CHILD POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION IN BELGIUM AnneCatherine Guio

CHILD POVERTY AND DEPRIVATION IN BELGIUM Anne-Catherine Guio, LISER See for details Guio, Vandenbroucke, Vinck (2014)

Why child poverty should be a priority? Large scale problem: in BE around 420. 000 children (<18 years). Not a residual problem which can be solved by economic growth on its own. Some societal changes increase the risk of child poverty persisting in the future. Poverty threats all fundamental children’s rights. Intergenerational impact: consequences on nutrition, health, educational attainments, self-esteem and social relations, with long-term impact: poor children are less likely to reach their full potential when they grow up and have a higher risk of living in poverty as adults. • Investing in children living in poverty leads to economic benefits and savings in social costs in long term. It is more costly and less successful to redress the causes of poverty at a later stage. • • • 2

Ecarts de performances selon le statut socioéconomique (PISA 2012, math. ) Source: Aryane Baye (ULG) Communauté germanophone Estonie Islande Norvège Finlande Canada Suède Italie Japon Corée Pays-Bas Irlande Danemark Royaume-Uni Australie Suisse Grèce Moyenne Ocdé Espagne Etats-Unis Autriche Pologne Allemagne République tchèque Portugal Luxembourg Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles Communauté flamande Hongrie France 90 L’équivalent de 3 années d’études 112 117 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 3

Probabilité de vivre en pauvreté une fois adulte, quand on l’a été durant l’enfance Source: Bellani & Bia (2014) 4

Multiple indicators Income poverty Material Deprivation (MD) • Living in household (hhd) whose net equivalised • Equal income >< equal outcomes, because: Wealth and debt may differ income is below 60% of the national median (equivalised) income Needs and costs may differ Relative approach, national income threshold. Poverty threshold for a couple with two children (€ 2100) vs. poverty threshold for a single (€ 1000). Measurement problems on both sides • MD: suffer from at least 3 enforced lacks (out of nine items). • Assumption: intra-hhd equal sharing of More absolute approach, common list of items resources. across the EU & common threshold. • At regional level, national threshold used for • Guio, Gordon and Marlier (2012) propose a conceptual reason (cost not lower in WA and BR child specific deprivation indicator (18 items). than in FL, social transfers/wages do not differ important to compare each region with the federal threshold). 5

Child income poverty risk 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Child 0 -17 AROP 60 Child [0 -17] R US O SE LS BR ES BG IT AL LV LO NI A W LT GR HU PT PL SK 27 T EU M LU 15 EE EU FR M BE LG IU IE UK DE NL CZ AT SI SE CY FI FL AN DK DE RS 0 Total population AROP 60 Total ! If compared to EU Regions, around 20 regions performs better/same as FL (around 10 regions /same as BR). Source: EU-SILC 2011

90 Child income poverty vs. child-specific material deprivation 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Source: EU-SILC 2009 Income AROP 60 [1 -15] RO US LV SE LS BR BG LT IT ES GR PL PT AL EE LO NI A LU T W M HU UK 27 EU IE 15 EU SK FR N LG L IU M BE DE AT SE CZ CY FI SI FL AN DE RS DK 0 Deprivation CHMD 3 [1 -15] 7

Regional disparities are not an exception… But require specific in depth analysis and adequate policy respons

Child deprivation: children’s daily living conditions High diversity among Belgian regions large disparities in daily living conditions of children within the country. Holiday (1 week/year) Replace worn-out furniture Arrears Leisure activities Home adequately warm Place to do homework Some new clothes Car Computer & Internet Invite friends Celebrations Two pairs of shoes School trips Suitable books Meat, chicken or fish daily Outdoor leisure equiment Fruits & vegetables daily Indoor games Cumulate 3 or more problems 0 5 10 Wallonia 15 20 25 Flanders 30 35 40 Brussels Source: EU-SILC 2009 9

Risk factors – child deprivation – odds ratios – longitudinal survey 6 5 Significantly increase deprivation 4 3 2 1 Significantly decrease deprivation 0 owner ln (equivalised income) VL Number of years in poverty primary education VLWI lower Single parent secondary education VLWI=very low work intensity in the household

Child income poverty risk and work intensity of the household FL & WA - child poverty risk by work intensity (WI) group 90 80 70 • Low poverty risk for hhds in employment. • BUT very high risk of poverty for those living in VLWI (both in FL and WA). 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AROP 60 in very AROP 60 in low AROP 60 in high AROP 60 in very low WI HHs medium WI HHs high WI HHs FL ARP WA ARP Source: EU-SILC 2009 11

Lone parents (LP) • Children living in LP hhds are at high risk of poverty: BE (43, 3%), FL (24, 9%) and WA (60, 5%) whereas the EU 27 average is 37, 3% (2011). • Share of children living in LP in WA is among the highest in the EU (19, 5%) (2011). • Children in LP have higher probability to live in very low work intensity households (VLWI) • But poverty/deprivation risk remains high for lone parents working 12

80 Child deprivation risk declines with work intensity for both household types, but gradient less steep for lone parents deprivation risk remains high for lone parents working. 70 Child-specific MD 3+ risk (%) Lone parents: impact of work intensity on child deprivation 60 50 40 Single parents 30 Other households with children 20 10 0 [0 -0, 2] ]0, 2 - ]0, 55 BE 0, 55] 1] BE BE [0 -0, 2] ]0, 2 - ]0, 55 EU 27 0, 55] 1] EU 27 Hhd work intensity (3 groups) Source: EU-SILC 2009 13

60 50 40 EU 30 Non-EU 20 10 7 ]0 , 5 5 -1 ] E U 2 7 ] E 0, 55 , 2 ]0 [0 -0 , 2 ] E U 2 7 B E 1] 5, 5 ]0 , 5 5 -0 , 2 ]0 -0 , 2 ] B E E 0 [0 Child deprivation risk declines with work intensity, but gradient less steep for children whose parents are born outside the EU. For similar work involvement, higher risk of deprivation. In BE, non-EU have higher risk to live in VLWI (40% vs 18% at EU level). Higher share of children living with non-EU among VLWI in FL than in WA. 70 Child-specific MD 3+ risk (%) Parents’ country of birth and child deprivation risk 80 Hhd work intensity (3 groups) Source: EU-SILC 2009 14

Why high risk of poverty/deprivation among children living in low work intensity household? – Lone parent with 2 children (2 y & 4 y) 140% 120% At-risk-of-poverty threshold 100% Reference budget - not working - tenant private sector 80% 60% Reference budget - not working - tenant social sector 40% Reference budget - working - tenant private sector 20% 0% Minimum income Minimum wage (OCMW/CPAS) unemployment disability benefits Reference budget - working - tenant social sector Source: Storms & Bogaerts (2012) 15

Taking up a job helps to exit poverty in (only) half of the cases Source: Thévenot (2014) 16

Conclusions (1) • One child out of five is deprived in Belgium. • Not a residual problem which can be solved by economic growth on its own. Need investing in children for future. • Large regional diversity, as in other countries, which deserves specific analysis and adequate policy responses. • Household work intensity matters to explain child poverty in BE: – In FL, low share of children living in VLWI households but high risk for those children – In WA, both high share of children living in VLWI households and high risk for those children • But having a job not always enough to escape poverty. • Lone parents and non-EU citizens: higher risks of being VLWI and being deprived if working. • For some households with children, social transfers or minimum wage do not lift them above poverty threshold; depends on the composition of the household • Problematic not gender neutral (LP, part-time work…) • Gap between actual resources and resources needed to reach a « decent » standard of living for those in VLWI, or those living in hhds in which income from work is not sufficient to cover family needs (lone parents, low paid workers, large families). 17

Conclusions (2) • Social transfers not enough to attain poverty threshold, but rise of social transfers constrained by risk of inactivity traps because minimum wage also lower than poverty threshold for some hhd types. Need to increase take-home pay for low wage workers, “making work pay for parents” Need selective social programs independent of work involvement (to avoid inactivity trap and inequality among the poorest), e. g. better use of family allowances (progressive universalism) Need to address heavy burden of some costs (housing costs, school costs (MAF in FL)…) Need for adequate and capacitating social services (!! emancipatory role of services, e. g. child care) Need specific regional measures (use 6 th State reform). Both at regional and federal levels, urgent action needed. 18