times/spells episodes Lines v gaps
Which children are poor – an empirical question Household resources (income) don’t meet household needs Income: Low wages: part-time, short-time, self employment, low skills No wages: unemployment, sickness/disability, caring, loss of breadwinner Needs: Large families Disability costs Cost of essential services – housing, health, transport, education Price variation
Risk of child poverty higher Caste, class. Ethnic Lone parents Large families Disabled children/adults Spatial factors – rural/urban Age of youngest child Education level High costs Lack of social protection
Correlation coefficients of material well-being and all the other domains: Rich countries UNICEF Innocenti RC 11 Health . 630** Education . 540** Subjective . 664** Behaviour . 588** Housing . 664** Overall well-being . 823** Overall excluding material . 719**
Child poverty and well-being RC 11
Social Policy Matters: Child poverty before and after cash benefits EU 2010
The problem in development - as a chart 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 gdp per capita child poverty rate
The case for cash grants Despite economic growth for ten years up to the crisis child poverty in many middle income countries has been flat lining. One main reason is the absence of transfer mechanisms – World Bank inspired Targeted Social Assistance useless – too low and too targeted (see Bradshaw, J. , Mayhew, E. and Alexander, G. (2013) Minimum social protection in the CEE/CIS countries: the failure of a model in Marx I. & K. Nelson (eds. ) Minimum Income Protection in Flux. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan 249 -270) Cash benefits for children the norm in the EU/OECD – mainly universal No child benefit for working poor in Africa (except RSA), CEECIS except Russia, Belarus and Ukraine for under 3 s South America (except Argentina)
Growing consensus of the case for child benefits UNICEF launched its Social Protection Framework calling for child sensitive social protection with a progressive realisation of universal coverage, including social transfers. International Labour Organisation adopted the Recommendation Concerning National Floors of Social Protection, which states that member countries should “Establish as quickly as possible and maintain their social protection floors comprising basic social security guarantees”. The World Bank has been advocating for universal minimum pensions, but unfortunately not yet for universal child benefits. The European Union is now “supporting the development of inclusive, nationally-owned social protection policies and programmes, including social protection floors”. The case for social protection was also recognised in the old African Union Social Policy Framework for Africa and in the SADC Social Policy Process/Charter of Fundamental Social Rights.
Remorseless focus on CHILD POVERTY Better evidence Income/expenditure surveys annually Analysis with the child as the unit Better questionnaires covering child deprivation Budget analysis to know what is being spent on (poor) children Micro simulation models to trace distributional outcomes of policy EUROMOD, SAMOD Remove charges for education/child health Progressively introduce child benefits Spend bigger share of GDP on child benefits Eventually make them universal
Inspired by miraculous outcomes of South Africa’s Child Support Grant The most recent evaluation found that child support grant had improved height for age scores. Educational attainment and participation improve health and reduce the likelihood of illness. For adolescents it has been shown to reduce school absences and the likelihood of working outside the household. It also reduces risk behaviour including sexual activity, pregnancy, alcohol use, drug use, criminal activity and gang membership. “In these ways the Child Support Grant promotes human capital development, improves gender outcomes and helps to reduce the historical legacy of inequality”.
UNICEF advocacy in Namibia Since independence in 1990 Namibia has enjoyed political stability and steady economic growth, achieving the status of an upper middle-income country in 2009. Has Used growth to provide Universal Basic State Grants to older people and people with disabilities, Child Welfare Grants to orphans, children in foster care and children with disabilities as well as War Veteran Grants. Progress has also been made in health and education. However poverty and inequality remain at very high levels. Namibia is still one of the most unequal countries in the world – the Gini coefficient which was 0. 67 at independence had fallen to to 0. 597 in the 2009/10 NHIES. For an upper middle income country Namibia also ranks poorly on the 2011 Human Development Index (120 out of 187). Poverty is highest in households with children. No child grants except OVCs
Steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Remove fees for basic health and education. Undermine child living standards Make birth registration universal Assess affordability: average OECD spend=2. 7% GDP, RSA=1. 3%. Whether/how to target. Means-test out not in. Model simulations. Assess eligibility – easy if good birth registration and universal per child Pay – paypoint technology/mobile phones Monitor outcomes
Outcomes q q q Health outcomes: it will reduce infant, child and maternal mortality; it will increase heights and weights for age; reduce infectious diseases and other child morbidity; it will reduce early sexual activity, STDs and early pregnancy; it will improve the health of adults. It will reduced alcohol and drug use. It may well have benefits in terms of enhanced child protection outcomes Education outcomes: the health outcomes will improve cognitive development with educational and long term benefits; it will increase attainment; reduce delays in entering school, absences from school and early school leaving. Socio-economic outcomes: there will be a reduction of children working outside the household; it will reduce inequality and increase solidarity and well-being; it will increase economic activity at local level, enhance agricultural production and enhance economic development, especially in the poorest regions; this and the improvement in security will increase employment and reduce unemployment; it will reduce criminal activity and gang membership.
This is what India needs to see! 250 200 150 100 50 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 0 gdp per capita childpoverty rate
Thanks for listening: Jonathan. bradshaw@york. ac. uk http: //php. york. ac. uk/inst/spru/profiles/jrb. php Twitter @profjbradshaw
- Slides: 32