Advertisement

Child Indicators Research

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 159–184 | Cite as

Social Participation and Safety Deprivation of Children in Italy: PIIGS Countries in Perspective

  • Gaetano Grilli
  • Antonella D’Agostino
  • Antoanneta PotsiEmail author
Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

Poverty is multidimensional and this is even more true for children. Investigating multidimensional poverty among children is a significant task not only because of the importance of the problem itself, but also because childhood deprivation can lead to a higher risk of impoverished adulthood. Within this wide context, beyond monetary poverty we concentrate our attention on two specific domains, namely social affiliation and safety whose lack is an important factor in determining childhood social exclusion. The basic hypothesis is that there is some underlying factor (affiliation & social participation capability and community & environment capability) which is better captured by reviewing a range of single items of children's current situation. Taking advantage of the 2009 EU-SILC module on material deprivation, we address issues concerning the derivation and measurement of the latent factor through the use of an item response modelling (IRM) framework. Going beyond the measurement of those domains, this study aims to compare them across five members of the European Union (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) that became historically known as PIIGS countries during the economic recession in 2008. The analysis also aims to compare the impact that household characteristics have on these two social dimensions across countries. Findings show interesting similarities between these five countries.

Keywords

Children’s deprivation Item response modeling (IRM) framework Affiliation & social participation capability Community & environment capability 

References

  1. Addabbo, T., & Di Tommaso, M. L. (2011). Children’s capabilities and family characteristics in Italy: Measuring imagination and play. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach, chapter 10. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Addabbo, T., Di Tommaso, M. L., & Maccagnan, A. (2014). Gender differences in Italian children’s capabilities. Feminist Economics, 20(2), 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayele, D. G., Zewotir, T., & Mwambi, H. (2014). Using Rasch modelling to re-evaluate rapid malaria diagnosis test analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 6681–6691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bárcena-Martín, E., Moro-Egido, A. I., & Pérez-Moreno, S. (2016). How income differs with children in Spain: a comparative European perspective. Child Indicators Research, 9, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Arieh, A. (2010). Developing indicators for child well-being in a changing context. In C. McAuley & W. Rose (Eds.), Child well-being. Understanding children’s lives, chapter 6. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Bertolini, S., Musumeci, R., Naldini, M., & Torrioni, P. M. (2014). The care of the baby: a family affair in Italy. Carlo Alberto Notebooks n. 349, Collegio Carlo Alberto, Moncalieri.Google Scholar
  7. Biggeri, M., & Mehrotra, S. (2011). Child poverty as capability deprivation: How to choose domains of child well-being and poverty. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach, chapter 3. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boarini, R., & d’Ercole, M. M. (2006). Measures of material deprivation in OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers NO. 37. doi: 10.1787/866767270205.
  9. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunello, G., Comi, S., & Lucifera, C. (1999). The returns to education in Italy: A review of the applied literature. In R. Asplund & P. T. Pereira (Eds.), Returns to human capital in Europe. A literature review, chapter 9. Helsinki: ETLA.Google Scholar
  11. Cappellari, L., & Jenkins, S. P. (2007). Summarizing multiple deprivation indicators. In S. P. Jenkins & J. Micklewright (Eds.), Inequality and poverty re-examined, chapter 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chiappero-Martinetti, E., & Roche, J. M. (2009). Operationalization of the capability approach, from theory to practice: A review of techniques and empirical applications. In E. Chiappero-Martinetti (Ed.), Debating global society: Reach & limits of the capability approach. Rome: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli (I Libri della Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli series).Google 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. Chzhen, Y., de Neubourg, C., Plavgo, I., & de Milliano, M. (2015). Child Poverty in the European Union: the Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis Approach (EU-MODA). Child Indicators Research, 9, 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72(3), 685–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Ayala, R. J. (2009). Theory and practice of item response theory. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1988). The impact of divorce on children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(3), 619–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deutsch, J., Guio, A. C., Pomati, M., & Silber, J. (2015). Material deprivation in Europe: which expenditure are curtailed first? Social Indicators Research, 120, 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Tommaso, M. L. (2007). Children capabilities: a structural equation model for India. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 436–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. European Central Bank. (2014). Monthly bulletin November 2014. The financial vulnerability of Euro area households – Evidence from the Eurosystem’s household finance and consumption survey. Frankfurt: European Central Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2002). European social statistics. Income, poverty and social exclusion: 2nd report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. (2009). Description of target variables: Cross-sectional and longitudinal. EU-SILC 065 (2009 operation). Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  25. European Commission. (2010). Environment policy review 2009. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  26. European Commission. (2014). Market reforms at work. European economy 5|2014. Bruxelles: Economic and Financial Affairs.Google Scholar
  27. European Environment Agency. (2013). Managing municipal solid waste—A review of achievements in 32 European countries. EEA Report No 2/2013. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  28. Eurostat. (2010). Europe in figures: Eurostat yearbook 2010. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  29. Eurostat. (2012). Europe in figures: Eurostat yearbook 2012. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  30. Eurostat. (2013). Europe in figures: Eurostat yearbook 2013. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  31. Eurostat. (2016). People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by income quintile and household type [ilc_peps03]. Retrieved from Eurostat Web site: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
  32. Ferrera, M. (2005). Welfare state reform in Southern Europe. Fighting poverty and social exclusion in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Routledge/EUI Studies in the Political Economy of Welfare. Florence: The European University Institute.Google Scholar
  33. Ferrera, M. (2010). The south European countries. In F. G. Castel, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, & C. Pierson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fiorillo, D., & Sabatini, F. (2011). Quality and quantity: the role of social interactions in individual health. Social Science & Medicine, 73(11), 1644–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Forastiere, F., Stafoggia, M., Tasco, C., Picciotto, S., Agabiti, N., Cesaroni, G., & Perucci, C. A. (2007). Socio-economic status, particulate air pollution, and daily mortality: differential exposure or differential susceptibility. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50(3), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2014). Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  37. Fusco, A., & Dickes, P. (2008). The Rasch model and multidimensional poverty measurement. In N. Kakwany & J. Silber (Eds.), Quantitative approach to multidimensional poverty measurement. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Gal, J. (2010). Is there an extended family of Mediterranean welfare states? Journal of European Social Policy, 20(4), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Guio, A. C., Gordon, D., & Marlier, E. (2012). Measuring material deprivation in the EU. Indicators for the whole population and child-specific indicators. Bruxelles: Eurostat.Google Scholar
  40. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Hardouin, J. B. (2005). Manual for the SAS Macro-programs LoevH and MSP and the Stata Modeules LoevH and MSP. http://anaqol.org/biblio/msp.pdf.
  42. Harris, B. (1988). Tethachoric correlation coefficient. In L. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences vol. 9. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Hasebrink, U., Görzig, A., Haddon, L., Kalmus, V., & Livingstone, S. (2011). Patterns of risk and safety online. In-depth analyses from the EU Kids Online survey of 9–16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.Google Scholar
  44. Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and outcome measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(9), 1128–1142.Google Scholar
  45. Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight. Young children and their internet use. LSE, London: EU Kids Online.Google Scholar
  46. Istat. (2013). Internet@Italia 2013. La popolazione italiana e l’uso di internet. Rome: Istat.Google Scholar
  47. Jordan, A., & Liefferink, D. (2004). Environmental policy in Europe: The Europeanization of national environmental policy. Oxfordshire: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kalmus, V., Siibak, A., & Blinka, L. (2014). Internet and child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being. Theories, methods and policies in global perspective, chapter 72. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Kamerman, S., Phipps, S., & Ben-Arieh, A. (2010). From child welfare to child well-being. An international perspective on knowledge in the service of policy making. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kornrich, S., & Eger, M. A. (2016). Family life in context: men and women’s perceptions of fairness and satisfaction across thirty countries. Social Politics, 23(1), 40–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Li, J., Mattes, E., Stanley, F., & McMurray, A. (2009). Social determinants of child health and well-being. Health Sociology Review, 18, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mahoney, J. L., Schweder, A. E., & Stattin, H. (2002). Structured after-school activities as a moderator of depressed mood for adolescents with detached relations to their parents. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Maldonado, L. C., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2015). Family policies and single parent poverty in 18 OECD countries, 1978–2008. Community, Work & Family, 18(4), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martini, M. C., & Vanin, C. (2013). A measure of poverty based on the Rasch model. In N. Torelli, F. Pesarin, & A. Bar-Hen (Eds.), Advances in theoretical and applied statistics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. McKendrick, J. (2009). Localities: A holistic frame of reference for appraising social justice in children’s lives. In J. Qvortrup, A. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies, chapter 16. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  58. Molenaar, I. W. (1995). Some background for item response theory and the Rasch model. In G. H. Fisher & I. W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models, recent development and applications, chapter 1. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Moore, K. A., Vandivere, S., Lippman, L., Mcphee, C., & Bloch, M. (2007). An index of the condition of children: the ideal and less-than-ideal u. s. example. Social Indicators Research, 84, 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1999). Parental conflict and marital disruption: do children benefit when high-conflict marriages are dissolved? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 626–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD. (2009). Doing better for children. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. OECD. (2010). Fertility rates – OECD employment outlook UN world statistics pocketbook, 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. OECD. (2012). Connected minds: Technology and today’s learners. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ortiz, I., Moreira Daniels, L., & Engilbertsdóttir, S. (2012). Child poverty and inequality: New perspectives. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Division of Policy and Practice.Google Scholar
  66. Peracchi, F. (2004). Educational wage premia and the distribution of earnings: An international perspectives. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education, chapter 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  67. Perez-Mayo, J. (2004). Consistent poverty dynamics in Spain. IRISS Working Paper Series 2004–09, IRISS at CEPS/INSTEAD, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  68. Perez-Mayo, J. (2005). Identifying deprivation profiles in Spain: a new approach. Applied Economics, 37(8), 943–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perista, P., & Baptista, I. (2014). Investing in children: breaking the disadvantage. A study of national policies. Country report - Portugal. Bruxelles: Department of Employment, Social Affair & Inclusion - European Commission.Google Scholar
  70. Petrillo, J., Cano, S. J., McLeod, L. D., & Coon, C. D. (2015). Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value in Health, 18, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Potsi, A., D’Agostino, A., Giusti, C., & Porciani, L. (2015). Childhood and capability deprivation in Italy: a multidimensional and fuzzy set approach. Quality & Quantity, Published Online on the 17 of October 2015. doi: 10.1007/s11135-015-0277-y.
  73. Potsi, A., D’Agostino, A., & Giusti, C. (2016). Children’s well-being in times of crisis in PIIGS countries: The capability approach as a multidimensional approach to deprivation. In H.-U. Otto, S. Pantazis, H. Ziegler, & A. Potsi (Eds.), Human development in times of crisis: The challenge of social justice. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  74. Reise, S. P., Ainsworth, A. T., & Haviland, M. G. (2005). Item response theory: fundamentals, applications, and promise in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rodríguez-Modroño, P., Gálvez-Muñoz, L., Matus-López, M., & Domínguez-Serrano, M. (2013). A gender analysis of children’s well-being and capabilities through time use data. DEMB Working Paper Series N.9, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.Google Scholar
  76. Sapir, A. (2006). Globalization and the reform of European social models. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(2), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saraceno, C. (2010). Childcare needs and childcare policies: a multidimensional issue. Current Sociology, 59(1), 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sijtsma, K., Emons, W. H. M., Bouwmeester, S., Nyklíček, I., & Roorda, L. D. (2008). Nonparametric IRT analysis of quality-of-life scales and its application to the World Organization Quality-of-Life scale (WHOQOL-Bref). Quality of Life Research, 17, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. StataCorp. (2015). Stata: Release 14. Statistical software. College Station: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  80. Subrahmanyam, K., & Šmahel, D. (2010). Digital youth. The role of media in development. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  81. Szeles, M. R., & Fusco, A. (2013). Item response theory and the measurement of deprivation: evidence from Luxembourg data. Quality & Quantity, 47, 1545–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (2009). Item response theory. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative methods in psychology, chapter 7. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  83. Trickett, P. K., Aber, J. L., Carlson, V., & Cicchetti, D. (1991). Relationship of socioeconomic status to the etiology and developmental sequelae of physical child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 27, 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. UNICEF. (2012). Measuring child poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 10, Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.Google Scholar
  85. Vincenzi Bortolotti, S. L., Tezza, R., de Andrade, D. F., Bornia, A. C., & de Sousa Júnior, A. F. (2013). Relevance and advantages of using item response theory. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2341–2360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Watson, D., Whelan, C. T., & Maître, B. (2006). Social class, deprivation and poverty: assessing the new european socio-economic classification (ESeC). EPUNet Conference, Barcelona, 8–9 May 2006.Google Scholar
  87. Whelan, C. T., & Maitre, B. (2008). “New” and “old” social risks: life cycle and social class perspectives on social exclusion in Ireland. The Economic and Social Review, 39(2), 131–156.Google Scholar
  88. Whelan, C.T., Layte, R., & Maître, B. (2004). Understanding the mismatch between income poverty and deprivation: a dynamic comparative analysis. European Sociological Review, 20(4), 287–302.Google Scholar
  89. Wolff, J., & De-Shalit, A. (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wüst, K., & Volkert, J. (2012). Childhood and capability deprivation in Germany: a quantitative analysis using German socio-economic panel data. Social Indicators Research, 106(3), 439–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zwinderman, A. H. (1991). A generalized Rasch model for manifest predictors. Psychometrika, 56, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaetano Grilli
    • 1
  • Antonella D’Agostino
    • 1
  • Antoanneta Potsi
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Management and Quantitative StudiesUniversity of Naples “Parthenope”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Research Center for Education and Capability Research – M7-100University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations