Comparative Child Poverty Measures
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
N AT I O N A L C E N T E R F O R P O L I C Y A N A LY S I S
Comparative Child Poverty Measures
Backgrounder No. 169 by Marcelo Ostria October 2013
The United States has one of the highest child poverty rates in the developed world,
according to some international rankings. However, yardsticks commonly used by the
federal government and international organizations to measure poverty in America
and other countries are inconsistent with each other, and could be inaccurate or
misleading.
For instance, developed countries commonly use relative measures of
poverty that categorize any household below a certain percentage of the
national average income as impoverished — regardless of their standard
of living. In contrast, deprivation measures define poverty using specific
quality of life indicators, but the set of indicators could be arbitrary, and
the data gathered by household surveys to determine the extent of poverty
could be unreliable. Thus, claims that child poverty is more pervasive in
the United States than in other developed countries are at least suspect.
The issue of poverty measurement is important because the United
States and other developed countries spend billions of dollars each year
on families in poverty, and developed countries send billions of dollars
in aid to developing countries to alleviate deprivation, especially among
children. Thus, two questions arise: How is child poverty measured
Dallas Headquarters:
in the United States and internationally? And, how accurate are these
12770 Coit Road, Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75251 measures?
972.386.6272 The following is a review of several child poverty measures that are
www.ncpa.org being implemented around the world, and some recommendations on how
Washington Office: the United States can improve the accuracy of its child poverty measures.
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Suite 900, South Building
How the OECD Measures Child Poverty. The Organization for
Washington, DC 20004 Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an association of
202.220.3082 economically developed countries, measures child poverty in member
countries and countries that are candidates for membership. Among the
OECD countries [see Figure I]:
■■ Denmark enjoys the lowest poverty rate among developed countries,
with 3.7 percent of children living in poverty.
■■ By contrast, the United States has a higher child poverty rate than 26
other developed countries.
■■ The OECD claims that more than one-fifth (21.6 percent) of children
in the United States live in poverty.
Comparative Child Poverty Measures
Does the OECD standard But these countries have widely ■■ Annual average income in
accurately reflect the quality of life differing incomes per capita. As a Israel is high at $31,296 per
of households with poverty level result, the standard of living at the person, whereas it is only
incomes? In OECD rankings, poverty level also differs widely. $7,935 in Romania.
only Israel, Chile, Mexico, Turkey For example, according to data ■■ Yet, the child poverty rate in
and Romania have higher child from the International Monetary Israel is higher than in Romania,
poverty rates than the United States. Fund for 2012:1 according to the OECD.
Figure I
Percentage of Children in Poverty in Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development Countries (2008)
Denmark 3.7
Finland 5.4
Norway 5.5
Iceland 5.7
Sweden 7
Slovenia 7.2
Hungary 7.2
Germany 8.3
France 9.3
Switzerland 9.6
Netherlands 9.7
Korea 10.3
Belgium 11.3
Ireland 11.4
Greece 12.1
United Kingdom 12.5
Luxembourg 13.4
Australia 14
Japan 14.2
Poland 14.5
Canada 15.1
Italy 15.3
Portugal 16.7
Lithuania 17
Spain 17.7
Latvia 18.8
Bulgaria 21.4
United States 21.6
Chile 22.4
Turkey 23.5
Romania 25.5
Mexico 25.8
Israel 26.6
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “OECD Family Database,” December 2012.
Available at http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/oecdfamilydatabase.htm. Access verified April 30, 2013.
2
Table I
U.S. Poverty Thresholds for 2011
(by household size and number of children under 18 years of age)
Related children under 18 years
Household Weighted
size of family average
None One Two Three Four Five
unit thresholds
Two people….. $14, 657
Household
under 65 years $15,139 $15,063 $15,504
Householder
65 years and $13,609 $13,596 $15,446
over
Three people $17,916 $17,595 $18,106 $18,123
Four people $23,021 $23,201 $23,581 $22,811 $22,891
Five people $27,251 $27,979 $28,386 $27,517 $26,844 $26,434
Six people $30,847 $32,181 $32,309 $31,643 $31,005 $30,056 $29,494
Source: United States Census Bureau, “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty,” undated. Available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html. Access verified April 30, 2013.
■■ Similarly, the U.S. child poverty disposable income (adjusted for ■■ By contrast, in 2010 the relative
rate is higher than in countries the number of individuals in the poverty-level income in the
with lower per capita incomes, household). Thus, according to United States was €10,890
such as Spain, Latvia and OECD statistics, in 2009:2 (US$14,528). (The official
Bulgaria. ■■ A typical household under the poverty threshold used by the
The reason child poverty rates relative poverty line in Turkey U.S. government is discussed
appear unrelated to the wealth of a had an annual income of €1,809 below.)
country is because the OECD relies (or US$2,413), whereas a Changes in a relative poverty
on a measure of relative poverty: household in Switzerland was measure depend on the direction
the share of all children in a country under the relative poverty line if and number of people crossing
living in households with less than its annual income was less than the poverty threshold.4 A relative
50 percent of the average (median) €17,704 (US$23,618).3 poverty measure might not change
3
Comparative Child Poverty Measures
when the condition of the poor “Orshanky Poverty Threshold,” $22,891 for a four-member
worsens, because it does not developed by economist Mollie household with three children
distinguish between those just Orshanky at the U.S. Department under 18 years of age.
below the poverty threshold and of Agriculture in the 1950s. The However, the official U.S.
the desperately destitute (such as threshold is based on the minimum poverty level ignores after-tax cash
individuals living on less than $1 a income a household needs for a benefits such as the refundable
day, discussed below).5 food budget designed for families portion of the child tax credit and
under economic stress. In the 1960s,
Measuring child poverty based the Earned Income Tax Credit,
after Orshanky went to work at the which is given to low-income
on household income does little to
Social Security Administration, her families even if they have no
reveal a child’s level of deprivation.
measure, and survey data about the
Moreover, relative measures do not income tax liability. It also ignores
percentage of their incomes families in-kind government benefits such
account for developed countries’
spent on food, were used as the
benefit programs for children, as free-or-reduced-price school
basis for the Federal Poverty Level lunches, child care assistance, the
which often include cash, housing,
(FPL). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
health care, and day care.6 These
programs raise a child’s living The income threshold varies by Program (SNAP), Medicaid and
standard by providing resources age and family size and is adjusted housing subsidies, among others.
and services that are not reflected annually for inflation.8 The current (An experimental measure, that
in household income. In the United U.S. standard has changed only does account for government
States, for example, a recent Cato slightly since it was implemented benefits, is discussed below.)
Institute analysis found that in 35 during President Lyndon Johnson’s Furthermore, with the exception
states the average value of welfare “war on poverty.” As of 2011 (the of the states of Hawaii and Alaska
benefits was higher than a full-time, latest data available), the Census (where transportation costs are
minimum-wage job.7 reported that 46.2 million people, extremely high), the federal poverty
or 15 percent of the total U.S. level does not account for regional
Internationally, a relative poverty
population, lived in households variations in the cost of living.10
measure could mean very different
below the poverty line.9 For instance, a family of four living
living standards, depending on
the country. For instance, a yearly If a household’s total income on $23,000 a year is below the
income of $35,000 in a country is lower than the threshold, every poverty line, but that income will
where essential goods and services, individual in it is automatically provide a higher standard of living
such as health care and child care, considered under the poverty line. in the Midwest (where the cost of
are free (or heavily subsidized) Thus, according to 2011 U.S. property, groceries, transportation,
implies a much different standard of Census Bureau data [see Table I]: and other goods and services is
living than in a country where these substantially lower than average
■■ The U.S. poverty threshold for
items must be paid for at market compared to a higher than average)
a household with two people
prices. cost area, such as New York City.
under 65 years of age is a yearly
How the United States income of $15,135, whereas Finally, accurately measuring
Measures Poverty. The United the threshold for a household child poverty using an absolute
States is one of the few OECD consisting of two people, 65 standard is difficult because
countries with an official poverty years of age and older, is a children usually do not earn
line. It is an absolute measure of yearly income of $13,609. income. Further, their well-
poverty-level income, rather than a ■■ The poverty line for a four-adult being depends on factors beyond
relative measure. The U.S. poverty household is $23,021, but only household income — including
threshold today is still based on the whether or not the children benefit
4
more or less than other individuals small, additional amounts for other “necessities,” rather than spending
from family or household resources. needs.11 Table II illustrates how the of all kinds.
The Supplemental U.S. Poverty measure estimates a household’s The supplemental measure
Measure. In addition to the official resources by adding cash income assumes that unrelated individuals
poverty line, the United States and any government in-kind in a household below the age of
has developed an experimental benefits families could use for food, 15 are poor if their household falls
Supplemental Poverty Measure. The shelter, clothing and utilities. Taxes, below the poverty line. It also
supplemental measure addresses work expenses and out-of-pocket assumes that unrelated individuals
some of the inaccuracies associated expenditures for medical care are living in the household equally
with the official standard, but it is subtracted from the estimated share resources with the person
not used to determine eligibility for resources. answering the survey. Though this
any government benefits. However, even the supplemental assumption may hold true in most
measure does not include the instances, the measure does not
The supplemental measure is
value of some government in- account for cases of disproportionate
based on a National Academy of
Sciences’ proposal to base the kind services, such as Medicaid. resource distribution or resources
Moreover, it still does not account specifically dedicated to the
poverty line on a budget for food,
for regional variation in the cost of protection of well-being of an
clothing, shelter, utilities and
living and only tracks spending on unrelated child in the household.
Table II
Supplemental Poverty Measure
(money income from all sources)
Plus Minus
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance (SNAP) Taxes (plus credits such as the Earned Income
Tax Credit [EITC])
National School Lunch Program Expenses Related to Work
Supplementary Nutrition Program for Women Child Care Expenses
Infants and Children (WIC)
Housing subsidies Medical Out-of-pocket Expenses (MOOP)
Low-income Home Energy Assistance Child Support Paid
(LIHEAP)
Source: Kathleen Short, “The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2011,” U.S. Census Bureau, Current
Population Reports P60-244. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/. Access verified April 30, 2013.
5Comparative Child Poverty Measures
Take foster children. In the instance, a 2009 U.S. Department they had been hungry at some
United States, nearly one-half of Energy Residential Energy point during the past year but
million children live in foster Consumption Survey found that did not eat because they could
care, and many of them are placed people below the poverty threshold not afford enough food.
with unrelated adults.12 The adult have access to various household ■■ Ninety-five percent had eaten
responsible for a foster child amenities that increase their less than they thought they
receives a check from the state standard of living, such as a clothes should at some point in the year
government specifically to defray washer, more than one television because of a lack of money for
expenses for that child. Further, and a microwave oven.15 As Figure food.
Medicaid provides services to foster II shows:
■■ Ninety-nine percent reported
children that adults in the same ■■ Nearly two-thirds (64.5 percent) having been worried that their
household might not receive. More of poor households in the food would run out at some
generally, in many low-income United States have an automatic point during the year before
households, children are eligible for clothes washer. they received money to buy
Medicaid, but their parents are not.
■■ More than three-fourths of more.
Another instance of poor households have air However, according to the same
disproportionate resource conditioning (75.7 percent). survey, though nearly 18 percent
distribution within a household
■■ Almost all (99.4 percent) have a of all poor households faced very
that is not accounted for in the
refrigerator. low food security, less than two-
supplemental measure is when one
Hunger in Poor U.S. and-a-half percent of children in
or more children receive child-
Households. Deprivation of poor households experienced very
support payments while other
necessities, such as food and low food security. [See Figure III.]
children in the same household do
shelter, is certainly an indicator This discrepancy demonstrates how
not. This can happen when a parent
of abject poverty. An estimated the absolute income threshold for
who is outside of the household
46.6 million Americans live in poverty measurement in the United
due to a previous divorce pays for
families receiving cash to buy food States cannot make important
services or resources directed only
distinctions with respect to the
to the benefit of their own children. through the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), run by living standards of households
Therefore, the children not affected
the U.S. Department of Agriculture below the poverty line. The USDA’s
by the divorce who live in the same
(USDA).16 The USDA conducts school lunch, breakfast and dinner
household do not benefit from those
surveys to determine the extent programs, for example, help reduce
resources or services. Thus, while
of hunger, or “food insecurity.” the number of poor children facing
the supplemental measure expands
“Very low food security” means hunger, and partially explain
upon the official poverty line to
that — at some point during the differences in food insecurity levels
address some of its limitations, it
year — a household had difficulty between children and adults in the
still does not fully represent overall
providing adequate food for all its same household.18 Hunger among
child poverty.
members due to a lack of money or children may also be lower because
Access to Amenities in Poor parents are willing to forgo meals
other resources.17 Over a 12-month
U.S. Households. Household themselves in order to provide food
period, the USDA says that out of
surveys find that many Americans for their children.
an estimated 6.8 million below-
classified as living below the
poverty households facing very low How the European Union
poverty line enjoy a number of
food security nationwide: Measures Poverty. Like the
amenities that indicate they are far
■■ Sixty-five percent reported that OECD, the European Union uses a
from abject deprivation.13,14 For
relative measure to assess poverty:
6Figure II
Percentage of Poor Households in the United States
With Various Amenities (2009)
Photocopier 4.7
More than one refrigerator 10.7
Laptop computer 22.5
Video game console 23
Separate freezer 23
Printer 27.2
Use a dishwasher 28.4
1 - 3 rechargeable portable tools/appliances 31.4
Toaster oven 32.5
Stereo equipment 34.3
Computer 34.3
Separate television cable box 36.1
Separate DVD player 42
Cordless telephone 47.3
Have internet access 48.2
Coffee maker 50.8
1-3 Rechargeable electronic devices 54.4
Clothes Washer 64.5
More than one television 69.2
Air Conditioning 75.7
Microwave 92.3
Stove 93.4
Space heating equipment 95.2
Television 97.6
Refrigerator 99.4
Source: Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “2009 RECS Survey Data,” Residential Energy Consumption
Survey (RECS), 2009. Available at http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#undefined. Access verified June 17,
2013.
households with net incomes of less studies to combat poverty.20 Shortly based on household surveys, though
than 60 percent of national median after, Europeans began to view deprivation statistics gleaned from
income.19 During the post-World poverty relative to conditions in surveys may be unreliable.22 In
War II period, Europeans began a particular country at a specific 2009, for the first time, the EU
to perceive poverty as a relative time.21 Statistics on Income and Living
concept that goes beyond notions of Conditions survey included a
League Table of Child section dedicated to children ages
physical deprivation and includes Deprivation. In a new effort to
standards of social participation. 1 to 16 years, sampling more
more accurately measure child than 125,000 households in 29
In 1975, the European Union deprivation, Europe has more countries.23 Utilizing this data, the
Council of Ministers implemented recently developed and adopted UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
a program of pilot schemes and “multiple-deprivation” indices constructed a league table on child
7Comparative Child Poverty Measures
deprivation and created a 14-item ■■ Indoor games (at least one per countries rank in terms of child
deprivation index.24 This index child, including educational poverty, based on the Child
considers a child deprived when baby toys, building blocks, Deprivation Index.
fewer than 13 items are met. Those board games, computer games
While the standard for
items include: and so forth).
deprivation is often lower in
■■ Three meals a day, and at least ■■ Money to participate in school developing countries, the higher
one meal a day with meat, trips and events. standards of the Child Deprivation
chicken or fish (or a vegetarian ■■ An Internet connection. Index make assumptions that
equivalent). reflect values in certain developed
■■ Some new clothes (that is, not
■■ Fresh fruits and vegetables all second-hand). countries, which may not be shared
every day. universally. For instance, the index
■■ Two pairs of properly fitting
■■ Books suitable for the child’s shoes (including at least one
considers a child deprived if he/
age and knowledge level (not she cannot bring friends home
pair of all-weather shoes). to play, or does not have outdoor
including schoolbooks).
■■ The opportunity, from time to leisure equipment. But this criterion
■■ Outdoor leisure equipment
time, to invite friends home to may not be relevant to views of
(bicycle, roller-skates and so
play and eat. deprivation in certain regions,
forth).
Figure IV shows how EU communities or households.
Figure III
Hunger in Poor U.S. Households (2011)*
17.9%
2.8%
Households below the poverty line Children below the poverty line
* Hunger is defined as “very low food security,” meaning that — at some point during the year
— a household had difficulty providing adequate food for all its members due to a lack of money or other
resources.
Source: United States Department of Agriculture, “Household Food Security in the United States in 2011,"
Economic Research Report No. 141, September 2012. Available at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf. Access verified June 18, 2013.
8Figure IV
Percentage of European Union Children Living in
Deprivation (2009)
Iceland 0.9
Sweden 1.3
Norway 1.9
Finland 2.5
Denmark 2.6
Netherlands 2.7
Luxembourg 4.4
Ireland 4.9
United Kingdom 5.5
Cyprus 7
Spain 8.1
Slovenia 8.3
Austria 8.7
Czech Republic 8.8
Germany 8.9
Malta 9.1
Belgium 10.1
France 12.4
Estonia 13.3
Italy 17.2
Greece 19.2
Slovakia 19.8
Lithuania 20.9
Poland 27.4
Latvia 31.8
Hungary 31.9
Bulgaria 56.6
Romania 72.6
Source: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, “Measuring Child Poverty,” May 2012. Available
at http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf. Access verified April 30, 2013.
9Comparative Child Poverty Measures
If the purpose of a deprivation and so forth — should be included who complete the survey are not
index is to consider the overall as well. Furthermore, the EU always objective, and the arbitrary
well-being of a child, other crucial Statistics on Income and Living definition of what is “essential” for
measures — such as domestic Conditions survey may not provide a child may vary from country to
abuse/security, quality of education, better direct accounts of real living country.
housing conditions and amenities, standards. In some cases, parents
Table III
Multidimensional Poverty Index Indicators
Dimension Indicator Deprived If…
1. Years of Schooling 1. No household member has
Education 2. Child School Attendance completed five years of schooling
2. Any school-aged child (8+ years)
is not in school (thru 8th grade)
3. Child Mortality 3. Any child has died in the family
Health 4. Nutrition 4. Any adult or child for whom there
is nutritional information is
malnourished
5. Electricity 5. The household has no electricity
6. Improved Sanitation 6. The household’s sanitation
Living Standards 7. Safe Drinking Water facility is not improved
8. Flooring (according to Millennium
9. Cooking Fuel Development Goals guidelines),
10. Asset Ownership or it is improved but shared with
other households
7. The household does not have
access to safe drinking water,
which is more than a 30-minute
roundtrip walk from home
8. The household has a dirt, sand or
dung floor
9. The household cooks with dung,
wood or charcoal
10. The household does not own
more than one radio, TV,
telephone, bike, motorcycle or
refrigerator and does not own a
car or truck
Source: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, “Multidimensional Poverty Index 2011,” December
2011. Available at http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-MPI-Brief-2011.pdf. Access verified April
30, 2013.
10Living on Less than a Dollar poverty in the developing world. it reflects the intensity of their
a Day in Developing Countries. deprivation. [See the side bar.] For
The Multidimensional Poverty
A popular poverty measure for instance:
Index in Developing Countries. As
developing countries follows an ■■ In Latin America, Bolivia
calls for more precise measures of
absolute poverty line, setting the (one of the poorest countries
poverty in developing countries have
income threshold at $1 a day. in Latin America) has an MPI
increased in recent years, the Oxford
Since it was implemented in 1990, score of 0.089 — which means
Poverty and Human Development
the World Bank has updated the 20.5 percent of its population
Initiative (OPHI) created the
international average poverty lives in poverty and, of that
newest standard for measuring
line to $1.25 a day.25 In 2008, the percentage, on average, the poor
poverty in developing countries for
World Bank estimated that 1.29 are deprived in 43.7 percent of
the United Nations Development
billion people in the world lived in
Program (UNDP). Called the the indicators, indicating the
absolute poverty. Their definition
Multidimensional Poverty Index intensity of their poverty.28
characterized absolute poverty as
(MPI), it uses indicators beyond ■■ One of Africa’s poorest
severe deprivation of basic human
needs, including food, adequate
income to measure poverty. In its countries, Togo, has an MPI
annual Human Development Report, score of 0.284, with 54.3 percent
shelter, safe drinking water, and
the UNDP applies 10 essential of its population living in
access to education and health
indicators within three dimensions poverty, and an average intensity
services. This poverty measure
to measure poverty in 10 developing across the poor of 52.4 percent.29
presumes that anyone living under
countries.26
$1.25 a day will be deprived ■■ Cambodia, one of the poorest
of defined, basic human needs. As Table III illustrates, the countries in Southeast Asia, has
However, the income required MPI focuses on education, health an MPI score of 0.212. Some
for basic human needs is not and other components of living 45.9 percent of its population is
uniform across locations and time. standards (such as water, sanitation poor, with an average poverty
Furthermore, the measure does not and electricity) and deems a person intensity of 46.1 percent.30
consider other resources that could poor if they are deprived in at least
Challenges for Accurate
be available to a poor family, such as 30 percent of the weighted MPI
Measurement of Poverty.
benefit programs. Thus, an absolute indicators.27 Thus, the MPI is not
International child poverty rankings
measure does not provide a truly solely a reflection of the percentage seek to expose which countries
representative account of abject of poor people in the country; are the most and least effective
Calculating Multidimensional Poverty
The MPI is calculated by multiplying the proportion of that country’s population in poverty (H) by the
average intensity of poverty (A). Thus, MPI = H x A. For example, in the MPI index, Sierra Leone has a
calculated 77 percent of MPI poor people and an average intensity across the poor of 57 percent:31
MPI = 77.0 (H) x 57.0 (A)
MPI = 0.49
Therefore, MPI standards indicate that 77 percent of Sierra Leone’s population is poor, and deprived in at
least 30 percent of the weighted indictors. Additionally, the MPI poor population suffers from deprivation in 57
percent of indicators, on average.
11Comparative Child Poverty Measures
in addressing child deprivation. country’s agreed-upon standards. a more accurate account for child
However, if countries do not agree Undoubtedly, the lack of uniform poverty than current international
upon a standard measure, drawing data and differing standards would rankings represent.
comparisons means little when make it cumbersome to construct a
Conclusion. The lack of accuracy
pressuring countries to address the fair ranking system.
with relative measures of poverty,
issue. And because many countries Recommendations for Child and reliability with surveyed
are not addressing the limitations Poverty Measurement in the deprivation statistics, challenges
of current child poverty measures, United States. The United States the belief that the United States
social policies are likely being could develop a child poverty has more pervasive child poverty
implemented based on misleading measure based on several indicators than other developed countries.
data. currently not considered in the Developed countries must improve
In terms of material deprivation, official poverty line. For instance: the accuracy of child deprivation
it appears that children would ■■ A child poverty measure should measures in order to effectively
benefit if each country adopted account for a household’s total target policies to benefit children,
high standards. But measuring income, including government especially when attempting to bring
child deprivation requires a benefit payments and the value about social change.
multidimensional measure that of in-kind services received. Marcelo Ostria is a research
relates a child’s well-being to associate with the National Center
■■ The measure should also account
a country’s living standards. A for Policy Analysis.
for any disproportionate benefit
socially-perceived necessities
or income that children in a
model, which takes into account
household receive, such as some
societies’ own perception of what
children receiving child support
is necessary for a child’s overall
while other children in the same
well-being, may differ from
household do not.
country to country, and encompass
specific factors like direct material ■■ A child poverty measure should
deprivation (such as sufficient food include adjustments for regional
to avoid malnutrition) as well as differences in the cost of living.
less specific considerations, such as ■■ Finally, it would be worthwhile
having adequate recreational time. for household surveys to include
Differing social judgments in each questions about resources
country regarding child deprivation available to children that
are a further challenge to a universal enhance their quality of life,
standard of child poverty and the use such as children’s extracurricular
of comparative measures. and recreation activities, along
For these reasons, current with an approximate value of
international child poverty rankings each.
may not adequately compare the These issues are important
well-being of children in different because it is necessary to include
countries. A transparent comparative any factors that significantly
child poverty measure would influence a child’s standard of
have to measure poverty based on living when measuring poverty.
a multidimensional poverty and Moreover, implementing these
deprivation index and adjust for each recommendations would provide
12Endnotes
1.
International Monetary Fund, “Report for Selected Countries and Subjects,” April 2013.
2.
Conversion from Euro to U.S. dollar based on the official European Central Bank’s exchange rate of €1 = $1.3340
as of August16, 2013. Daily exchange rate available at http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-
figure-usd.en.html.
3.
A typical household is what an equivalent adult in a household in the middle of the income distribution earns in a
year. The term “equivalent” in this sense refers to the equivalence technique in economics in which members of a
household receive different weightings. For more information on OECD equivalence scales see http://www.oecd.
org/eco/growth/OECD-Note-EquivalenceScales.pdf.
European Commission, “European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions data and Eurostat,” 2009.
4.
Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc.
Heikki Hiilamo, Seppo Sallila and Reijo Sund, “Rethinking relative measures of poverty,” Luxemburg Income
5.
Study, Working Paper No. 368, February 2004. Available at http://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/368.pdf.
Jonathan Bradshaw and Naomi Finch, “A Comparison of Child Benefit Packages in 22 Countries,” British
6.
Department of Work and Pensions, Research Report No. 174, 2002. Available at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/
asd5/174summ.pdf.
Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, “The Work versus Welfare Trade-off: 2013,” Cato Institute. Available at
7.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade.
8.
United States Census Bureau, “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty,” undated. Available at http://www.
census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html.
9.
Ibid.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, “2013 Poverty Guidelines,” U.S. Department of
10.
Health and Human Services. Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm.
Kathleen Short, “The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2011,” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
11.
Reports P60-244. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/. Access verified April 30, 2013.
Children’s Bureau, “Foster Care Statistics 2010,” May 2012. Available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/
12.
factsheets/foster.pdf. Access verified July 23, 2013.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “2009 RECS Survey Data,” Residential Energy Consumption Survey
13.
(RECS), 2009. Available at http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#undefined. Access verified June
17, 2013.
United States Department of Agriculture, “Household Food Security in the United States in 2011,” Economic
14.
Research Report No. 141, September 2012. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf. Access
verified June 18, 2013.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “2009 RECS Survey Data,” Residential Energy Consumption Survey
15.
(RECS), 2009. Available at http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#undefined. Access verified June
17, 2013.
United States Department of Agriculture, “Supplemental Assistance Program: Average Monthly Participation
16.
(Persons),” July 2013. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm. Access verified July 19, 2013.
13Comparative Child Poverty Measures
United States Department of Agriculture, “Household Food Security in the United States in 2011,” Economic
17.
Research Report No. 141, September 2012. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf. Access
verified June 18, 2013.
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. “Program Data: Child Nutrition Data,”
18.
Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/cnpmain.htm June 28, 2013. Access verified July 7, 2013.
19.
The European Commission, “The Measurement of Extreme Poverty in the European Union,” January 2011.
20.
Bjorn Hvinden and Rune Halvorsen, “Political Implications of the Current Debate on Poverty, Deprivation
and Social Exclusion in Europe,” Combating Poverty in Europe (COPE), October 2012. Available at http://cope-
research.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Paper_Political_implications.pdf. Access verified July 3, 2013,
21.
The European Commission, “The Measurement of Extreme Poverty in the European Union,” January 2011.
European Commission, “European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions data and Eurostat,” 2009.
22.
Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/eu_silc. Access verified April 30, 2013.
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, “Measuring Child Poverty,” May 2012. Available at http://www.unicef-irc.
23.
org/publications/pdf/rc10_eng.pdf. Access verified April 30, 2013.
24.
Ibid.
Martin Ravallion, Shaohua Chen and Prem Sangraula, “Dollar a Day Revisited,” The World Bank Economic
25.
Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, June 2009, pages 163-184.
United Nations Development Programme, “Multidimensional Poverty Index,” undated. Available at http://hdr.
26.
undp.org/en/statistics/mpi/. Access verified July 5, 2013.
27.
Ibid.
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), “Country Briefing: Bolivia: Multidimensional
28.
Poverty Index (MPI) At a Glance,” 2013. Available at http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Bolivia-2013.
pdf?7ff332. Access verified August 1, 2013.
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), “Country Briefing: Togo: Multidimensional Poverty
29.
Index (MPI) At a Glance,” 2013. Available at http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Togo-2013.pdf?7ff332 .
Access verified August 2, 2013.
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), “Country Briefing: Cambodia: Multidimensional
30.
Poverty Index (MPI) At a Glance,” 2013. Available at http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cambodia-2013.
pdf?7ff332. Access verified August 2, 2013.
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), “Country Briefing: Sierra Leone: Multidimensional
31.
Poverty Index (MPI) At a Glance,” 2013. Available at http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/
SierraLeone-2013.pdf?7ff332. Access verified June 18, 2013.
14About the NCPA
A major NCPA study, “Wealth, Inheritance
The NCPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in and the Estate Tax,” completely
1983. Its aim is to examine public policies in areas that have a undermines the claim by proponents of the
significant impact on the lives of all Americans — retirement, health estate tax that it prevents the concentration
of wealth in the hands of financial
care, education, taxes, the economy, the environment — and to dynasties. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
propose innovative, market-driven solutions. The NCPA seeks to (R-TN) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
unleash the power of ideas for positive change by identifying, distributed a letter to their colleagues about
encouraging and aggressively marketing the best scholarly research. the study. The NCPA recently won the
Templeton Freedom Award for its study
and report on Free Market Solutions. The
Health Care Policy. report outlines an approach called
The NCPA is probably best known for NCPA President Enterprise Programs that creates job
developing the concept of Health Savings John C. Goodman is called opportunities for those who face the
Accounts (HSAs), previously known as the “Father of HSAs” by greatest challenges to employment.
The Wall Street Journal, WebMD
Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).
and the National Journal. Retirement Reform.
NCPA President John C. Goodman is With a grant from the NCPA, economists
widely acknowledged (Wall Street at Texas A&M University developed a
Journal, WebMD and the National model to evaluate the future of Social
Journal) as the “Father of HSAs.” NCPA Taxes & Economic Growth.
Security and Medicare, working under the
research, public education and briefings The NCPA helped shape the pro-growth direction of Thomas R. Saving, who for
for members of Congress and the White approach to tax policy during the 1990s. years was one of two private-sector
House staff helped lead Congress to A package of tax cuts designed by the trustees of Social Security and Medicare.
approve a pilot MSA program for small NCPA and the U.S. Chamber of Com- The NCPA study, “Ten Steps to Baby
businesses and the self-employed in 1996 merce in 1991 became the core of the Boomer Retirement,” shows that as 77
and to vote in 1997 to allow Medicare Contract with America in 1994. million baby boomers begin to retire, the
beneficiaries to have MSAs. In 2003, as Three of the five proposals (capital gains nation’s institutions are totally unprepared.
part of Medicare reform, Congress and tax cut, Roth IRA and eliminating the Promises made under Social Security,
the President made HSAs available to all Social Security earnings penalty) Medicare and Medicaid are inadequately
nonseniors, potentially revolutionizing became law. A fourth proposal — funded. State and local institutions are not
the entire health care industry. HSAs now rolling back the tax on Social Security doing better — millions of government
are potentially available to 250 million benefits — passed the House of Repre- workers are discovering that their pensions
nonelderly Americans. sentatives in summer 2002. The NCPA’s are under-funded and local governments
The NCPA outlined the concept of proposal for an across-the-board tax cut are retrenching on post-retirement health
using federal tax credits to encourage became the centerpiece of President care promises.
private health insurance and helped Bush’s tax cut proposals.
formulate bipartisan proposals in both the NCPA research demonstrates the Pension Reform.
Senate and the House. The NCPA and benefits of shifting the tax burden on Pension reforms signed into law include
BlueCross BlueShield of Texas devel- work and productive investment to ideas to improve 401(k)s developed and
oped a plan to use money that federal, consumption. An NCPA study by Boston proposed by the NCPA and the Brookings
state and local governments now spend University economist Laurence Kotlikoff Institution. Among the NCPA/Brookings
on indigent health care to help the poor analyzed three versions of a consumption 401(k) reforms are automatic enrollment
purchase health insurance. The SPN tax: a flat tax, a value-added tax and a of employees into companies’ 401(k)
Medicaid Exchange, an initiative of the national sales tax. Based on this work, Dr. plans, automatic contribution rate
NCPA for the State Policy Network, is Goodman wrote a full-page editorial for increases so that workers’ contributions
identifying and sharing the best ideas for Forbes (“A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax”) grow with their wages, and better default
health care reform with researchers and advocating a version of the flat tax that is investment options for workers who do
policymakers in every state. both progressive and fair. not make an investment choice.
15About the NCPA
The NCPA’s online Social Security
calculator allows visitors to discover their
expected taxes and benefits and how What Others Say About the NCPA
much they would have accumulated had
their taxes been invested privately.
“The NCPA generates more analysis per
Environment & Energy. dollar than any think tank in the country.
It does an amazingly good job of going out
The NCPA’s E-Team is one of the largest
and finding the right things and talking about
collections of energy and environmental
policy experts and scientists who believe them in intelligent ways.”
that sound science, economic prosperity Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the
and protecting the environment are U.S. House of Representatives
compatible. The team seeks to correct
misinformation and promote sensible
solutions to energy and environment
problems. A pathbreaking 2001 NCPA “We know what works. It’s what the NCPA
study showed that the costs of the Kyoto talks about: limited government, economic
agreement to reduce carbon emissions in freedom; things like Health Savings Accounts.
developed countries would far exceed These things work, allowing people choices.
any benefits. We’ve seen how this created America.”
John Stossel,
Educating the next generation. host of “Stossel,” Fox Business Network
The NCPA’s Debate Central is the most
comprehensive online site for free
information for 400,000 U.S. high school
debaters. In 2006, the site drew more than “I don’t know of any organization in America
one million hits per month. Debate that produces better ideas with less money
Central received the prestigious Temple-
than the NCPA.”
ton Freedom Prize for Student Outreach.
Phil Gramm,
Promoting Ideas. former U.S. Senator
NCPA studies, ideas and experts are
quoted frequently in news stories
nationwide. Columns written by NCPA
scholars appear regularly in national
publications such as the Wall Street “Thank you . . . for advocating such radical
Journal, the Washington Times, USA causes as balanced budgets, limited government
Today and many other major-market and tax reform, and to be able to try and bring
daily newspapers, as well as on radio power back to the people.”
talk shows, on television public affairs
programs, and in public policy newslet- Tommy Thompson,
ters. According to media figures from former Secretary of Health and Human Services
BurrellesLuce, more than 900,000 people
daily read or hear about NCPA ideas and
activities somewhere in the United States.
The NCPA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy organization. We depend entirely on the financial support of individuals, corporations and foundations that believe in private
sector solutions to public policy problems. You can contribute to our effort by mailing your donation to our Dallas headquarters at 12770 Coit Road, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75251,
or visiting our Web site at www.ncpa.org and clicking “Support Us.”You can also read
