Machula O. V., Kornienko D. O.

Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University

THE PROBLEM OF POVERTY AMONG THE CHILDREN IN THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

It is believed that the EU does not have any problems in the area of social security. But every year we see the fall of the standard of living and growth of poverty in European countries. The relevance of this paper is to demonstrate the position of children in society and their social status, and the problems that arise on this basis. Children were the age group at the highest risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2011 Children growing up in poverty and social exclusion are less likely to do well in school, enjoy good health and realize their full potential later in life.

In 2011, 27.0 % of children (aged 0-17) in the EU-27 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE), compared to 24.3 % of adults (18-64) and 20.5 % of the elderly. As far as types of households with dependent children are concerned, single parents and large households (two adults with three or more dependent children and three adults or more with dependent children) were at the highest risk of poverty or social exclusion with rates of 49.8 %, 30.8 % and 28.4 % respectively. With regard to children living in vulnerable situations, children with at least one migrant parent were at a greater risk of poverty than children whose parents were native born. As regards living conditions, 18.4% of single parent households were severely materially deprived compared to, on average, 9.6% of households with dependent children.

The AROPE indicator is defined as the share of the population in at least one of the following three conditions: 1) at risk of poverty, meaning below the poverty threshold, 2) in a situation of severe material deprivation, 3) living in a household with a very low work intensity [1].

Table 1. Population at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age group (%), 2011[2]

18

18-64

64

Total

EU-27

27.0

24.3

20.5

24.2

BE

23.3

20.0

21.6

21.0

BG

51.8

45.2

61.1

49.1

CZ

20.0

15.1

10.7

15.3

DK

16.0

20.5

16.6

18.9

DE

19.9

21.3

15.3

19.9

EE

24.8

24.2

17.0

23.1

IE

37.6

29.7

12.9

29.9

El

30.4

31.6

22.3

27.0

ES

30.6

27.2

11.5

19.3

FR

23.0

20.1

24.2

28.2

IT

32.3

28.4

40.4

23.5

CY

21.8

20.8

33.2

40.1

LV

43.6

40.9

33.5

33.4

LT

33.4

33.6

4.8

16.8

LU

21.7

17.6

18.0

31.0

HU

39.6

31.7

21.5

21.4

MT

25.8

20.1

6.9

15.7

NL

18.0

17.0

17.1

16.9

AT

19.2

16.2

24.7

27.2

PL

29.8

27.0

24.5

24.4

PT

28.6

23.2

35.3

40.3

RO

49.1

39.0

24.3

19.3

SI

17.3

18.7

14.5

20.6

SK

26.0

20.6

19.8

17.9

FL

16.1

18.0

18.6

16.1

SE

15.9

15.4

22.7

22.7

UK

26.9

21.4

4..5

13.7

IS

16.6

14.3

11.4

14.6

NO

13.0

15.9

28.3

17.2

CH

18.9

13.9

34.0

32.7

HR

32.2

32.5

23.5

22.6

Regarding the overall situation in 2011 (Table 1), the share of children living in a household at risk of poverty or social exclusion ranged from 16-18% in the Nordic countries, Slovenia and the Netherlands from 40-52% in Hungary, Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria.

The AROPE rates differ for different age groups. Table 1 shows the rates for some population age groups. In 2011, 27.0% of children (aged 0-17) in the EU-27 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion compared to 24.3% of adults (18-64) and 20.5% of the elderly (65 or over). Thus, children were the population age group at the highest risk of poverty or social exclusion. This was the situation in most Member States. There were some exceptions such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden where the elderly were most at risk. In Denmark, Germany, Greece and Lithuania, adults were the population age group with the highest risk. However, despite the fact that the elderly and adults respectively had the highest AROPE rates of these two groups of countries, child poverty still ranked second highest in nearly all of them.

The main factors affecting child poverty, after taking account of the effect of social transfers in reducing child poverty, are the composition of the household in which the children live and the labour market situation of their parents, linked also to their level of education. There are also more vulnerable groups of children, such as those with migrant parents, that deserve particular attention. Family structure has a significant effect on the total household disposable income. In fact, different types of households have different at risk-of-poverty profiles. Dependent children in single parent families have a much higher risk of living in poverty than dependent children in two adult families. Indeed, around half (49.8%) of single parent households with dependent children were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, compared to only about two in every ten (19.3%) of households with two adults and two dependent children. However, as a household increases in size the AROPE rate also tends to rise. This is particularly significant for large households with dependent children. Labour is the most important source of income for most households and thus has an impact on the at-risk-of-poverty rate, i.e. the share of people below the poverty threshold. However, not only jobless households are at risk of poverty. Therefore, to assess the relationship between employment and risk of poverty at household level, the concept of work intensity is used. Work intensity reflects how many working age adults in a household were employed in relation to their total work potential in a year. Education affects the type of job an individual can access. Indeed, the risk of poverty rises as the level of education diminishes. In the EU-27 in 2011, nearly 50% of children (aged 0-17) living in households in which the highest level of education attained by the parents living in the same household was lower secondary level (0-2 ISCED) were at risk of poverty. This effect remains even after controlling for family structure and the work intensity of the household. The risk of poverty increased by over 41.0 pp for households with low levels of education compared to households with a high level of education (5-6 ISCED).Migrant background also matters. In fact, children with a migrant background tend to be more exposed to poverty than the total child population. Overall, in 2011, children (aged 0-17) with at least one foreign born parent were at a greater risk of poverty (+13.0 % higher) than children with native- born parents. Indicators of material deprivation provide a complementary view of children's well-being and living conditions.

The severe material deprivation rate represents the share of children who live in households with the lack of certain items at household level. In 2011, children (aged 0-17) in the EU-27 also had the highest rate (10.0 %) of severe material deprivation, higher than adults (8.9 %) and the elderly (7.2 %). Regarding food items, 34.5 % of children in Bulgaria did not eat fresh fruit and vegetables once a day as these items could not be afforded. The situation was similar in Romania (23.8 %), Hungary (17.2 %) and Latvia (15.4 %). Similarly, in Bulgaria and Romania, around 30 % of children did not eat one meal with meat, chicken or fish or vegetarian equivalent (proteins) per day because the household could not afford it. For both items, in the EU-27, the average share was about 4.0-5.0 %. Regarding clothes and shoes items, Bulgaria, had the highest share of deprivation: 35 % of children in Bulgaria did not have new clothes because the household could not afford them. Overall, in the EU-27, 5.9 % of children were deprived in this dimension. This is the item that was lacking the most out of the four items presented across countries. More than 20 % of children in Romania (25.2 %), Latvia (24.5 %) and Hungary (21.8 %), and 13 % or more of children in Portugal, Slovakia and Lithuania did not have new clothes because the household could not afford them. Finally, 44.3 % of children in Bulgaria suffered from an enforced lack of two pair of properly fitting shoes (including a pair of all weather shoes). However, in 18 of the Member States, the share was below 4.0 %.[3]

Children are our future and it is our purpose to give them the most comfortable conditions for their development and to block them off from any social exclusions. Reliable measurement of different aspects of the children poverty and inequality give the opportunity of the analysis of data and the chance to understand, why children's poverty still exists. Reliable data on children's poverty and inequality can display a vivid picture of these children's deprivations, and also can explain their reasons and depth. It will allow to draw public attention and influential politicians, to consider it in national plans of development and strategies of poverty reduction so that they provided the rights of children and made progress concerning achievement of the objectives of development of the UN Millennium Declaration, especially in those areas where the progress is necessary most of all.

The list of references:

1. Vilaplana C.L. Children were the age group at the highest risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2011// Statistics in focus. – 2013. – №4. – С. 24-27.

2. People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex [Web resource]. – Access mode: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_peps01&lang=en

3. People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by income quintile and household type [Web resource]. – Access mode: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/ show.do?dataset=ilc_peps03&lang=en