Targeting, Universalism and Child Poverty in Hong Kong

Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Concerns about the long-term effects of child poverty on individuals and society have been increasing. Urgent action needs to be taken to combat child poverty, but what is the best strategy likely to be? The relative effectiveness of means-tested versus universal schemes for poverty alleviation strategies has long been debated. Key differences include screening costs, targeting errors, incentive gaps and issues of financial sustainability. This article explores and compares the extent to which the Hong Kong SAR Government’s current means-tested Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) scheme and alternative simulated means-tested and universal schemes could alleviate child poverty and income inequality. Core data for the study was taken from cross-sectional household survey data in Hong Kong. The study found that means-tested schemes with flat rates had higher adequacy in terms of the amount of benefits reaching poor households, than those with sliding scales. Targeting schemes had relatively higher exclusion errors compared to schemes with universal benefits. Evidence was found that that universal benefit schemes with flat rates had substantially greater impacts on all child poverty and income inequality indicators compared to the current CSSA and simulated means-tested schemes with flat rate benefits. The study is timely and presents a new and important opportunity to assess the extent to which a simulated policy change from means-tested to universal benefit could more effectively combat child poverty and reduce income inequality as well as achieve financial sustainability. The article concludes that more effective policy initiatives and approaches to child poverty and income inequality could be gained by varying dimensions, including: type of programmes (means-tested versus universal basis); benefit levels; and delivery methods (flat rate versus sliding scales). The projected expenditures of 42 cash transfer benefit schemes and four selected means-tested and universal programmes with the lowest and highest average costs can form the basis for future discussion on policy options to promote social and economic improvement for all groups.

Keywords

Means-tested Universalism Child poverty Inequality Effectiveness Efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Research Grant Council General Research Funding Scheme (841613). We thank Dr. Mark Hayllar for his thorough comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Aguila, E., Kapteyn, A., & Tassot, C. (2012). Targeting Cash Transfer Programs for an Older Population (SSRN scholarly paper no. Id 2089584). Rochester: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A. B. (1998). Poverty in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, N. (2004). Economics of the welfare state (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Behrendt, C. (2000). Do means-tested benefits alleviate poverty?: Evidence on Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom from the Luxembourg income study. Journal of European Social Policy, 10(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Besley, T. (1990). Means testing versus universal provision in poverty alleviation Programmes. Economica, 57(225), 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Besley, T., & Kanbur, R. (1990). The principles of targeting (no. WPS385) (p. 1). Washington, D.C: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  7. Bradshaw, J. (2015). Child poverty. Presented at the Peter Townsend memorial lecture. Hong Kong: Baptist University.Google Scholar
  8. Bradshaw, J. (2016). Child poverty: Europe moving backwards. Presented at the child and youth poverty: Concepts, contexts and consequences, Leeds Centre for Interdisciplinary Childhood and Youth Research Conference Devonshire Hall, Leeds.Google Scholar
  9. Census and Statistics Department. (2015a). The fertility trend in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Government of Hong Kong Special Administration Region.Google Scholar
  10. Census and Statistics Department. (2015b). Statistics on comprehensive social security assistance scheme, 2004–2014. Hong Kong: The Government of Hong Kong Special Administration Region.Google Scholar
  11. Census and Statistics Department. (2017). 2016 population by-census thematic report: Household income distribution in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Government of Hong Kong Special Administration Region.Google Scholar
  12. Chou, K. L. (2013). Familial effect on child poverty in Hong Kong immigrant families. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chou, K. L., Cheung, K. C. K., Lau, M. K. W., & Sin, T. C. H. (2014). Trends in child poverty in Hong Kong immigrant families. Social Indicators Research, 117(3), 811–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung, K. W. (2010). Negative public perception on welfare recipients and its implications for social security in Hong Kong. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 3(2), 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daguerre, A. (2007). Active labour market policies and welfare reform. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Whither opportunity?: Rising inequality, schools, and Children’s life chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Dutrey, A. P. (2007). Successful Targeting? Reporting Efficiency and Costs in Targeted Poverty Alleviation Programmes (no. Social policy and development Programme paper number 35). Geneva: UNRISD.Google Scholar
  18. Edmonds, E. V. (2005). Targeting child benefits in a transition economy. Economics of Transition, 13(1), 187–210.Google Scholar
  19. Evandrou, M., Falkingham, J., Johnson, P., & Rake, K. (2001). SAGE : Simulating social policy for an ageing society; a research agenda. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  20. Förster, M. F., & Tóth, I. G. (2001). Child poverty and family transfers in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Journal of European Social Policy, 11(4), 324–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodstadt, L. F. (2014). Poverty in the midst of affluence: How Hong Kong mismanaged its prosperity (Revised ed.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. (2016). Hong Kong poverty situation report 2015. Hong Kong: The Government of Hong Kong Special Administration Region.Google Scholar
  23. Government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region. (2017). Hong Kong poverty situation report 2016. Hong Kong: The Government of Hong Kong Special Administration Region.Google Scholar
  24. Griggs, J., & Walker, R. (2008). The costs of child poverty for individuals and society: A literature review. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Gugushvili, D., & Hirsch, D. (2014). Means-tested and universal approaches to poverty: international evidence and how the UK compares (no. CRSP working paper 640). Leicestershire: Centre for Research in social policy, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  26. Haveman, R. (2009). What does it mean to be poor in a rich society? Focus, 26(2), 81–86.Google Scholar
  27. Heady, C., Mitrakos, T., & Tsakloglou, P. (2001). The distributional impact of social transfers in the European Union: Evidence from the ECHP. Fiscal Studies, 22(4), 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirsch, D. (2013). Paying for children: The State’s changing role and income adequacy. Journal of Social Policy, 42(03), 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirsch, D., Sutton, L., & Beckhelling, J. (2012). The cost of a child in the twenty-first century. London: Child Poverty Action Group.Google Scholar
  30. Hong Kong Council of Social Service. (2012a). Social development index 2012. Hong Kong: HKCSS.Google Scholar
  31. Hong Kong Council of Social Service. (2012b). Report of research study on deprivation and social exclusion in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: HKCSS.Google Scholar
  32. Immervoll, H., Sutherland, H., & de Vos, K. (2000). Child poverty and child benefits in the European Union (no. EM1/00). EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.Google Scholar
  33. Inchley, J., Currie, D., Young, T., Samdal, O., Torsheim, T., Augustson, L., et al. (2016). Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2013/14 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  34. Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kwon, H. (2005). Transforming the developmental welfare state in East Asia. Development and Change, 36(3), 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lau, M., & Gordon, D. (Eds.). (2017). Poverty in a Rich Society: The case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Legislative Council. (2016). Discussion on item for financial committee: FCR (2016–17) 78. Hong Kong: Legislative Council.Google Scholar
  38. MacPherson, S. (1994). A measure of dignity: Report on the adequacy of public assistance rates in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Department of Public & Social Administration, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  39. Marx, I., Salanauskaite, L., & Verbist, G. (2013). The paradox of redistribution revisited: and that it may rest in peace? (no. IZA DP no. 7414). Bonn: The Institute for the Study of labor (IZA).Google Scholar
  40. Matsaganis, M., O’Donoghue, C., Levy, H., Coromaldi, M., Mercader-Prats, M., Rodrigues, C. F., et al. (2005). Child Poverty and Family Transfers in Southern Europe (SSRN scholarly paper no. Id 678924). Rochester: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  41. Millar, J., & Ridge, T. (2009). Relationships of care: Working lone mothers, their children and employment sustainability. Journal of Social Policy, 38(01), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mok, K. H., & Lau, K. W. M. (Eds.). (2014). Managing social change and social policy in greater China: Welfare regimes in transition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, K. (2004). Mechanisms of poverty alleviation: Anti-poverty effects of non-means-tested and means-tested benefits in five welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy, 14(4), 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. OECD. (2009). Doing Better for Children. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/doingbetterforchildren.htm. Accessed 16 Sept 2017.
  46. OECD. (2015). OECD Project on the Distribution of Household Incomes. https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/IDD-ToR.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2017.
  47. Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2007). Child wellbeing and income inequality in rich societies: Ecological cross sectional study. BMJ, 335(7629), 1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). Income inequality and health: A causal review. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 316–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rees, G., Goswami, H., Pople, L., Bradshaw, J., Keung, A., & Main, G. (2013). The good childhood report 2013. York: The Children’s Society and the University of York.Google Scholar
  50. Sainsbury, D., & Morissens, A. (2002). Poverty in Europe in the mid-1990s: The effectiveness of means-tested benefits. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(4), 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Save the Children. (2016). Child poverty: What drives it and what it means to children across the world. London: Save the Children.Google Scholar
  52. Sen, A. (1995). The political economy of targeting. In D van de Walle & K. Nead (Eds.), Public Spending and the Poor. Washington, D.C: World Bank.Google Scholar
  53. Social Welfare Department. (1998). Support for self-reliance: Report on review of the comprehensive social security assistance scheme. Hong Kong: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  54. Tang, K. L. (2010). Welfare-to-work reform in Hong Kong: Overview and prospects. In J. Midgley & K. L. Tang (Eds.), Social policy and poverty in East Asia: The role of social security (pp. 99–115). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. The World Bank. (2017). World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Accessed 13 Sept 2017.
  56. UNICEF Office of Research. (2007). Child poverty in perspective: an overview of child well-being in rich countries (Innocenti report card 7). Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. UNICEF Office of Research. (2016). Fairness for children. In A league table of inequality in child well-being in rich countries, Innocenti report card 13. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti.Google Scholar
  58. van de Walle, D. (1998). Targeting revisited. The World Bank Research Observer, 13(2), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing StudiesLingnan UniversityTuen MunChina
  2. 2.Department of Asian and Policy StudiesThe Education University of Hong KongTai PoChina

Personalised recommendations