Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 141, Issue 3, pp 1081–1105 | Cite as

Why is it So Hard to Reach the EU’s Poverty Target?

  • Zsolt DarvasEmail author
Article

Abstract

The European Union’s Lisbon strategy goal of tackling poverty was a notable failure, while the Europe 2020 strategy’s poverty target is out of reach. Both strategies were based on variants of the ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator, which has an inappropriate and misleading name. We demonstrate theoretically and empirically by cross-section, time series and panel cointegration evidence that the ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator essentially measures income inequality, not poverty. Our calculations show that even after taking into account the positive impact that expected economic growth should have on material deprivation and low work intensity, the Gini coefficient of income inequality would have to fall by 3.5 points in each EU country if the Europe 2020 poverty target is to be reached, which is implausible. The ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator does not satisfy standard axioms set in the literature, while the huge differences between national poverty thresholds make the EU-wide poverty aggregate pointless. The political agreement between EU member states expressed the goal of reducing poverty, not inequality. There are good reasons to aim for lower income inequality, but a political agreement would be needed to set an inequality goal and corresponding policies.

Keywords

Europe 2020 Income inequality Lisbon strategy Poverty measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for valuable comments and suggestions of four anonymous reviewers, Mária Herczog, Ágota Scharle, several Bruegel colleagues and seminar participants at the Faculty of Social Sciences of Eötvös Loránd University, and to Inês Goncalves Raposo for excellent research assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alkire, S., Foster, J. E., Seth, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M., & Ballón, P. (2015). Multidimensional poverty measurement and analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkire, S., & Santos, E. M. (2013). A multidimensional approach: Poverty measurement & beyond. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 239–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0257-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A. B., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2002). Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, A. B., Marlier, E., & Nolan, B. (2004). Indicators and targets for social inclusion in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(1), 47–75.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9886.2004.00476.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhalla, S. S. (2002). Imagine there is no country, Institute for International Economics, Washington DC, https://cup.columbia.edu/book/a/9780881323481.
  6. Commission of the European Communities. (1992). Towards a Europe of solidarity. Intensifying the fight against social exclusion, fostering integration, COM 92(542) final, http://aei.pitt.edu/4819/1/4819.pdf.
  7. Coudouel, A., Hentschel, J. S. & Wodon, Q. T. (2002). Poverty measurement and analysis. In PRSP Sourcebook, World Bank, Washington DC. http://go.worldbank.org/0C60K5UK40.
  8. Council of the European Union. (2004). Joint report by the Commission and the Council on social inclusion, 7101/04, SOC 115, ECOFIN 80, EDUC 46, SAN 49. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdf.
  9. Darvas, Z. (2016). Some are more equal than others: new estimates of global and regional inequality, Working Paper 2016/08, Bruegel. http://bruegel.org/2016/11/some-are-more-equal-than-others-new-estimates-of-global-and-regional-inequality/.
  10. Darvas, Z. & Tschekassin, O. (2015). Poor and under pressure: the social impact of Europe’s fiscal consolidation, Policy Contribution 2015/04, Bruegel. http://bruegel.org/2015/03/poor-and-under-pressure-the-social-impact-of-europes-fiscal-consolidation/.
  11. Darvas, Z. & Wolff, G. B. (2016). An anatomy of inclusive growth in Europe, Blueprint Volume XXIV, Bruegel, http://bruegel.org/2016/10/an-anatomy-of-inclusive-growth-in-europe/.
  12. Deaton, A. (2016). Measuring and understanding behavior, welfare, and poverty. American Economic Review, 106(6), 1221–1243.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.106.6.1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(1), 35–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681%2895%2900003-B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engle, R. F. & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2), 251–276. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913236.
  15. European Anti-Poverty Network. (2016). Letter sent to President of the European Commission Mr Jean-Claude Juncker about the Annual Growth Survey 2017. http://www.eapn.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EAPN-2017-EAPN-letter-Juncker-AGS2017-630.pdf.
  16. European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission: Structural indicators, COM(2000) 594 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52000DC0594&from=EN.
  17. European Commission. (2010). Communication from the Commission: Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020.
  18. European Commission. (2014). Taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2014) 130 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:52014DC0130.
  19. European Confederation of Workers’ Cooperatives, Social Cooperatives and Social and Participative Enterprises. (2014). CECOP Position on the EU 2020 strategy mid-term review. http://www.cecop.coop/IMG/pdf/eu2020_midterm_rev_cecop_position_en.pdf.
  20. European Council. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2010, presidency conclusions. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm.
  21. European Council. (2010). European Council 17 June 2010 Conclusions, EUCO 13/10, CO EUR 9, CONCL 2, http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/council_conclusion_17_june_en.pdf.
  22. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica 52(3), 761–776. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1913475.
  23. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (2010). The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measures: 25 years later. Journal of Economic Inequality, 8(4), 491–524.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-010-9136-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kakwani, N. C. (1980). Income inequality and poverty. Methods of estimation and policy applications, published for the World Bank by Oxford University Press. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/456591468740159687/pdf/multi-page.pdf.
  25. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Lubrano, M. (2015). The econometrics of inequality and poverty. Lecture 4: Lorenz curves, the Gini coefficient and parametric distributions, http://www.vcharite.univ-mrs.fr/PP/lubrano/cours/Lecture-4.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2017.
  27. Marx, I., Nolan, B. & Olivera, J. (2015). The welfare state and antipoverty policy in rich countries. In Anthony B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.) Handbook of income distribution (Vol. 2), Elsevier, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444594297000248.
  28. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20, 597–625.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sen, A. K. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica 44(2), 219–231. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1912718.
  30. Stevenson, B. & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox. Brookings papers on economic activity, economic studies program, The Brookings Institution, (vol. 39, pp. 1–102), http://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/EasterlinParadox.pdf.
  31. Weziak-Bialowolska, D. (2016). Spatial variation in EU poverty with respect to health, education and living standards. Social Indicators Research, 125(2), 451–479.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0848-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BruegelBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Corvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations