Europe’s social polarisation and the generational struggle

This post, written by Bruegel's Olga Tschekassin, discusses the latest results on Europe's poverty rates, unemployment rates and income inequalities. The post is a part of the Wikiprogress Series on Jobs and Earnings.

According to the latest Eurobarometer survey on the social impact of the crisis, 80% of respondents believe that poverty has increased in their country over the past 12 months. Over 30% of respondents in Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary reported that their household ran out of money to pay for ordinary bills, food and other daily consumer items at some point during the previous 12 months. These alarming numbers are reflecting the perception of European citizens. But what do indicators measuring different dimensions of poverty and inequality actually show?

The best publically available indicator to assess poverty is the ”Severe Material Deprivation Rate” (SMDR). It is an absolute measure of poverty and represents the proportion of people who cannot afford at least four out of nine basic needs, like utilities, regular hot meals or heating to keep the home adequately warm. As you can see in the interactive map below, there is a strong dispersion across Europe. While Bulgaria has the highest rate (44.1%), in Luxembourg only 1.3% of people are severely affected by a lack of resources. The average rate in EU27 countries increased from 9% percent in 2007 to 9.9% in 2012. Even though this increase does not seem to be as dramatic as the survey implies, it is worth highlighting that a share of almost 10% is unacceptable and against the objective of promoting the well-being of EU citizens.

(To view an interactive version of this map, see the original post here.)
 

There were opposite developments for young and old people in the EU: the SMDR stood at 11.7% for those under 18 at the end of 2012, while the rate for the elderly (over 65) reached 7.5%. The evolution of these rates since 2007 is divergent: Between 2007 and 2012, in 20 out of 28 EU countries the elderly SMDR declined on average by 4.5 percentage points (pp). At the same time, however, in 16 out of 28 countries the children SMDR has increased on average by 4.4 pp. Therefore, a generational divide is emerging: while the fall in severely materially deprived elderly people is a welcomed development, the adverse development for children is worrying.

Looking at the unemployment rate, we observe an increase in all EU countries in the period 2007–2012 with the exception of Germany, while the rate remained practically unchanged in Austria, Malta, Finland and Poland. The EU28 average unemployment rate stood at 7.2 % of active population in 2007. By the third quarter of 2013, this rate had increased to 10.9%. The countries with the lowest unemployment rates are Austria, Germany and Luxembourg, as opposed to Greece, Spain, Croatia, Cyprus and Portugal, where the rate is very high. Overall we note that there was an increase in the South-North divide in terms of unemployment, which has reached unacceptably high levels in several south European countries and leads to more polarisation across Europe.

Directly related to this indicator is the share of people living in jobless households, which has increased significantly throughout the crisis. The situation is especially alarming in Ireland, where every fifth child lived in 2012 in a household where no one worked. The share of such children was also higher than 15 % in Bulgaria, the UK and Hungary. Besides, the share of young people not in employment and not in any education and training (NEET) more than doubled in seven countries. The reality for young people aged between 15 and 24 years is worst in Greece, Spain and Croatia.

Using the Gini coefficient as an indicator for inequality, we observe the highest levels of inequality in 2012 in Latvia, Spain, Greece and Portugal, while the lowest rates are reported in Slovenia, Czech Republic and Sweden. As Zsolt Darvas and Guntram Wolff outline in their Policy Brief published on the 1st of April 2014, inequality in most advanced economies has been rising since about 1980 and could have been a reason for the pre-crisis increase in household debt and the consequent consumption squeeze during the crisis.

Therefore, developments of various social indicators show a gloomy picture. Social pain has already undermined the citizens’ trust in the EU and their own governments. This could devitalize the acceptability of painful structural reforms and fiscal consolidation measures and, in turn, diminish the reform momentum or even lead to political instability.

- Olga Tschekassin

This blog first appeared here at Bruegel.org on 1 April, 2014.
 

See Also:

European Network on Measuring Progress

Quality of life in Europe: Subjective well-being

Progress Initiatives in Europe

The European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research

 

Cannabis Use among Adolescents in Europe, 2002-2010: Overall Decrease, but Increasing Inequalities

This blog, written ­by Dr. Margaretha de Looze (researcher and lecturer at Utrecht University, the Netherlands), discusses HBSC's study on cannabis use among adolescents in Europe. The post is part of the Wikichild series on Adolescent health, examining cross-national changes in frequent adolescent cannabis use (40+ times consumed over life-time at age 15) over time and relating these trends to societal wealth, family affluence and gender.

Cannabis use among adolescents in wealthy European countries is decreasing, while in poorer European countries it is on the rise. In particular, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, and FYR Macedonia experienced increased cannabis consumption amongst adolescents between 2002 and 2010. These findings come from a recent publication by members of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study and research network.

Decrease in wealthy countries

 

This analysis, from 14 members of the international WHO collaborative study, looked at trends over time in frequent adolescent cannabis use (40+ times consumed over lifetime at age 15) in 2002, 2006 and 2010. We found that frequent cannabis use has decreased among adolescents in the more affluent western and southern European and North American countries. In some of these countries, the decreases were dramatic. For example, in 2010, frequent cannabis use among German boys decreased from 6.6% in 2002 to 1.2%, and  among Dutch girls it decreased from 4.1% in 2002 to 1.5%.  

This decline in frequent cannabis use in the wealthier countries of Europe is consistent with a general decrease in a range of other risk behaviours among these young people. In many of these countries, adolescent tobacco use, alcohol consumption, sexual risk behaviors and fighting have also declined.

How can this decline in adolescent risk behaviours be explained? One possible answer lies in substance use policies. Legislations to limit underage access and to restrict illicit substance use in general are enforced in all Western countries, with stricter substance use prevention policies coming into action in recent years. Additionally, a stronger focus on educating young people on the harmful effects of substance use has changed social norms leading to lower tolerance and acceptance of substance use among teenagers. 

Increase in Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, and FYR Macedonia

 

In contrast to Western European countries, frequent cannabis use stabilized or increased between 2002 and 2010 in the poorer Eastern European countries. For example, frequent cannabis use among boys in Latvia increased from 1.1% to 3.3%, with Russian girls showing an increase from 0.2% to 0.8%. 

Although the rates in these countries are still lower than those in Western Europe, the increasing trends over time are steady - and thus alarming. Adolescents from less affluent countries seem to be adopting consumption patterns consistent with their peers in richer countries. 

The growing wealth of Eastern European countries appears to have fostered adolescent substance use due to the increased availability of substances and the emergence of a flourishing youth culture. However, this apparent effect of national wealth seems to have leveled off in Western European countries, potentially due to the implementation of stricter cannabis use policies.

Importantly, adolescent cannabis use appears not only to have ‘trickled down’ from richer to developing countries, but also from more affluent to less affluent youth within countries. While cannabis consumption emerged as a central component of the ‘Bohemian’ ideals of the 1960’s and 1970’s and was first popularized by middle class youth, it now appears to have spread to the youth population of a lower socioeconomic status.

Girls do not catch up with boys

While one might have expected that gender differences would narrow between 2002 and 2010, as a result of girls’ and women’s continuing liberation, cannabis use has actually become (even) more characteristic of males during this period. This rather surprising finding might be explained by the de-normalization of cannabis use over the past decade. While cannabis use was widespread and quite ‘normalized’ among well-adjusted, non-risk-taking young people at the end of the 20th century, the recent declining rates may have changed young people’s perception of cannabis use as de-normalized and highly risky behaviour. As risk-taking increases social status among boys but less so for girls, it may be easier for boys to remain part of a cannabis-using scene.

Although it is reassuring that, overall, cannabis use has decreased for both genders, male adolescents have always been, and remain, at higher risk for excessive use, dependence and associated health problems.

What next?

Future studies should closely monitor tendencies for ‘trickle down’ and ‘de-normalization’ effects in frequent cannabis use as fundamental indicators of substance use and health in adolescent populations. Currently, data for the new HBSC cycle are being collected in more than 40 countries in Europe and North America. Within a year, we will be able to conclude whether the observed trends have continued into 2014

The HBSC Study

The HBSC research network is an alliance of researchers who collaborate to collect data on the health, well-being, health behaviours, social environments and economic contexts of adolescents. The HBSC study is currently conducted in 44 countries across Europe and North America, and the network includes over 450 experts from a wide range of disciplines. Members of the HBSC network collaborate to develop a standardized questionnaire, which is used to survey nationally representative samples of school-aged children in each participating country.
HBSC's research themes currently include: chronic conditions, eating and dieting, electronic media, family culture, gender, medicine-use, peer culture, physical activity, positive health, puberty, risk behaviours, school, sexual health, social inequality, and violence and injuries. 

- Dr. Margaretha de Looze
Researcher and lecturer at Utrecht University, the Netherlands 

For more information visit www.hbsc.org 

See also:
- Injury Among Young Canadians: A national study of contextual determinants
- Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children
- Adolescence

Youth Unemployment and the OECD's Action Plan

This blog, by Wikichild Co-ordinator Melinda Deleuze, is part of the Wikiprogress Series on the European Network on Measuring Progress and Child Well-being. Today wraps up the spotlight on the European Network with this post on youth unemployment in Europe and the OECD Action Plan for Youth, which proposes how to tackle the issue.

  
It’s far too often that we hear the word “youth” immediately followed by “unemployment”. Hardship of the global economic crises are not spread equally among all individuals and households. According to the OECD’s Employment Outlook 2013, unemployment rates will remain high for the next 18 months across the board, but youth are hit the hardest (see the table below). While not all youth in Europe face difficulties when searching for a meaningful and practical job, there is without question a core group in each country that face either unemployment, inadequate jobs or social exclusion. The most disadvantaged youth are those with low skills or from migrant backgrounds.

Youth participation within the labor market is not only about their material benefits, but also about entering into adulthood, leaving home, building relationships and improving their overall well-being. Society also benefits, thanks to the boost in economic growth and greater social cohesion. The international community recognizes the advantages of higher youth employment rates and has create numerous initiatives to help policymakers tackle this issue (e.g. the ILO resolution on “The youth employment crisis: a call for action”; the G20 commitments on youth employment; the EU Council’s agreement on the Youth Guarantee).

Analyzing education, skills and youth-related employment policies, the OECD is among the organizations assessing the situation in order to find a solution. The OECD’s Secretary-General Angel Gurría has called for more youth-oriented policies, because “they advance the cause of building a stronger, fairer and cleaner post-crisis world.” In May 2013, the OECD endorsed “The OECD Action Plan for Youth: giving youth a better start in the labour market”, and is now working with countries to implement the plan in their national context.

The Action Plan identifies the urgency in finding short-term solutions to immediately tackle the current unemployment problem, but acknowledges that deeper structural changes will have to be dealt for the situation to improve in the long-term.

The Plan’s first objective is to confront current high levels of youth unemployment by:

• Creating jobs, along with providing income support, employment services or conditional cash-transfer programs
• Expanding apprenticeship and internship programs, which might include financial incentives for employers
• Maintaining a reasonably low minimum wage (perhaps a separate, lower minimum wage for teens), not to discourage employers from hiring low-skilled workers
• Strengthening employers’ incentives by lowering social security contribution or providing wage subsidies

The Plan’s second objective is to produce relevant skills and remove barriers by:

Strengthening the education system in order to prepare the young for work 

• Effective investment in education and training to obtain relevant skills
• Quality information about the necessary education and skills for certain careers 
• Tackle education failure at the system and school level 
• Provide second-chance opportunities for those who dropped out 
• Reinforce the role and effectiveness of vocational education and training, promoting both workplace and classroom learning

Assisting with the transition from school to work 

• Better link education to work world to help employers find people with the skills they need 
• Help the educated youth find a job without crowding out lower-skilled youth 
• Expand unemployment benefits to include school leavers, who are hard to contact and engage 
• Create re-employment programs, perhaps making participation in programs compulsory after a certain period of job searching (e.g. 6 months)

Reshaping labor market policy to facilitate employment access and tackle social exclusion 

• Encourage trial periods rather than unstable, fixed contracts 
• Provide training, remedial education and adult mentoring to the youth with multiple disadvantages 
• Expand access to unemployment and social assistance systems

The number of short-term options provided are few; however, there are still actions for governments to take if they want to incite immediate improvements. While there are many changes that could be made to produce long-term results, making decisions on which actions to implement may prove to be difficult. Fortunately, the OECD is prepared to help implement these action steps. Several experts across of the OECD are engaged and have offered to assist developing national and local action plans, tailoring national skills strategies, advising on specific youth policies, organizing workships on good practise and caring you comprehensive country reviews. The Organisation also provides a space where countries can discuss what works and what does not, and an update of the progress will be reported to the Ministerial Council Meeting 2014.

Melinda Deleuze

See Also:
The OECD Youth Portal 

Europe, its children and tackling deprivation and poverty

There is widespread evidence supporting the argument that measuring monetary poverty and income alone result in inadequate assessments of child well-being. The multidimensional nature of child well-being requires measures which pick up on the individual components to ensure the effective tracking of progress or regression in particular areas and to allow for effective and targeted responses.

A recent study by UNICEF Innocenti on child deprivation, multidimensional poverty and monetary poverty in 29 European countries produced findings that add fuel to the fire as to why we need child well-being measures. In ranking countries according to the degree of child deprivation the study established four main groups:

      - Nordic countries and the Netherlands 10% child deprivation or less

      - Germany, France, Spain, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ireland,    Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia 11-20%

      - Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Italy and Greece - approximately 25 %

      - Portugal, Bulgaria, Romania - rates higher than 25%

Results were further disaggregated into the sub groups of children with lone parents, children living in large families, children in families where the adults are not employed and/or having lower levels of education. Across all of these countries children within these groups were found to be more likely to experience deprivation and although the living standards of many countries were comparable, they had significant differences in levels of child deprivation. Additionally, even in the majority of rich countries, child deprivation levels were found to be significant.

These results are cause for concern considering the current financial and fiscal crises affecting European countries which risk worsening existing levels of child deprivation and poverty and consequently impacting on overall child well-being. Given that data used precedes the crises, the actual reality of child poverty and deprivation in the region could be much worse considering the trickledown effect of economic shocks at the state level, to households and children. See the diagram below from another UNICEF publication.

 Nevertheless, the findings of the study, through a mixture of child deprivation, multidimensional poverty and monetary poverty measures have highlighted specific areas and populations for intervention. The application of these tools to monitor and evaluate over time allow for the identification of components of child well-being and sub populations that are particularly vulnerable to external shocks, they help to build evidence of strategies which prevent impacts and to address existing issues.

Hannah Chadwick

Wikichild Consultant