Deprivation Dynamics of Social Risk Groups in the EU

www.esri.ie @ESRIDublin #ESRIevents #ESRIpublications
@ESRIDublin #ESRIevents #ESRIpublications www.esri.ie
Deprivation Dynamics of Social
Risk Groups in the EU, 2005-2014
DATE
Dublin 31/01/2018
VENUE
ESRI
AUTHORS
Dorothy Watson, Bertrand
Maître , Raffaele Grotti, &
Christopher T. Whelan

www.esri.ie @ESRIDublin #ESRIevents #ESRIpublications30 January 20182
Introduction
• Certain groups in Ireland have higher risk of deprivation
• Focus on social risk groups here in contrast to social classes
• Include groups such as lone parents, people with a disability
• Deprivation is an experience of variable duration
• Higher persistence for the vulnerable social risk groups?
• Recession in Europe from 2008
• Markedly different impact across countries
• Linked to increase in deprivation
• Are some countries better at protecting vulnerable groups?

Outline
• Data and measures
• EU-SILC and deprivation
• Social Risk groups
• Countries and regimes
• Background on the recession
• Deprivation trends
• Hypotheses and results, focus on …
• Deprivation (and persistent deprivation) by social risk;
• Deprivation by social risk within country;
• Deprivation over time by social risk within country
• Conclusions and implications

Data and Measures
• EU-SILC 2004-2015 longitudinal, focusing on pairs of years
• Three pairs of years 2005-06; 2008-09; 2013-14
• 11 countries (N cases from 5,900 to 38,800 persons by country)
• Material deprivation (EU) – Cannot afford 3+ of 9 items:
• Pay bills Meet unexpected expenses
• Keep home warm Regular protein meal
• Annual holiday TV
• Washing machine Car
• Telephone
• Report also examines income poverty, but we focus on
deprivation here.

Social Risk Groups
• Social risk is a complement to social class
• Class (Weberian) - differences in market power linked to
possession of marketable ‘assets’ (property, skill, labour)
• Social risk groups - differences in access to the market
because of non-market factors such as
• Personal resources (disability, illness)
• Non-work caring responsibilities (esp. mothers & lone parents)
• Life-cycle stage (children, those beyond retirement age)
• Earlier work found far higher deprivation among 2 groups in
Ireland:
• lone parents
• working-age adults with disability

Social Risk Groups – sizes of groups
(from EU-SILC Longitudinal file; 11 countries)
Lone par. & ch.
Disab. & child
Other children
Young adults
Adult 30-65
Older adults
66+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SE NL FI AT BE FR UK IE ES IT EL
(For full set of figures, see table at end of presentation)

Countries and welfare regimes
• Social-democratic - universalism & redistribution; generous social
welfare & unemployment benefits (Sweden, Finland & Netherlands
 SE, FI, NL),
• Corporatist - less emphasis on redistribution; entitlements linked to
lifelong employment (Austria, Belgium, France  AU, BE, FR)
• Liberal - provision through the market with state acting only in order
to support the market (Ireland and the UK IE, UK)
• Southern - family as provider of welfare; labour market policies
relatively undeveloped & selective (Italy, Spain and Greece  IT, ES,
EL).

Recession Background: Unemployment
Rate Trends (selected countries and average)
IE
Greece
Spain
AU
UK
AV
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Deprivation Rate Trends, 2005-15 , by country
(cross-sectional SILC, lines show change over time)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
SE NL FI AT BE FR UK IE SP IT GR
Deprivation (3+ of 9)
The EU Material Deprivation 9 point scale captures a very small population in richer countries

Deprivation Dynamics by period
(from EU-SILC Longitudinal file; 11 countries)
7% 7%
10%
5% 4%
6%4% 4%
5%
(45%*) (44%*)
(49%*)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
2005-06 2008-09 2013-14
Persistent Exiting Entering (* Persistence rate)

Hypotheses
1. Certain social risk groups will have a higher rate of
deprivation and persistent deprivation in all countries
 Deprivation will be more persistent for high-risk groups
2. The social risk gap* will be smaller in Social Democratic
Countries (action of state)
– * Social risk gap = difference between deprivation rate of a
group and the reference group of other adults age 30-65.
3. The recession will lead to polarisation between high-risk
and low-risk groups

1. Certain social risk groups will have a higher
rate of deprivation and persistent deprivation
in all countries
H1:

Deprivation (persistent and one wave) by Social Risk Group
(average across time & 11 countries; Longitudinal dataset)
24%
14%
6%
9%
5%
5%
20%
15%
9%
12%
8%
9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Lone parent
Adult <66, disability
Other children
Young adult <30
Other adult 30-65
Other adult 66+
Persistent (both waves)
Transient (one wave)
Of those who are deprived in either wave, persistence is greater for vulnerable
groups than for less-vulnerable groups

Is this same pattern across social risk groups found in
all countries? Persistent Deprivation by Social Risk & country
(average across time; Longitudinal dataset)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Lone par.
Disabil.
Oth. age 30-65
(Ref.)

• The social risk gap will be smaller in Social
Democratic Countries
H2:

• We take the absolute gap in percentage points
between the high-risk groups and the reference low-
risk group (other adults aged 30-65)
– For example, persistent deprivation gap for lone parents
compared to other adults aged 30-65
Sweden: 11% - 1% = 10 percentage points.
Ireland: 33% - 7% = 26 percentage points
Measuring The Social Risk Gap

Social risk gap in persistent deprivation by country
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Lone par.
Disabil.
Social Corporatist Liberal Southern
Democratic
Rate for each social risk group minus rate for
reference group (Other adults 30-65).

• The recession will lead to polarisation –
increasing gap between high-risk and low-risk
groups
H3:

Change in persistent deprivation over time
(longitudinal data; average across 11 countries)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Lone
parent
<66,
disabil.
Oth. child. Young
adult
Oth. age
30-65
Other 66+
2014
2006
Deprivation increased for all groups (except older adults)
No clear evidence of increasing gap between high-risk and low-risk groups, overall.
But are there country differences?

*
*
*
*
*
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
Lone parent
Adult with disability
Change over time in social risk gap by country
Persistent Deprivation; change between 2005-06 and 2013-
14; showing only * = statistically significant changes

Conclusions
• Similar cross-country pattern of deprivation by social risk
– Lone parenthood, working-age disability (esp. persistent dep.)
– Not for children in general or older people in general
• Social risk gap smaller in Social democratic countries?
– Apart from Sweden, not really - but Liberal countries (UK, IE)
have larger gap
– Especially for lone parents
• Polarisation between social risk groups with recession?
– No polarisation overall, but differences across countries
– Some evidence of polarisation in liberal countries - UK and IE
– Especially for persistent deprivation and lone parents

Implications
• Same groups identified as vulnerable when we look at persistent
and cross-sectional deprivation: lone parents and working age
adults with a disability (also higher level of persistence)
• Social democratic countries have a developed welfare system that
is better at protecting the population in general from deprivation,
but even here we find a social risk gap.
• Lone parenthood and working-age disability are important in
accounting for the higher poverty rate of children compared to
adults.
• The welfare system of Liberal countries was less effective at
protecting vulnerable groups – the social risk gap widened over the
course of the recession.

Thank you!

Poverty and Deprivation Rate Trends, 2005-15
(cross-sectional SILC, lines show change over time)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
SE NL FI AT BE FR UK IE SP IT GR
Poverty (AROP, 60%)
Deprivation (3+ of 9)
The EU Material Deprivation 9 point scale captures a very small population in richer countries

www.esri.ie @ESRIDublin #ESRIevents #ESRIpublications@ESRIDublin #ESRIevents #ESRIpublications www.esri.ie25 31 January 2018
Sizes of social risk groups by country, average
over the 3 periods (SILC longitudinal data)
Lone par. &
children
Disab. &
child
Other
children
Young
adults
Adult 30-
65
Adults
age 66+
SE 5% 8% 17% 12% 40% 18%
NL 4% 11% 17% 13% 42% 14%
FI 4% 15% 15% 13% 38% 15%
AT 5% 18% 11% 13% 36% 15%
BE 7% 14% 13% 13% 38% 15%
FR 7% 13% 13% 13% 37% 17%
UK 8% 14% 13% 11% 38% 16%
IE 10% 15% 16% 10% 37% 11%
ES 3% 14% 14% 14% 40% 16%
IT 3% 12% 12% 12% 41% 20%
EL 2% 9% 15% 14% 42% 18%

Deprivation Dynamics of Social Risk Groups in the EU

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Deprivation Dynamics of Social Risk Groups in the EU

Similar to Deprivation Dynamics of Social Risk Groups in the EU (20)

More from Economic and Social Research Institute

More from Economic and Social Research Institute (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Deprivation Dynamics of Social Risk Groups in the EU