Abstract
In this chapter, we update and widen the analysis of child poverty in Italy in a comparative perspective. Using a perspective on welfare based more broadly on the capability approach advocated, we use information not only on income but also on other indicators—health, childcare, education and housing—using EU-SILC data and other related sources. We also discuss the limitations of recent social policies addressed to reduce poverty of families with children, suggesting more appropriate interventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This comparison unfortunately cannot take into account that underground economy is much higher in southern European countries especially Italy and Spain.
- 2.
The OECD uses a different definition of relative income poverty based on 50% of the median disposable income, and on a different equivalence scale, which implies that levels and trends in poverty based on this definition might differ to some extent from levels and trends calculated using the ECHP and EU-SILC data.
- 3.
A major difficulty in performing poverty analysis at the individual level arises from the assessment of intra-household distribution. While not the focus of this report, it is important to account for the role of joint consumption, externalities and lack of information about the assignment of goods in the household in generating “a veil of ignorance” over the intra-household distribution of welfare (Ravaillon 1996; Peluso and Trannoy 2007).
- 4.
The risk of poverty of children living with lone parents is higher in families where the lone parent is the mother. Living with a single mother indeed increases the risk to 37% (in line with the EU average) compared to only 20% for those living with a lone father (this latter share however needs to be interpreted with caution in all member states because of the small sample size).
- 5.
Brandolini and Saraceno (2007) show that the share of young lone mothers is low in Italy, noting that the figure might be underestimated, since in most cases young unmarried mothers tend to live with their parents.
- 6.
“Rapporto sulla povertà assoluta in Italia nel 2007”, ISTAT, Rome.
- 7.
In fact, the proportion of transfers going to pensions is larger than in any other EU country, which is only to a small extent explained by the larger number of people in retirement.
- 8.
The Bonus famiglia was directed to Italian low-income families in 2009. Its amount varied from EUR 200 to EUR 1,000 depending on the number of members (including children) and on family income. People living alone were eligible only if they received a pension (i.e. it is an income support policy for elderly people in this case).
- 9.
The Social Card is a cash transfer to support household expenditure (electric/gas bill or shopping) of poor families. Households with at least 1 child younger than 3 as well as individuals older than 65 with an equivalent annual income below EUR 6,000 are eligible. Given these criteria, it is mainly targeted to poor elderly more than low-income families with children. Moreover, the amount involved is very limited (EUR 40 per month). See Monti (2008) for more details.
- 10.
Page 17 of the “Programma di azioni per l’inclusione delle donne nel mercato del lavoro”.
- 11.
Father taking 3 months is entitled to one additional month of parental leave (it implies that he can leave for 4 months). The leave is an individual entitlement, but the total amount of the parental leave taken by two parents cannot exceed 10 months or 11 if the father takes at least 3 months.
- 12.
De Henau et al. (2008b) compare public childcare provision.
- 13.
The results obtained with the EU-SILC are higher than those reported by the Multiscope Survey of ISTAT 2007 (17.2%). This is mainly due to a difference in the definitions used. EU-SILC includes more childcare opportunities than Multiscope. In addition, given the different timing of the two surveys during the year, the number of the children 0–1 is different in the two surveys. Freguja and Cutillo (2009) showed that once two surveys are corrected for the different definitions, the discrepancy between the two data sources is not statistically significant.
- 14.
“Member states should remove disincentive to female labour force participation and strive, taking into account the demand for childcare facilities and in line with national patterns of provision, to provide childcare by 2010 to at least 90% of children between 3 years old and the mandatory school age and at least 33% of children under 3 years of age” Conclusioni della Presidenza, Barcellona, 15–16 marzo 2002.
- 15.
Probably because of a lack of effective support to large families.
- 16.
Income poverty, subjective poverty and a multidimensional index of lifestyle.
- 17.
Ministro dell Istruzione “La dispersione scolastica 2007” Roma 2008.
- 18.
A qualitative survey was conducted which covered a total of 16 territorial units (large cities, medium-to-small towns and provinces) deemed particularly significant in terms of the extent of child labour. In each of these units, minors were contacted in meeting places like coffee shops, amusement arcades, youth clubs and schools. A total of 600 interviews were conducted.
References
Baldini, M., & Pellegrino, S. (2008). Si fa presto a dire Bonus, lavoce.info. December 10, 2008
Billari, F., & Zuanna, D. (2008). La rivoluzione nella culla. Il declino che non c’e. Milano: EGEA.
Brandolini, A. (2005). Income inequality and poverty in Italy. Rome: Bank of Italy.
Brandolini, A., & e Saraceno, C. (2007). Poverta’ e benessere. Rome: Il Mulino.
Bratti, M., Del Bono, E., & Vuri, D. (2005). New Mothers’ labour force participation in Italy: The role of job characteristics. Labour, 19(1), 79–121.
Bratti, M., Checchi, D., & Filippin, A. (2007, February). Territorial differences in Italian students’ mathematical competencies: Evidence from Pisa 2003Iza Discussion Paper No. 2603.
Brilli, Y., Del Boca, D., & Pronzato, C. (2011). Exploring the roles of child care, Collegio Carlo Alberto Notebooks 214.
Campofiori, E., Figura, E., Papini, M., & Ricci, R. (2010). Un indicatore di status socio economico culturale degli allievi della quinta primaria in Italia, INVALSI Wp 27/2010.
Carneiro, P., & Heckman, J. J. (2003). Human Capital Policy. In J. J. Heckman, A. B. Krueger, & B. M. Friedman (Eds.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies?(pp. 77–239). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CGIL. (2005). Mai piu lavoro minorile. Rome: CGIL.
De Henau, J., Meulders, D., & O’Dorchai, S. (2008a). Parents’ care and career. Comparing parental leave policies. In D. Del Boca & C. Wetzels (Eds.), Social policies, labour markets and motherhood: A comparative analysis of European countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Henau, J., Meulders, D., & O’Dorchai, S. (2008b). Making time for working parents: Comparing public childcare provision. In D. Del Boca & C. Wetzels (Eds.), Social policies, labour markets and motherhood: A comparative analysis of European countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Del Boca, D. (2002). The effect of child care on participation and fertility. Journal of Population Economics, 15(3).
Del Boca, D., & Rosina, A. (2009). Famiglie Sole. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Del Boca, D., & Vuri, D. (2007). The mismatch between employment and child care. Journal of Population Economics, 20(4), 805–832.
Del Boca, D., Pasqua, S., & Pronzato, C. (2005). Employment and fertility in Italy, France and the UK. Labour, 4, 2005.
Del Boca, D., Locatelli, M., & Vuri, D. (2005). Child care choices of Italian households. Review of Economics of the Household, 3, 453–477.
Del Boca, D., Pasqua, S., & Pronzato, C. (2009). Motherhood and employment in institutional contexts: An European perspective. Oxford Economic Papers, 61(Suppl 1), i147–i171.
Devicienti, F., & Gualtieri, V. (2007, August). The dynamics and persistence of poverty in Italy Labor Collegio Carlo Alberto.
EC Commission. (2008). Child poverty and well being in the EU. Current status and way forward.
EC Commission. (2010). Child poverty and child well being in the European Union.
Freguja, C., & Cutillo, C. (2009). Child care report. Unpublished manuscript Rome 2009 available at request.
ISTAT. (2002). Bambini, lavori, e lavoretti: Verso un sistema informativo sul Lavoro Minorile. Rome: ISTAT.
Monti, P. (2008). L’età rende iniqua la Card www.lavoce.info. December 10, 2008.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2009). Doing better for children. Paris: OECD.
Paone, G., & Teselli, A. (2000). Lavoro e lavori minorili. Rome: Ediesse.
Peluso, E., & Trannoy, A. (2007). Does less inequality among households mean less inequality among individuals? Journal of Economic Theory, 133(1), 568–578.
Ravaillon, M. (1996). Issue in measuring and modelling poverty. The Economic Journal, 108, 1328–1343.
Zollino, P. (2008). Il difficile accesso ai servizi di istruzione per la prima infanzia in Italia: i fattori di offerta e di domanda.Banca d’Italia.
Acknowledgements
We thank Chiara Noè and Silvia Pasqua (CHILD-Collegio Carlo Alberto) for useful suggestions. The research was partially financed within the project “Parental and Public Investments and Child Outcomes” by the Collegio Carlo Alberto which is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boca, D.D., Mancini, A.L. (2013). Child Poverty and Child Well-Being in Italy in a Comparative Framework. In: Moreno Minguez, A. (eds) Family Well-Being. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 49. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4354-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4354-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4353-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4354-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)