Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Multidimensional Child Poverty in Korea: Developing Child-Specific Indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract

This paper aims to examine child poverty in Korea by constructing a multidimensional child poverty index. The Sustainable Development Goals (hereafter SDGs) recommend producing children-specific poverty statistics based on the concept of multidimensional poverty. Responding to such global norms and trends, in Korea, there is an increasing need to define and measure multidimensional poverty among children, focusing on the individual rather than the household as a whole. Drawing on the Poverty and Social Exclusion methodology, we established a Child Deprivation Index and combined it with household income to estimate multidimensional child poverty, using data from the 2013 Korean National Child Survey. The findings show that the number of children in poverty are in fact around 10% of the child population, as measured by material deprivation and income combined, which is two times higher than the official Korean child poverty rate. This indicates that conventional measurements, based only on household income, not only insufficiently identifies poor children, but also excludes more than half of the potential recipients from the social assistance system. In addition, our logit analysis offers strong evidence that deprived children are mostly living in working-poor and single-parent households. These findings lead to the conclusion that support for the working poor should be considered as important child policy agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, even though the Ministry of Health and Welfare investigates the poverty status of children through a comprehensive survey of children, the survey is not focused on poor children, but on the entire child population. The approach of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family is from the standpoint of women's policies, such as single-parent family surveys and multicultural family surveys.

  2. 2.

    This survey was conducted based on the legal obligations of the government to conduct nationally representative surveys for child policies every 5 years to understand the status of children’s welfare and development. The survey questionnaires include many questions on child physical and psychological development as well as child deprivations. It was undertaken by the Korean Institute of Health and Social Affairs and commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Welfare in Korea. The authors obtained permission from the national research institute for data analysis.

  3. 3.

    It is interesting that in Korea children aged 9–17 answered the survey themselves. It is different to EU-SILC which is similar in content but is answered by the parent or caregiver. Future research can examine if there are systematic differences in reporting deprivation between children and parents. We know that parents may under-report the extent of deprivation in order to follow social norms as parents (Gabos et al. 2011).

  4. 4.

    If there are more than two children in the household, the survey asked only for the eldest child. The question specifically asks for items and activities only for the designated child in each household. This does not allow analysis for intra household differences, which can be another interesting area for future research.

  5. 5.

    The first stage of the consensual approach asks whether respondents think certain items are necessary, and then asks affordability in the final answer sheet. However, the Korean survey did not ask whether respondents think the items are necessary or whether respondents ‘don’t have necessities because they don’t want them’. It only asked whether respondents own them or not. This can be a limitation to the analysis of material deprivation, because deprivation genuinely can be identified as lacking an item or activity because of economic constraints. However, Townsend constructed a valid and reliable deprivation index with just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ criteria in the beginning stage (Townsend 1979). We initially drew on Townsend’s original method due to limited data availability. In addition, other research on multidimensional child poverty by UNICEF (De Neubourg et al. 2014; Chzhen et al. 2016) also considers a child deprived if he or she has particular items for other reasons, even though responses were presented into three categories—have; do not have due to affordability; and do not have due to other reasons. The rationale is that children should not be excluded from the goods and services which are important for their well-being and development because of the preferences of their parents, while considering the fact that children do not make decisions or acquire resources by themselves.

  6. 6.

    According to the study (Nam 2012) that compared how different equivalence scales—the OECD original scale, OECD modified scale, and Square root scale—affect the relative poverty rate in Korea, it was suggested that the relative poverty rate (below 60% of median income) was the lowest when the OECD original scale was applied, followed by the OECD modified scale and root square scale which recorded the highest poverty rate. Based on the results, this study applied the OECD modified scale which represents the middle of three equivalence scales.

  7. 7.

    According to the government statistics, 45% of the population in South Korea is living in major cities where population is over 1 million. Another 45% live in small and medium sized city where population is over 100 thousand to 1 million. Rural areas accounts for 10% of the total population in South Korea.

References

  1. Abe, A., & Pantazis, C. (2014). Comparing public perceptions of the necessities of life across two societies: Japan and the United Kingdom. Social Policy and Society, 13, 69–88.

  2. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 476–487.

  3. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2010). Acute multidimensional poverty: A new index for developing countries. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report Office Background Paper No. 2010/11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1815243.

  4. Bramley, G., & Bailey, N. (2017). Poverty and social exclusion in the UK: Volume 2 - the dimensions of disadvantage. Bristol: The Policy Press.

  5. Chzhen, Y., de Neubourg, C., Plavgo, I., & de Milliano, M. (2016). Child poverty in the European Union: The multiple overlapping deprivation analysis approach (EU-MODA). Child Indicators Research, 9(2), 335–356.

  6. de Milliano, M., & Plavgo, I. (2017). Analysing multidimensional child poverty in sub-Saharan Africa: Findings using an international comparative approach. Child Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9487-2.

  7. de Neubourg, C., Chai, J., de Milliano, M., & Plavgo, I. (2012). Cross-country MODA study: Multiple overlapping deprivation analysis (MODA). Technical note. (Innocenti working papers no. 2012-05). Florence: Unicef Office of Research.

  8. Dermott, E., & Main, G. (2017). Poverty and social exclusion in the UK: Volume 1 - the nature and extent of the problem. Bristol: The Policy Press.

  9. Ferrone, L., & Chzhen, Y. (2017). How to reach the sustainable development goal 1.2? Simulating different strategies to reduce multidimensional child poverty in two middle-income countries. Child Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9485-4.

  10. Gabos, A., Ozdemir, E., & Ward, T. (2011). Material deprivation among children. Research note, European commission, social situation observatory–income distribution and living conditions.

  11. Gordon, D. (2006). The concept and measurement of poverty. In C. Pantazis, D. Gordon, & R. Levitas (Eds.), Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press.

  12. Gordon, D., & Nandy, S. (2012). Measuring child poverty and deprivation. In A. Minujin & S. Nandy (Eds.), Global child poverty and well-being: Measurement, concepts, policy and action. Bristol: The Policy Press.

  13. Gordon, D., & Pantazis, C. (1997). Breadline Britain in the 1990s. Aldershot: Ashgate.

  14. Gordon, D., Nandy, S., Pantazis, C., Pemberton, S., & Townsend, P. (2003). Child poverty in the developing world. Bristol: Policy Press.

  15. Guio, A.C., Fusco, A., & Marlier, E. (2009). A European Union approach to material deprivation using EU-SILC and Eurobarometer data. IRISS working paper 2009–19. Luxembourg: CEPS/INSTEAD.

  16. Guio, A. C., Gordon, D., & Marlier, E. (2012). Measuring material deprivation in the EU: Indicators for the whole population and child-specific indicators. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  17. Guio, A. C., Gordon, D., Marlier, E., Najera, H., & Pomati, M. (2017). Towards an EU measure of child deprivation. Child Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9491-6.

  18. Hjelm, L., Ferrone, L., Handa, S. and Chzhen, Y. (2016). Comparing approaches to the measurement of multidimensional child poverty. Florence: Innocenti working paper 2016–29 UNICEF Office of research.

  19. Holliday, I. (2000). Productivist welfare capitalism: Social policy in East Asia. Political Studies, 48(4), 706–723.

  20. Hur, S. (2016). Child poverty and policy options: With special focus on poor children without basic livelihood security. Health and Social Welfare Forum, 233, 19–30.

  21. Hur, S., & Lee (2012). Estimation of welfare blind zone of child poverty households and analysis of current status. Child Welfare Research Institute. SEOUL: Child Fund Korea.

  22. Jang, S., & Kwon, E. (2010). Problems and interventions for the family living in the care of grandparents. The Journal of Social Sciences, 29(1), 351–373.

  23. Jung, E. (2014). Findings of characteristic of poor children using Deprevation index. Health and welfare issue & focus, Vol 137. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.

  24. Jung, E. (2015). Child poverty and social policy challenges in Korea. Health and Social Welfare Forum, 220, 47–55.

  25. Kim, M. S. (2008). Current status in child poverty of Korea and policy suggestion. Health and Social Welfare Forum, 139, 5–22.

  26. Kim, E. (2015). Measuring multidimensional child poverty in Korea : New approach to measure material deprivation of children. Korea Social Policy Review, 22(3), 105–137.

  27. Kim, Y. (2016). The size and status of irregular workers in Korea: Survey results of economically active population survey (2016.3) of National Statistics Office, Labour Society Bulletin (Vol. 189, pp. 54-94).

  28. Kwon, H.-j. (1997). Beyond European welfare regimes: Comparative perspectives on east Asian welfare systems. Journal of Social Policy, 26(4), 467–484.

  29. Kwon, H.-j. (2017). From the developmental to the universal welfare state: Lost in transition? In J. Choi, H.-j. Kwon, & M. G. Koo (Eds.), The Korean government and public policies in a development nexus: Sustaining development and tackling policy changes (Vol. 2, pp. 83–97). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

  30. Kwon, H.-j., & Kim, E. (2010). Economic development and social protection in East Asia: Focusing social assistance. Paper presented at the ILO 2nd regulating for decent work conference, ILO, Geneva.

  31. Lau, M., Pantazis, C., Gordon, D., Lai, L. A., & Sutton, E. (2014). Poverty and social exclusion in Hong Kong: First results from the 2013 living standards survey. www.poverty.hk

  32. Lee, B. J. (2013). Developing an index of child well-being in Korea. Presented at the 4th ISCI conference: Child indicators in a globalized world: Implications for research, practice and policy, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, May 29-31, 2013.

  33. Lee, B. J., Kim, S., Ahan, J., Yoo, J., Choi, C., Lee, Y., et al. (2013). What does composite well-being index of children tell us about Korean Children's quality of life. Seoul: Save the Children.

  34. Lim, W. S., & Lee, J. (2014). Poverty statistical yearbook 2014. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs.

  35. Mack, J., & Lansley, S. (1985). Poor Britain. London: Allen & Unwin.

  36. Main, G., & Bradshaw, J. (2014). Child poverty and social exclusion: Final report of 2012 PSE study. Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK. www.poverty.ac.uk.

  37. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation. (2014). 2013 statistics of City planning. Sejong: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation.

  38. Minujin, A., & Nandy, S. (2012). Global child poverty and well-being: Measurement, concepts, policy and action. Bristol: The Policy Press.

  39. Nandy, S., & Pomati, M. (2015). Applying the consensual method of estimating poverty in a low income African setting. Social Indicators Research, 124(3), 693–726.

  40. Nunnally, J. C. (1981). Psychometric theory. New Delhi: Tate mcGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd..

  41. OECD. (2014). Education at a glance 2014: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  42. Pantazis, C., Gordon, D., & Levitas, R. (2006). Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press.

  43. Roelen, K., Gassmann, F., & de Neubourg, C. (2009). The importance of choice and definition for the measurement of child poverty—The case of Vietnam. Child Indicators Research, 2(3), 245–263.

  44. Statistical Research Institute. (2016). Monitoring system construction for implementing the sustainable development goals(SDGs). Daejeon: Korea National Statistics Office.

  45. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Penguin: Harmondsworth.

  46. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations.

  47. UNICEF Office of Research. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview. Innocenti report card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the valuable advice and inspiration of David Gordon, Christina Pantazis and Eldin Fahmy (University of Bristol). Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers providing useful comments to an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Correspondence to Eunju Kim.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Reliability test
Fig. 4
figure4figure4

Validity test

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, E., Nandy, S. Multidimensional Child Poverty in Korea: Developing Child-Specific Indicators for the Sustainable Development Goals. Child Ind Res 11, 1029–1050 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9517-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Child Poverty
  • Multidimensional Poverty
  • Material Deprivation
  • Korea