How much child poverty is there in Britain?
In the week in which the Government has issued a 10-year Children’s Plan running to 170 pages, it is salutary to appreciate that, although new research shows nearly 41% of the British public believing that there is “very little” child poverty in this country, official statistics reveal that around 3 million child are still in poverty in one of the richest countries on earth.
The Government defines child poverty as children living in a household on less than 60% of median income, adjusted for the composition of the household. The median is the halfway point between the nation’s highest and lowest incomes.
When Labour took power in 1997, it inherited the highest levels of child poverty in the European Union which had tripled since 1979. It has found tackling the issue in government harder than it expected.
The Government has a declared target of cutting child poverty from 3 million children in 1999 to 1.7 million in 2010. At present the number of families in child poverty has fallen only to 2.8 million. In fact, there was an increase of 200,000 children living in poverty in 2005-06, the last year for which there are figures.
You can find more information on the situation here and check out the End Child Poverty Campaign web site here.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:20 am
It is misleading to calculate poverty based on net disposable household income, as the government does. Were publicly provided goods, such as healthcare and schooling, taken into account, the number of children living in a household with less than 60% of median expenditure would be rather lower.
I’m not trying to deny that child poverty exists, but why overstate the problem?
December 14th, 2007 at 7:33 am
None, comparatively. (it then really depends on how we define it…)
December 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I guess that you’re comparing child poverty in Britain with that in China, Alex, and concluding that in absolute terms there is no child poverty in the UK.
But, as I explained in my posting, child poverty is measured relative to all households in this country. Although Britain has higher absolute living standards than China, some families in this country relative to all households in the country are poor and a civilised society cares about the distribution of wealth as well as the total amount of wealth.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Just to clarify, my point was not that child poverty in the UK does not exist. Nor do I dispute that in a rich country such as the UK child poverty should be measured in relative terms. (In the poorest countries, where significant numbers of people literally starve to death, some combination of relative and absolute poverty might be more useful.) And I accept that a civilised society should care about wealth distribution, the extent of such care being a political decision.
My point was that in calculating child poverty rates solely on the basis of net disposable household income, and ignoring the value of “free at the point of use” healthcare and schooling, the government is overstating the extent of the problem. This is because the value of such publicly provided services compared to net disposable household income is higher for poorer families.
For a numerical example, suppose that median net disposable household income is £1000 per month. Then a family with household income of £599 per month is poor, according to the measure used by the government.
Now suppose that the value of healthcare and schooling is £200 per month for each family. Then the total expenditure for each family is £1200 and £799, respectively. Now, £799 is greater than 66% of £1200; hence the family is not poor, according to this more inclusive measure. Clearly, fewer families will be classified as poor, by this definition.
There are complicating factors, such as that poorer families tend to use less healthcare than median or richer families (why is that?), but I still believe the above more inclusive measure is more appropriate.
Given the above, the government might choose to accept that fewer families are living in poverty than had been thought. Or it might choose to redefine the dividing line upward, say, to 66% or 70%. That’s a political decision. But please, let’s use the most appropriate and meaningful statistics we can. Otherwise, public cynicism about child poverty will be even greater.