Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 127, Issue 3, pp 1039–1056 | Cite as

How Poverty Indicators Confound Poverty Reduction Evaluations: The Targeting Performance of Income Transfers in Europe

  • Geranda Notten
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Poverty Income poverty Material deprivation Program evaluation Transfers Targeting performance European Union 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Supplementary material

11205_2015_996_MOESM1_ESM.docx (415 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 415 kb)

References

  1. 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
  2. Atkinson, A. B. (1998). Poverty in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Backman, O., & Ferrarini, T. (2010). Combating child poverty? A multilevel assessment of family policy institutions and child poverty in 21 old and new welfare states. Journal of Social Policy, 39(2), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr, N. A. (2012). The economics of the welfare state (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Battiston, D., Cruces, G., Lopez-Calva, L., Lugo, M., & Santos, M. (2013). Income and beyond: Multidimensional poverty in six Latin American countries. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berthoud, R., & Bryan, M. (2011). Income, deprivation and poverty: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Social Policy, 40(1), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bossert, W., Chakravarty, S. R., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2013). Multidimensional poverty and material deprivation with discrete data. Review of Income and Wealth, 59(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Breunig, R., & McKibbin, R. (2011). The effect of survey design on household reporting of financial difficulty. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 174(4), 991–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Cancian, M., & Meyer, D. R. (2004). Alternative measures of economic success among TANF participants: Avoiding poverty, hardship, and dependence on public assistance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casalone, G., & Sonedda, D. (2013). Evaluating the distributional effects of fiscal policies using quantile regressions. Review of Income and Wealth, 59(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chzhen, Y., & Bradshaw, J. (2012). Lone parents, poverty and policy in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(5), 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coady, D., Grosh, M., & Hoddinott, J. (2004). Targeting of transfers in developing countries: Review of lessons and experience. Washington D.C: IBRD; The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Figari, F., Matsaganis, M., & Sutherland, H. (2013). Are European social safety nets tight enough? Coverage and adequacy of minimum income schemes in 14 EU countries. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Goedeme, T. (2013). How much confidence can we have in EU-SILC? Complex sample designs and the standard error of the Europe 2020 poverty indicators. Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guio, A. (2009). What can be learned from deprivation indicators in Europe. Methodologies and working papers, 2009 edn. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Kammer, A., Niehues, J., & Peichl, A. (2012). Welfare regimes and welfare state outcomes in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(5), 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marlier, E., Atkinson, A. B., Cantillon, B., & Nolan, B. (2007). The EU and social inclusion: Facing the challenges. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. Marx, I., Vanhille, J., & Verbist, G. (2012). Combating in-work poverty in continental Europe: An investigation using the Belgian case. Journal of Social Policy, 41(1), 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKay, S. (2004). Poverty or preference: What do ‘consensual deprivation indicators’ really mean? Fiscal Studies, 25(2), 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Nelson, K. (2012). Counteracting material deprivation: The role of social assistance in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(2), 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (1996). Resources, deprivation and poverty. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nolan, B., & Whelan, C. T. (2010). Using non-monetary deprivation indicators to analyse poverty and social exclusion in rich countries: Lessons from Europe? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Notten, G., & Gassmann, F. (2008). Size matters: Targeting efficiency and poverty reduction effects of means-tested and universal child benefits in Russia. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3), 260–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paulus, A., Sutherland, H., & Tsakloglou, P. (2010). The distributional impact of in-kind public benefits in European countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(2), 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pressman, S., & Scott, R. (2009). Consumer debt and the measurement of poverty and inequality in the US. Review of Social Economy, 67(2), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Ringen, S. (1988). Direct and indirect measures of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 17(03), 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Salanauskaite, L., & Verbist, G. (2013). Is the neighbour’s grass greener? Comparing family support in Lithuania and four other new member states. Journal of European Social Policy, 23(3), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saunders, P., & Wong, M. (2011). Using deprivation to assess the adequacy of Australian social security payments. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 19(2), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. She, P., & Livermore, G. A. (2007). Material hardship, poverty, and disability among working-age adults. Social Science Quarterly, 88(4), 970–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stewart, K., & Huerta, M. (2009). A share of new growth for children? Policies for the very young in non-EU Europe and the CIS. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(2), 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. Yakut-Cakar, B., Erus, B., & Adaman, F. (2012). An inquiry on introducing a minimum income scheme in turkey: Alternating between cost efficiency and poverty reduction. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(3), 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Public and International AffairsUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations