Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Children of the
Recession
In 23 of 41 countries analysed,
and in many of the highly
populated countries, child
poverty (children living in
households whose income is
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
Universal aftershocks
Those countries most affected by
the recession have seen a steady
deterioration in the situation of
families, mostly from job losses,
underemployment and cuts to
public services. The median income
in households with children has
decreased in almost half of the
countries with available data. The
number of families stating that their
situation is very difficult has risen
in most countries. Having a child or
children in a household increases
the risk of working poverty
(working, but below the poverty
line) from 7 per cent to 11 per cent.
Since 2008, the percentage of
households with children that are
unable to afford meat, chicken or
fish every second day has more
than doubled in Estonia, Greece
and Italy. Inability to cope with
unexpected financial expenses has
increased by almost 60 per cent, on
average, in households with
children in the
12 most affected countries.
Such changes have huge
consequences for the young.
Children feel anxious and stressed
when parents endure
unemployment or income loss, and
they suffer family downturns in
subtle and painfully evident ways.
Housing, a large part of every
familys budget, is one important
indicator of poverty. Evictions,
mortgage defaults and foreclosures
all spiked in many countries
affected by the recession. Such
constraints at home have been
E X E C U T I V E
An uneven response
Many governments adopted
economic stimulus packages in the
initial phase of the recession,
pushing up public spending. The
persistence of the recession led to
a decrease in national revenues and
an increase in deficits. Pressure
S U M M A R Y
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
E X E C U T I V E
S U M M A R Y
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
I N T R O D U C T I O N
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
T H E
L E A G U E
T A B L E S
SECTION 2
THE LEAGUE TABLES
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
T H E
L E A G U E
T A B L E S
Country
Change
(20082012)
Chile
-8.67
Chile
Poland
-7.90
Poland
Australia
-6.27
Australia
Slovakia
-5.60
Slovakia
Switzerland
-4.80
Switzerland
Norway
-4.30
Norway
Republic of Korea
-3.40
Republic of Korea
Finland
-3.20
Finland
Turkey
-2.76
Turkey
10
Japan
-2.70
Japan
11
Canada
-2.44
Canada
12
Romania
-2.30
Romania
13
Belgium
-0.80
Belgium
13
Sweden
-0.80
Sweden
15
Austria
-0.70
Austria
16
New Zealand
-0.40
New Zealand
17
Czech Republic
-0.40
Czech Republic
18
Germany
-0.20
Germany
19
Israel
0.55
Israel
20
Bulgaria
0.60
Bulgaria
20
Malta
0.60
Malta
22
Netherlands
1.00
Netherlands
22
Portugal
1.00
Portugal
24
Denmark
1.10
Denmark
25
United Kingdom
1.60
United Kingdom
26
Slovenia
1.80
Slovenia
27
United States
2.06
United States
28
Cyprus
2.70
Cyprus
29
Hungary
2.90
Hungary
30
France
3.00
France
31
Mexico
5.00
Mexico
32
Estonia
5.10
Estonia
33
Italy
5.70
Italy
34
Luxembourg
6.50
Luxembourg
35
Spain
8.10
Spain
36
Lithuania
8.30
Lithuania
37
Ireland
10.60
Ireland
38
Croatia
11.80
Croatia
39
Latvia
14.60
Latvia
40
Greece
17.50
Greece
41
Iceland
20.40
Iceland
14.5
13.0
5.3
8.8
19.2
16.7
11.1
19.5
14.7
9.6
31.4
22.8
22.4
16.8
13.4
12.0
19.0
30.2
21.7
20.8
23.2
32.9
30.6
17.2
16.4
12.9
12.1
14.9
14.2
18.8
18.4
13.2
12.8
15.2
15.0
35.1
35.6
25.5
26.1
20.4
21.0
12.9
13.9
22.8
23.8
9.1
10.2
24.0
25.6
11.6
13.4
14.0
30.1
32.2
16.7
15.6
19.7
22.6
18.6
17.1
29.3
22.2
24.7
19.8
26.3
28.2
18.0
36.3
31.1
28.6
15.8
23.6
27.6
38.2
23.0
40.5
11.2
10
31.6
20
30
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
2008
C A R D
1 2
34.3
30.4
22.8
33.0
2012
40
50
S E C T I O N
L E A G U E
T A B L E S
In a remarkable group of
18 countries, families and
governments found some
way to cope with the worst
consequences of the recession
and saw their child poverty
numbers reduced. This is the
case in Chile, Finland, Norway,
Poland and Slovakia, all of which
reduced poverty levels by some
30 per cent.
T H E
Key findings:
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
T H E
L E A G U E
T A B L E S
League Table 2 Youth aged 15 to 24 not in education, employment or training (NEET), percentage
Rank
Country
Change
(20082013)
Turkey
-11.5
Germany
-2.1
Germany
Japan
-1.5
Japan
Turkey
Luxembourg
-1.2
Luxembourg
Mexico
-0.4
Mexico
Sweden
-0.3
Austria
0.0
Austria
Canada
0.0
Canada
New Zealand
0.8
New Zealand
10
Switzerland
0.8
Switzerland
11
Israel
0.9
Israel
12
France
1.0
France
12
Iceland
1.0
Iceland
14
Ireland
1.2
Ireland
14
Latvia
1.2
Latvia
14
Republic of Korea
1.2
Republic of Korea
14
United Kingdom
1.2
United Kingdom
18
Chile
1.5
Chile
18
18
Finland
Norway
1.5
Finland
1.5
Norway
21
Denmark
1.7
Denmark
21
Malta
1.7
Malta
21
Netherlands
1.7
Netherlands
24
Australia
2.3
Australia
25
Lithuania
2.3
Lithuania
26
Czech Republic
2.4
Czech Republic
27
Belgium
2.6
Belgium
27
Estonia
2.6
Estonia
27
Slovakia
2.6
Slovakia
30
Slovenia
2.7
Slovenia
31
United States
3.0
United States
32
Poland
3.2
Poland
33
Hungary
3.9
Hungary
33
Portugal
3.9
Portugal
35
Bulgaria
4.2
Bulgaria
36
Spain
4.3
Spain
37
Italy
5.6
Italy
37
Romania
5.6
Romania
39
Croatia
8.5
Croatia
40
Greece
8.9
Greece
41
Cyprus
9.0
Cyprus
8.5
6.9
6.2
5.0
7.8
7.5
7.1
7.1
Sweden
6
7
8.4
6.3
21.5
21.1
9.6
9.6
12.9
13.7
6.3
7.1
4.5
5.5
14.9
16.1
11.8
13.0
14.6
15.8
12.1
13.3
7.8
5.6
4.3
6.0
3.4
29.8
30.7
10.2
11.2
4.1
5.1
8.3
10.0
9.9
12.2
11.1
9.1
10.1
8.7
6.5
19.0
20.5
9.3
8.8
6.7
12.7
11.3
11.1
9.2
9.0
13.7
12.0
12.2
11.5
10.3
15.0
15.4
14.2
17.4
14.3
16.6
11.6
10.1
21.6
18.6
22.2
17.2
18.6
11.7
20.6
9.7
18.7
10
20
30
1 0
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
37.0
25.5
2013
40
S E C T I O N
Key findings:
T H E
L E A G U E
T A B L E S
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
1 1
S E C T I O N
T H E
L E A G U E
T A B L E S
1
Country
Germany
Switzerland
Israel
Slovakia
Chile
Iceland
Australia
Austria
Japan
Bulgaria
Latvia
Sweden
Denmark
Mexico
Lithuania
Republic of Korea
Norway
Czech Republic
France
Malta
Poland
United Kingdom
Belgium
Italy
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Canada
Hungary
Estonia
Croatia
Netherlands
Romania
Slovenia
Finland
United States
Portugal
Spain
Ireland
Turkey
Cyprus
Greece
Did you
experience
stress today?
4
3
4
26
1
18
13
4
8
1
28
4
8
23
29
32
16
8
26
20
18
8
13
13
16
23
8
41
35
29
29
32
20
20
37
35
23
32
40
38
39
9
12
29
13
32
16
6
16
7
n.a.
15
11
9
8
4
2
21
25
5
25
20
25
18
21
25
1
32
18
13
n.a.
30
3
34
34
21
21
30
36
38
37
39
1 2
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
Overall
satisfaction
with life?
3
8
6
3
1
3
15
8
27
11
7
10
28
2
28
12
15
12
15
15
28
15
24
36
15
31
15
24
15
15
24
33
12
31
33
35
40
38
37
38
41
Do most
children in
(country) have
the opportunity
to learn and grow
every day, or not?
6
11
2
4
14
11
15
21
8
29
5
34
15
28
1
17
11
19
19
8
3
21
17
8
26
31
34
6
36
33
21
37
39
21
21
31
38
30
27
40
41
Direction of
change
Recent Impact
Number of
! = >2
indicators
indicators
worsening
worsened
20072013
20112013
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
S E C T I O N
Key findings:
Countries are ranked based on their average score across the four
indicators, each of which measures how responses changed
between 2007 and 2013. The highest number indicates the sharpest
change. Column 5 indicates how many of the responses to the four
were negative over the full period. Note that these data are collected
in a different way from those reported in official statistics and should
be interpreted with care when it comes to individual data points.i
Due to data availability, the numbers in the table refer to the
population in general, not to families with children. However, for the
question on not having enough money to buy food, it was possible
to disaggregate respondents living in families with children for a
subset of 31 countries. In the 10 countries where responses changed
the most, the increase was even higher in families with children (in
all but one country).
i
T H E
L E A G U E
T A B L E S
Summary
The overall evidence from our three
league tables paints a vivid picture
of how children and families have
fared during the Great Recession.
Although each league table
provides somewhat different
dimensions of well-being, countries
like Croatia, Greece and Spain are
consistently placed in the bottom
third across all dimensions,
highlighting how badly they have
been hit by the recession. On the
other hand, some relatively wealthy
countries (such as Canada, Finland,
the Netherlands and the United
States) have seen only small
increases or even declines in
child poverty and yet rank in the
bottom third of the Gallup league
table, suggesting that monetary
poverty alone does not tell the
whole story of the well-being of
families during this period. The next
sections of the report provide more
details behind these aggregate
numbers, in order to help us
understand who suffered most and
how countries responded.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
1 3
SECTION 3
HOW A FINANCIAL CRISIS TURNED
INTO A CRISIS FOR CHILDREN
Box 1 Measuring the exposure
to the Great Recession
ii
Although Luxembourg and Mexico suffered more than other countries
during the recent economic crisis, they are included in the least affected
group because a) they did not come under intense market pressure and
b) debt levels were lower than 60 per cent of GDP. More detail about
these two countries is reported in Natali et al. Trends in Child Well-being
in EU Countries during the Great Recession.
1 4
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
Conceptual framework: How did the financial crisis turn into a crisis for children?
Global financial crisis
sovereign debt, economic crisis
The crisis originated in the banking and housing sectors in developed
countries and rapidly spread to other parts of the world. Although it
started as a financial crisis, it quickly evolved into an economic crisis, and
in several European countries took the form of a sovereign debt crisis.
Social protection
system responses:
Automatic stabilizers,
such as unemployment
insurance and
minimum income.
Discretionary policies,
such as cash payments
in the early period and
cuts in public spending
with different priorities
in the second period.
Transmission channels
Labour market: The decrease in demand for goods and services led to a
reduction in jobs and a tightening of labour conditions, provoking a drop
in household income.
Financial market: Loss in private wealth due to asset deterioration and
restricted access to credit.
Public sector channel: Rapid deterioration of public finances prompted
aggressive austerity programmes and diverse responses in the form of
higher taxes and/or lower spending on public services.
Policy responses
Household impact
Reduced income due to
unemployment, increased
taxes and reduced transfers
Family asset depletion
Deterioration in access to
and quality of services
Reduced consumption
Stress and domestic violence
Lack of nurture and care
Social exclusion
Mental health
Nutrition/food security
Protection
Employment opportunities
Fertility
Source: Natali et al. Trends in Child Well-being in EU Countries during the Great Recession.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
1 5
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
120
110
100
90
80
2007
2008
2009
Most affected
Year
2010
2011
Moderately affected
2012
Least affected
Figure 2 European households with children making ends meet with great
difficulty (per exposure)
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
2006
2008
Most affected
Year
2010
Moderately affected
2012
Least affected
Source: Eurostat.
Note: No data for Turkey and Croatia; Switzerland (2006); Ireland (2012).
I N T O
S E C T I O N
110
100
90
80
2007
2008
Most affected
2009
2010
Year
2011
Moderately affected
2012
2013
Least affected
1 6
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
180
160
140
120
100
2006
2008
Most affected
Year
2010
2012
Moderately affected
Least affected
Source: Eurostat.
Note: No data for Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden.
S E C T I O N
40
Per cent
30
20
10
Change (20082012)
2008
Hungary
Cyprus
Greece
Latvia
Italy
Malta
United Kingdom
Ireland
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Iceland
Estonia
Spain
Belgium
Denmark
Netherlands
Slovenia
Luxembourg
France
Sweden
Czech Republic
Finland
Norway
Slovakia
Romania
Austria
Portugal
Switzerland
Poland
Germany
-10
2012
Source: Eurostat.
Note: No data for Croatia.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
1 7
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
1 8
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
ii
iii
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
Greece 2008
Per cent
Total poor
Poor only
23.0
16.9
Total deprived
Deprived only
10.4
4.3
6.2
72.7
Per cent
Iceland 2008
Total poor
Poor only
40.5
22.6
Total deprived
Deprived only
20.9
2.9
17.9
56.6
Iceland 2012
Per cent
Total poor
Poor only
11.2
10.7
Total deprived
Deprived only
0.9
0.4
0.6
88.4
Per cent
Total poor
Poor only
31.6
29.1
Total deprived
Deprived only
3.1
0.6
2.6
67.8
Source: EU-SILC.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
1 9
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
Essential services
As family incomes decrease and
contextual conditions deteriorate, so
risk in childrens lives increases. And
the capacity of governments and
public institutions to protect them
has not improved accordingly in
critical areas such as health and
education. In European countries
that have been moderately and
severely affected by the recession,
the proportion of young adults with
unmet health needs has increased
significantly since 2008. More than a
third of OECD countries reduced
public education spending after
2010, and several more froze it.17
These cuts will have both short-term
and long-term impacts.
S E C T I O N
GR
10
ES
DK
SK
5
PL
AT
BE
CH
NO
NL
PT
CZ
SI
BG
DE
FI
-5
HU
CY
SE
FR
IT
LV
EE LU
LT
UK
IE
MT
RO
-10
-10
0
10
Change in headcount (anchored)
Fitted values
R-squared=0.1426
Source: Eurostat for the anchored headcount; EU-SILC for the anchored poverty gap.
2 0
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
IS
1 2
20
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
21.3
5.4
no vacation/travelling
27.9
stopped tutoring
10.5
changed school
8.2
27.3
family tension
0
10
15
20
25
30
Per cent
Source: 2014 HBSC survey.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
2 1
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
Figure 9 Absolute difference in anchored poverty change (20082012) between children in migrant households
and other children in Europe (percentage points)
25
20
Percentage points
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Source: EU-SILC.
Notes: Data for 2011 are used for Belgium and Ireland. Countries with insufficient case numbers of children in migrant households excluded.
Bars are changes in absolute poverty with positive values indicating a worsening among chldren in migrant households relative to other children.
2 2
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
Greece
Iceland
Slovenia
Lithuania
Belgium
Italy
Portugal
Spain
Cyprus
United Kingdom
Estonia
Netherlands
Malta
France
Sweden
Latvia
Denmark
Austria
Switzerland
Ireland
Luxembourg
Germany
Norway
Finland
-15
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
Figure 10 Absolute difference in anchored poverty change (20082012) between children and the elderly
(percentage points)
30
25
Percentage points
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Difference in differences
under 18 (20082012)
Latvia
Cyprus
Spain
Bulgaria
Romania
Croatia
Estonia
Malta
Greece
Ireland
Italy
United Kingdom
Iceland
Norway
France
Portugal
Denmark
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Belgium
Slovenia
Slovakia
Sweden
Finland
Czech Republic
Austria
Hungary
Germany
Poland
Switzerland
-20
65 or over (20082012)
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
2 3
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
200
150
100
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Most affected
Moderately affected
F O R
C H I L D R E N
Least affected
Source: Eurostat.
Notes: Long-term unemployment: Long-term unemployment (12 months or more) for young people 1524.
No data for Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania; Sweden (2006); Luxembourg (2007 and 2009).
Underemployment: Involuntary part-time workers, 1524, percentage of active population. No data for
Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania or Luxembourg.
Temporary employment: Temporary employees (1524) as percentage of the total number of employees
(1524).
Per cent
40
30
20
10
0
Chile
Germany
Luxembourg
Israel
Turkey
Japan
Republic of Korea
Austria
Malta
Switzerland
Norway
Mexico
Canada
Iceland
United States
Sweden
Australia
Finland
New Zealand
Romania
Denmark
France
United Kingdom
Belgium
Netherlands
Estonia
Hungary
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Latvia
Poland
Slovenia
Ireland
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Italy
Portugal
Croatia
Cyprus
Spain
Greece
-10
Change (20082013)
Source: Eurostat; OECD.Stat.
2 4
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
2008
2013
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
F O R
C H I L D R E N
S E C T I O N
250
200
150
100
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Long-term unemployment
Underemployment
Temporary employment
Source: Eurostat.
Notes: Long-term unemployment: Long-term unemployment (12 months or more) for young people 1524.
No data for Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania; Sweden (2006); Luxembourg (2007 and 2009).
Underemployment: Involuntary part-time workers, 1524, percentage of active population. No data for
Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania or Luxembourg.
Temporary employment: Temporary employees (1524) as percentage of the total number of employees
(1524).
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
2 5
S E C T I O N
H O W
F I N A N C I A L
Summary
The Great Recession had the
greatest impact on the weakest,
and possibly for the longest time.
This section has shown the many
overlapping ways in which children
suffered from the crisis, while
others such as the elderly
managed to be protected. It has
proved how many countries saw
large increases in the material
deprivation of children (possibly a
better longer-term measure of
poverty), and has highlighted the
lifetime risks of entering the labour
market in a recession.
By any measure, this is a
discouraging reversal in what
was a positive trend in the
consolidation of young peoples
2 6
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C R I S I S
T U R N E D
I N T O
C R I S I S
C A R D
1 2
F O R
C H I L D R E N
SECTION 4
UNEVEN RESPONSES
IS
20
GR
LV
HR
IE
10
LT
ES
LU
EE
IT
MX
FR
US
NL NZ MT
IL
DE
AT SE
CZ
BE
RO
CA
JP
FI
NO
CH
HU
CY
UK SI DK
PT
AU
BG
TR
KR
SK
PL
CL
-10
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
Source: See Data Sources: League Table 1 on page 44 for changes in anchored poverty; IMF World
Economic Outlook.
Note: The x-axis shows exposure to the recession, using the ratio of GDP from 2007 to 2012. The y-axis
shows change in child poverty from 2007 to 2012 (positive values indicate increases).
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
2 7
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
12
10
Malta
Hungary
Switzerland
Poland
Bulgaria
Romania
Sweden
Czech Republic
Austria
Italy
France
Germany
Cyprus
Portugal
Belgium
Norway
Slovenia
Netherlands
Greece
Spain
Denmark
Slovakia
Latvia
United Kingdom
Iceland
Finland
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Ireland
Estonia
Source: Eurostat.
2 8
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
Share on income
1
0
5
6
Decile
10
10
2
Share on income
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
5
6
Decile
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
all deciles
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
2 9
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
0.39
0.048
0.38
0.046
0.37
0.044
0.36
0.042
0.35
0.04
0.34
0.038
0.33
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
3 0
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0.036
Figure 18 Social protection spending, share of total spending (blue line, left axis) and family- and child-related
spending, share of total social protection spending (blue bars, right axis).
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
Lithuania
United Kingdom
Iceland
Belgium
Luxembourg
Malta
Ireland
Finland
United Kingdom
Poland
Estonia
Czech Republic
Latvia
Austria
Spain
Norway
Portugal
Denmark
Greece
Romania
Cyprus
Germany
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Denmark
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Netherlands
Slovenia
Ireland
Bulgaria
Spain
Italy
Cyprus
Finland
Slovakia
Malta
Italy
Belgium
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Germany
Greece
Austria
Switzerland
France
Sweden
Poland
Iceland
Hungary
Latvia
Norway
France
Slovakia
Estonia
Sweden
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Hungary
-6
-4
-2
10
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Source: EU-SILC.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
3 1
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
Figure 20 Contribution of income, taxation and social transfers to changes in the Gini index, 20082012
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
Taxes
Transfers
Market
Source: EU-SILC.
Notes: For Belgium and Ireland data refer to the period 20082011.
The Gini index is a common measure of inequality, which ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect
inequality). Figure 20 shows how different income sources (private household income, taxes and social
transfers) contributed to changes in the Gini between 2008 and 2012. Positive bars indicate that the
particular source of income increased inequality during this period. In Spain, for example, all three sources
contributed to an increase in inequality.
3 2
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
Spain
Cyprus
Denmark
Hungary
Austria
Slovakia
Estonia
Sweden
Italy
France
Greece
Slovenia
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
Ireland
Finland
Malta
United Kingdom
Poland
Portugal
Belgium
Latvia
Germany
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Netherlands
Norway
Romania
Switzerland
Iceland
-0.05
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
Variations on a theme
When the storm of the Great Recession struck, some countries were
better prepared than others to shelter the most vulnerable sectors of
their societies.
The reality is that in most industrialized countries, at least a decade
before the start of the Great Recession, time and again children were
found to be at a greater risk of poverty than populations as a whole,
according to a background paper for this report. Moreover,
substantial differences in the risks of poverty persisted among
households with children long before [2008].i A previous edition of
this Report Card shows how, at the beginning of the recession, the
levels of poverty and deprivation among the most vulnerable families
(jobless, lone-parent and migrant families and households with low
levels of parental education) were already intolerably high in some
OECD and/or EU countries.i i
With hindsight, many countries with higher child vulnerability would
have been wise to strengthen their safety nets during the preceding
period of dynamic economic growth. Social spending by OECD
countries had been in decline since 1995; it increased temporarily in
the first phase of the recession, but went on to resume its previous
trend (see Figure 21). For children, the recession followed a long
period of rising disparity and concentration of income (see Figure 22)
a trend, some argue, that undermines fairness, lowers commitment
to social cohesion and restricts social mobility.i i i
i
ii
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Measuring Child Poverty: New
league tables of child poverty in the worlds rich countries, Innocenti
Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2012.
iii
Deaton, Angus, The Great Escape: Health, wealth and the origins of
inequality, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2013; Wilkinson, R. and
K. Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why equality is better for everyone, revised
edition, Penguin, London, 2010; Corak, Miles, Inequality from Generation
to Generation: The United States in comparison, in Robert Rycroft (ed.),
The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21st
Century, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA, 2013.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
3 3
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
Table 1 Recent significant changes to family benefits (family/child/birth/child care/tax credits and breaks)
Country
Type of
benefit
Year
phased
in
Australia
Various
2011
2014
+/-
New paid parental leave. More generous family tax benefit supplement for
dependent 16- to 19-year-olds in full-time secondary education. Temporary
freeze on indexation of benefit amounts and income thresholds of family tax
benefits. Child birth benefits more restrictive and less generous.
Austria
Family
2011
Belgium
Child
2013
Bulgaria
Child
2013
2014
Canada
Parental
leave
2011
Tax
credits
2011
Chile
Various
2010
2013
Croatia
Tax break
2012
Cyprus
Family
2011
2012
+/-
Czech
Republic
Family
2011
2012
Denmark
Family
2012
Estonia
Family
Finland
Benefit
level/
duration
Eligibility
Details
More restrictive and less generous child benefit and student grant; new
lone-parent supplement.
2014
2013
Family
2013
Child care
2014
France
Family
2014
-/+
Tax break
2014
Germany
Family
2010
More generous child benefit and child tax benefit. More generous meanstested child allowance (from 2014).
Parental
leave
2011
Greece
Family
2013
Hungary
Family
2011
Tax break
2011
2014
Family tax allowances more generous and less restrictive (alongside the
introduction of a flat rate income tax). From 2014, family tax allowances can
be deducted from social security contributions.
Iceland
Family
2013
Ireland
Family
2010
2013
Tax
credits
2011
Israel
Family
2013
Italy
Family
2014
Child care
2013
Family
2010
Tax
breaks
2011
Child care
2014
Child care
Parental
Japan
Latvia
3 4
I N N O C E N T I
Reduction in the basic child allowance for under-3s (in families above a
certain income level); baby bonus eligibility more restrictive; gradual increase
in supplement for large families and lone-parent families.
+/-
Child allowance extended to children under 15, income test abolished (but
re-introduced in 2012) and benefit amounts increased. Child rearing
allowance extended to lone fathers.
More generous and less restrictive. Formerly for uninsured persons only.
2013
2010
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
R E S P O N S E S
Type of
benefit
Year
phased
in
Lithuania
Family
2010
Tax
breaks
2014
Luxembourg
Parental
leave
2013
Malta
Child
2011
Tax
breaks
2011
2012
Temporary exemption from income tax for women with children who return
to work after a five-year absence. New tax regime for parents introduced.
Parental
leave
2012
2013
Child care
2014
Family
2011
2013
Child care
New Zealand
Tax
credits
Norway
Child care
Poland
Family
Eligibility
U N E V E N
Country
Netherlands
Benefit
level/
duration
Details
+/-
2012
2012
2012
Cash for care benefit abolished for 2-year-olds, but made more generous
for children aged 13 to 18 months.
2012
Tax allowances for families with more than two children increased; income
test introduced for families with one child.
2013
Tax
breaks
2013
Parental
leave
2013
Child
2011
Tax
breaks
2013
Child care
2013
Tax
breaks
2013
Parental
leave
2011
Romania
Family
2011
Slovakia
Parental
leave
2011
Slovenia
Family
2012
Less generous and more restrictive (until GDP growth exceeds 2.5%).
Birth grant abolished. Means-tested child benefit amount cut for under-3s.
Portugal
Republic of
Korea
Spain
Family
2010
Sweden
Family
2010
Turkey
Other
2012
United
Kingdom
Child
2010
Child care
2009
2012
2011
Less generous for families with one child. More restrictive income testing.
Unified parental leave benefit introduced (indexed regularly), allowing parents
to work without loss of benefit. Length of maternity leave extended and
replacement rate increased from 60% to 65%.
2013
United States
2013
Tax
credits
Other
2013
Tax
credits
2010
2012
Additional Child Tax Credit extended until 2017. It was due to expire in 2010,
then in 2012.
Other
2009
2013
Source: OECD Benefits and Wages, country-specific information; OECD, Society at a Glance 2014, Table 1.2; Investing in Children: Breaking the cycle of
disadvantage, analysis by the European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion; Europe 2020 National Reform Programme reports; UNICEF National
Committees.
Note: A minus sign (-) means less generous: lower benefit levels (through cuts or changes to indexation rules) or duration of benefit receipt; stricter eligibility
conditions or cancellation of a programme. A plus sign (+) means the opposite.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
3 5
3 6
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
140
130
120
110
100
90
GDP index
Source: Eurostat.
0.31
0.30
0.29
0.28
2010
C A R D
1 2
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
80
2000
150
1999
160
1998
Malta implemented a
comprehensive universal childcare plan in 2014.
1997
1996
R E S P O N S E S
1995
U N E V E N
Gini index
S E C T I O N
S E C T I O N
Summary
Millions more children could have
been helped if protection policies
had been stronger before, and had
been strengthened during, the
Great Recession. The recession has
brought suffering and life-long risks
upon an extra 619,000 children in
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
3 7
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
League Table 4 Child poverty in the United States by state (and the District of Columbia)
Rank
US State
Change
(20072012)
1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
21
23
23
25
26
27
28
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
North Dakota
Mississippi
West Virginia
Wyoming
Virginia
Missouri
Massachusetts
Iowa
Utah
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Connecticut
DC (District of Columbia)
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Kentucky
New Jersey
South Dakota
Maryland
Ohio
Colorado
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Maine
Michigan
California
New York
North Carolina
Arizona
Kansas
Oregon
Vermont
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Illinois
Indiana
Washington
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
Hawaii
New Mexico
Nevada
Idaho
-5.4
-4.3
-4.2
-2.9
-2.9
-2.1
-2.1
-1.6
-1.2
-1.1
-0.9
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.2
0.6
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.7
3.1
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.1
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.7
7.7
8.0
9.1
9.5
10.0
North Dakota
Mississippi
West Virginia
Wyoming
Virginia
Missouri
Massachusetts
Iowa
Utah
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Connecticut
DC (District of Columbia)
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Kentucky
New Jersey
South Dakota
Maryland
Ohio
Colorado
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Maine
Michigan
California
New York
North Carolina
Arizona
Kansas
Oregon
Vermont
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Illinois
Indiana
Washington
Alaska
Delaware
Montana
Hawaii
New Mexico
Nevada
Idaho
3 8
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
18.2
24.0
31.6
29.5
23.8
21.6
23.6
22.0
26.1
24.9
25.0
23.9
24.2
23.9
19.0
18.7
34.8
33.8
27.0
26.6
36.8
37.1
11.4
12.5
18.5
20.0
29.0
30.6
22.7
24.4
24.0
21.2
23.3
38.6
40.7
26.2
27.0
29.6
33.2
31.2
28.8
30.3
21.0
32.7
32.7
31.7
26.9
36.5
33.5
23.3
24.6
31.3
25.6
33.3
30.6
32.8
25.1
26.5
2006
37.2
25.5
22.6
20
35.8
32.0
27.8
10
39.4
34.5
31.5
28.1
37.9
32.7
30
1 2
36.0
34.3
34.2
35.6
19.7
39.4
40.0
36.7
38.0
21.3
22.6
24.1
25.4
17.4
41.0
40.9
36.3
36.2
19.3
19.3
16.8
43.4
39.1
36.3
32.2
21.1
21.2
24.8
19.5
2011
41.9
34.6
36.5
40
50
S E C T I O N
U N E V E N
R E S P O N S E S
Source: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/
data/threshld/
ii
1982
2010
1982
UI/VET/
WC
Food
stamps
AFDC/
TANF
EITC
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Earned
income
UI/VET/
WC
Food
stamps
EITC
AFDC/
TANF
Percentage of ATTI
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Earned
income
Percentage of ATTI
2010
Source: Bitler, M., H. Hoynes and E. Kuka, Child Poverty and the Great Recession, Innocenti Working Paper, UNICEF Office of Research,
Florence, 2014.
Note: UI/VET/WC: Unemployment Insurance (UI), Veterans (VET), Workers Compensation (WC).
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
3 9
SECTION 5
CONCLUSION
4 0
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
Figure 24 The Great Leap Backward: years of progress lost for families
with children
14
Greece
Ireland
10
Spain
10
Luxembourg
10
9
Iceland
Italy
Hungary
Portugal
Belgium
Latvia
United Kingdom
6
5
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Malta
Netherlands
Romania
Slovenia
10
12
14
16
Years lost
Source: Eurostat.
Note: Estimates based on median equivalized incomes for households with children in national currency at
2007 prices.
C A R D
1 2
S E C T I O N
C O N C L U S I O N
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
4 1
S E C T I O N
C O N C L U S I O N
4 2
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
INTERNATIONAL ABBREVIATIONS
Austria
AU
Australia
BE
Belgium
BG
Bulgaria
CA
Canada
CH
Switzerland
CL
Chile
CY
Cyprus
CZ
Czech Republic
DE
Germany
DK
Denmark
EE
Estonia
ES
Spain
FI
Finland
FR
France
GR
Greece
HR
Croatia
HU
Hungary
IE
Ireland
IL
Israel
IS
Iceland
IT
Italy
JP
Japan
KR
Republic of Korea
LT
Lithuania
LU
Luxembourg
LV
Latvia
MT
Malta
MX
Mexico
NL
Netherlands
NO
Norway
NZ
New Zealand
PL
Poland
PT
Portugal
RO
Romania
SE
Sweden
SI
Slovenia
SK
Slovakia
TR
Turkey
UK
United Kingdom
US
United States
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
4 3
League Table 1
Data refer to children aged 0 to 17.
For the majority of countries covered,
surveys detailing household conditions
are published annually (the latest available
is 2012) and they typically refer to income
levels of the previous year (2011).
For Canada, Chile, Israel, Mexico, New
Zealand and the Republic of Korea, period
differs from 2008 to 2012 (see sources
below).
Data for Turkey refer to children
aged 019.
The 2008 and 2012 (anchored) child
poverty rates for Croatia are not directly
comparable. The estimate for 2008 was
obtained from Eurostat. The anchored
child poverty rate for 2012 was computed
with micro-data from the 2012 European
Union Statistics on Income and Living
Conditions (EU-SILC) using the 2008
poverty line obtained from the Household
Budget Survey (HBS) 2008, and uprated
for inflation.
Sources: The calculations for League
Table 1 are based on the latest Eurostat
estimates for 2008 and 2012 (estimates
from EU-SILC; break in time series for
2012 data for Austria and the United
Kingdom).
For the remaining countries:
Australia: HILDA 2008 and 2012
(Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia survey);
Canada: Survey of Labour and Income
Dynamics (from Luxembourg Income
Study) 2008 and 2011;
Chile: CASEN 2006 and 2011;
Israel: Household Expenditure Survey
(from Luxembourg Income Study) 2007
and 2010;
Japan: Ministry of Health, Labour and
Welfares Comprehensive Survey of
Living Conditions 2008 and 2012;
4 4
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
League Table 2
Data refer to children and young people
aged 15 to 24.
Quarterly and annual estimates are not
directly comparable.
Sources: Latest Eurostat estimates for
2008 and 2013 (estimates from the
European Union Labour Force Survey).
C A R D
1 2
League Table 3
Gallup collects and makes available
information on a number of self-reported
indicators in some 160 countries. A
representative sample of 1,000 adults (age
15+) is contacted by phone in developed
countries with 80 per cent phone
coverage. Gallup data are increasingly
used by multilateral agencies, but there
are concerns about their statistical
reliability and a scarcity of disaggregated
data on children. Gallup data are available
for 20062013 via a paid subscription to
Gallup Analytics. See: http://www.gallup.
com/gallupanalytics.aspx
Where no data for 2007 were available,
the 2008 data were used; if the 2008 data
were not available, the 2006 data were
used. In general, 2008 data were used
for Austria, Finland, Iceland, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Malta, Norway and
Portugal; 2006 data were used for
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Switzerland.
For the stress indicator: no data are
available for Bulgaria and Croatia; 2006
data were used for Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Greece, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Switzerland; 2007 data
were used for Chile and Mexico. Data
for the remaining countries refer to 2008;
2012 data were used for Norway and
Switzerland, as data for 2013 were
not available.
n.a.: not available.
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
4 5
REFERENCES
4 6
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2
4 7
4 8
I N N O C E N T I
R E P O R T
C A R D
1 2