How Poverty Indicators Confound Poverty Reduction Evaluations: The Targeting Performance of Income Transfers in Europe
This paper investigates whether two popular poverty indicators, namely income poverty and material deprivation, reach similar conclusions about the poverty reduction effects of income transfers. Such evaluations generally use income poverty. It is well-known, however, that poverty indicators regularly disagree about a person’s poverty status. What is less known is whether such disagreement also confounds estimates of a program’s poverty reduction effects. This paper compares the targeting performance of social assistance, housing and family transfers in countries with different welfare states namely Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It finds that a transfer’s targeting performance does not differ much when defining the transfer’s target group either as the poorest income quintile or the poorest material deprivation quintile. Yet, when combining the information from both indicators, transfers appear much more effective in reaching those groups that both poverty indicators identify as part of the target group. Transfers also appear much more efficient in excluding non-target populations. For the groups on which the poverty indicators disagree, more analysis is needed. Triangulation between poverty indicators thus improves the validity of program evaluations as it enables a better separation between (potential) poverty measurement issues and the measurement of a program’s (potential) effects.
KeywordsPoverty Income poverty Material deprivation Program evaluation Transfers Targeting performance European Union
This EU-SILC approved research project was undertaken under affiliation with the Maastricht Graduate School of Governance at Maastricht University. It also contributes to the Social Policy and Innovation (ImPRovE) project, which benefited from financial support by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2012–2016) under grant agreement no 290613. I would like to thank four anonymous reviewers, Tim Goedemé, John Hills, Denis de Crombrugghe, the participants to the UNU-Merit-MGsoG lunch seminar (University of Maastricht 1 May 2012) and the CSB-lunch seminar (University of Antwerp 9 May 2012) for their valuable feedback and assistants Ainslie Cruickshank, Kirsten Davis and Khadidiatou Sy for their contributions.
- Alkire, S. (2008). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The many dimensions of poverty (pp. 89–119). Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, A. B. (1998). Poverty in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Barr, N. A. (2012). The economics of the welfare state (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Brandolini, A., Magri, S., & Smeeding, T. M. (2010). Asset-based measurement of poverty. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 267–284.Google Scholar
- Bukodi, E., & Robert, P. (2007). Occupational mobility in Europe. Luxembourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for official publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
- DeCanq, K., Goedeme, T., Van den Bosch, K., & Vanhille, J. (2013). The evolution of poverty in the European Union: Concepts, measurement and data (ImPRovE Methodological paper No. 13/01). Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2009). Description of EU-SILC user database variables: Cross-section and longitudinal No. Version 2007.1 from 01-03-09. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
- Fusco, A., Guio, A., & Marlier, E. (2010). Characterising the income poor and the materially deprived in European countries. In B. Atkinson & E. Marlier (Eds.), Income and living conditions in Europe (pp. 133–153). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
- Fusco, A., Guio, A., & Marlier, E. (2011). Income poverty and material deprivation in European countries Working Paper, No 2011-04, CEPS/INSTEAD. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
- Guio, A. (2009). What can be learned from deprivation indicators in Europe. Methodologies and working papers, 2009 edn. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
- Kalil, A., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mothers’ economic conditions and sources of support in fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2), 39–61.Google Scholar
- Marlier, E., Atkinson, A. B., Cantillon, B., & Nolan, B. (2007). The EU and social inclusion: Facing the challenges. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
- Marx, I., Salanauskaite, L., & Verbist, G. (2013). The paradox of redistribution revisited: And that it may rest in peace? IZA Discussion Paper No. 7414. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2276306.
- Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (1996). Resources, deprivation and poverty. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Rendtel, U., Nordberg, L., Jäntti, M., Hanisch, J., & Basic, E. (2004). Report on quality of income data, the change from input harmonization to ex-post harmonization in the national samples of the European community household panel—Implications on data quality. Chintex Working Paper, 21.Google Scholar
- Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar