Children and Poverty in Iceland Stefán Ólafsson University of Iceland

Transcription

1 Children and Poverty in Iceland Stefán Ólafsson University of Iceland Ministry of Welfare Conference on Child and Family Welfare Nauthóll, 5 September 2014

2 Contents Poverty profiles: Iceland in an International Comparison Explaining Iceland s Outcome The Role of Work Participation The Role of the Welfare System Lessons

3 Icelandic Welfare Characteristics A Nordic Welfare State with some deviations Less expenditures, due to Younger population Higher employment participation; later retirement More income-testing of benefits Similar emphasis on welfare services as in Scandinavia Iceland is more a work society less welfare protection Low relative poverty in general, but financial hardships increased during the crisis since 2008

4 Households under the poverty line Nordics Compared: (60% poverty line) 16 % of households under 60% poverty line Relative Poverty Rate Sweden Finland Denmark Norway Iceland Source: Eurostat

5 Households making ends meet with great difficulty Nordics Compared: % of households making ends meet with great difficulty Financial hardship of households Iceland Denmark Sweden Finland Norway Source: Eurostat

6 Households under the 60% poverty line: Making ends meet with great difficulty 30 % of households under the 60% poverty line Financial hardship of the poor 20,6 14,7 14,8 12,6 13,0 11,4 26,5 23,1 22,6 19,0 Iceland Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Source: Eurostat

7 Difficult to make ends meet families with and without children, Financial hardship of families with children 70 % of households Single parents two adults, 3+ children Homes with children Two adults, 2 children Homes ithout. Children without children Source: Eurostat

8 More Comprehensive International Comparison of Child Poverty

9 Relative Child Poverty: % of Children (under 18) At risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion in Source: Eurostat Bulgaria Romania Hungary Latvia Greece Italy Croatia Spain Ireland Lithuania United Kingdom Malta Poland European Portugal Cyprus Slovakia Luxembourg France Belgium Estonia Austria Switzerland Czech Republic Germany Netherlands Slovenia Iceland Sweden Denmark Finland Norway 35,4 33,8 33,8 33,8 33,1 31,9 31,2 31,0 29,3 28,0 27,8 27,5 26,6 24,6 23,2 23,1 22,4 20,9 18,9 18,8 18,4 16,9 16,4 16,0 15,4 15,3 14,9 11,9 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 % of households with children under age 18, at risk of poverty or social exclusion 40,9 40, ,3 52,2

10 Absolute Child Poverty: % of Children (under 18) Experiencing Severe material Deprivation in Source: Eurostat Búlgaría Rúmenía Ugverjaland Lettland Grikkland Kýpur Króatía Litháen Ítalía Pólland Bretland Írland Malta Slóvakía Meðaltal ESB Portúgal Eistland Belgía Tékkland Spánn Frakkland Slóvenía Austurríki Þýskaland Danmörk Holland Ísland Finnland Noregur Lúxemborg Síþjóð Sviss 1,7 1,4 0,7 1,8 3,3 3,1 2,8 3,6 4,8 5,9 5,8 7,6 7,2 9,2 8,6 8,5 10,3 12,5 12,4 12,3 11,9 11,7 13,7 17,6 16,9 16,9 18,1 20,9 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0 % of individuals under age 18 who experience severe material deprivation 27,3 33,4 37, ,6

11 UNICEF 2013: Child Well-being

12 50 OECD Profiles of Child Poverty Monetary poverty in 2010 All households with children Single parents with children Couple families with children Source: OECD

13 Explanations The Role of Work and Welfare Provisions

14 Child Poverty and Maternal Employment % under 50% poverty line and children under age 15, 2010 Proportion of children living in poor households MEX More employment reduces poverty ROU R = 0.53 MLT HUN ITA GRC JPN SVK CZE ESP BGR USA LVA LTU PRT AUS CAN POL NZL BEL EST LUX FRA IRL GBR CHE DEU AUT CYP NLD SVN SWE ISL FIN DNK Source: OECD Employment rate for mothers with children under 15

15 Female Employment Participation Rate in Female employment rate (25-54 age cohort) Maternal employment rate - child under 15 (2) OECD average maternal employment rate = 65.2% Source: OECD

16 Source: OECD Single parents in poverty, 2010 Japan Luxembourg Chile Turkey United States Israel Mexico Canada Italy Iceland Slovenia Spain Portugal Germany Netherlands OECD average France Estonia Austria Belgium Greece Hungary Poland Czech Republic Australia New Zealand Sweden Norway Slovak Republic Finland Denmark United Kingdom Ireland 2,1 5,6 4,8 7,6 6,8 9,9 10,9 14,8 14,4 13,8 15,1 15,1 16,9 16,9 16,7 18,4 18,2 20,9 23,8 23,8 22,6 24,9 23,9 27,0 26,2 28,2 27,4 31,1 30,2 32,4 37,4 41,6 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0 50,9 Proportion under 50% poverty line in 2010 Not working Working

17 Turkey Japan Mexico Spain United States Italy Chile Slovak Republic Greece Portugal Canada Poland OECD average Israel Luxembourg Estonia France New Zealand Slovenia Hungary Iceland Austria Netherlands Australia Czech Republic Finland Sweden Norway United Kingdom Belgium Denmark Ireland Germany Source: OECD Couples in Poverty, ,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0 Proportion under 50% poverty ine in by volume of work No workers One worker Two or more workers

18 Total expenditures on family benefits, per child at ages 0-17, in 2011 Total expenditures per child ages 0-17, in Euros with PPP Benefits are more income-tested in Iceland Source: NOSOSKO Denmark Faero Islands Finland Iceland Norway Sweden Cash benefits per child at age 0-17 Services for each child at age 0-17 Familiy benefits total per child at age 0-17

19 Pattern of Public Spending on Children, 2009 Emphasis is on young children in Iceland Early childhood Middle childhood Late childhood Proportion of total spending Source: OECD

20 Conclusion Iceland has generally a low rate of poverty Child poverty is at a similar level as in other Nordic countries depending on measure though Lower on relative poverty, higher on difficulty in making ends meet and similar on material deprivation Single parent poverty is significantly higher in Iceland Financial hardship of families with children increased significantly during the crisis High work participation amongst parents lowers child poverty rate this is particularly important for couples The welfare system also reduces poverty, particularly amongst single parents. In-work benefits are low. Welfare benefits for couples w. children are less generous than in other Nordic countries and more income-tested

21 Takk!

22 Households with children under the 60% poverty line: Nordics % of househods w. children under 60% poverty line Relative Child Poverty Rate Denmark Finland Sweden Norway Iceland

23 Public spending on family benefits: Cash, Services and Tax breaks, ,5 Tax breaks towards families Services Cash 4,0 3,5 3,0 OECD-33 average =2.6% % of GDP 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Source: OECD