Objective and Subjective Measures of Poverty A Pan-European Comparison of Patterns and Determinants

Objective and subjective measures of poverty
A pan-European comparison of patterns and

determinants
SSM Seminar on Multidimensional Poverty, Brussels, March 12, 2018
Dirk Hofäcker, Iris Neumann-Schmidt, Simone Braun

University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Overview
(1) Research question

(2) Data and Methods
(3) Main results
(4) Discussion & Outlook
Multiple Approaches to Measure
Income Poverty
– Absolute poverty: definition of poverty line?
(e.g. basket of goods vs. administrative definition)
– Relative poverty: Definition of cutting point
(50%/60% of median)
Objective Measures
Material deprivation
Inability to acquire goods considered necessary
for a decent standard of living
Perceived poverty Subjective Measures

how individuals themselves feel about their own situation,
e.g. evaluation of living standard, financial situation
Current research
• Focus was mostly on the measures of objective poverty while
subjective poverty, the individual perception of one’s own financial
situation, has often been neglected
• Particularly the interplay of subjective and objective dimensions
is not featured well in existing research, even though both must not
be identical
– Is everybody who is “objectively poor” automatically poor in subjective
terms, i.e. Does objective poverty translate into subjective poverty? If no: Are
their protective mechanisms that “shield” from subjective poverty?
– Does everybody who is objectively not poor automatically feel not-poor?
 Are there mechanism that make way for subjective poverty even when not
being poor (e.g. economic crisis, borderline poverty, increasing vulnerability
of middle classes)?
Research questions
• In how far does objective poverty coincide with subjective
poverty?
• What generally determines the risk of being objectively poor?
• What determines the risk of “deviations” between objective and
subjective poverty?
Objective poverty
Subjective Poor Non-poor

poverty Poor Consistently poor Not poor, but
feeling of poverty
Non-poor Poor, but not Consistently not
feeling poor poor
(2) Data & Methods
The European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS)
• implemented in 2003, 2007 and 2011-12
• Representative sample
• comprehensive picture of living conditions in European
countries
• broad range of indicators on different dimensions of
quality of life, both objective and subjective
• Covers periods before and after economic crisis
 pooled sample for all three waves (N= 66.850)
(2) Data & Methods
Objective - Deprivation
Inability to afford at least one of the following three items
1.Keeping your home adequately warm
2.A meal with meat, chicken, fish every second day if you wanted it
3.Buying new, rather than second-hand, clothes
Subjective – Perceived Standard of Living

Could you please tell me on a scale of 1 to 10 how satisfied you are with each
of the following items, where 1 means you are very dissatisfied and 10 means
you are very satisfied?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(2) Data & Methods
Poor
Objective poverty
Not poor
Regression 1
(2) Data & Methods
Subjectively Poor
Poor Subjectively not

poor
Objective poverty
Subjectively Poor
Not poor
Subjectively not
poor
Regression 2a/b
(2) Data & Methods
Standard socio-demographic indicators
• Regimes (comparing different groups of countries)
– Social-democratic, Conservative, Liberal, Southern European, post-
socialist
– Crisis (indicated by wave 2003, 2007, 2011)
• Employment status
– Fixed-term employment (<12 months; > 12 months); Temporary
agency work; Work without contract
– unemployment
• Socio-demographics
– Age (18-29 vs. 30-39 vs. 40-65)
– Education (low – middle - high)
– Gender
– Living with parents
(3) Results
Descriptives
objective x subjective measures (full sample)
Objective poverty
Subjective Poor Non-poor

poverty Poor 11,59% 5,33%
Non-poor 18,25% 64,81%
(3) Results
Descriptives
Objective x subjective measures: Cross-country comparison
70
65 BG
60 LT
RO
55
HU
LV
50
EE Post-Socialist
45
PL SK
Objective
40
PT
35 CY
EL
30 CZ
MT total
25
mediterranean
20 ES UK
FR DE
15 BE IRliberal SI
IT conservative
10 NL FI AT
social democratic
5 DK
LU SE
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Subjective
(3) Results (Regression)
Dimension Risk of poverty
(objective)
Wave Modestly higher risk
after crisis
Regime Post-soc >> South
> Lib > Con > SD
Gender
Age
Education
Living with parents

(hous. autonomy)
Employment
situation
(objective)
after crisis
> Lib > Con > SD
Gender Higher for women
Age Lower for young
Education Gradual effect; lower

particularly among
tertiary
Living with parents Protective effect, but
(hous. autonomy) least so in South
Employment
situation
(objective)
after crisis
> Lib > Con > SD
Age Lower for young

particularly among
tertiary
Employment Highest for UE,

situation agency work, short-
fixed-term
Dimension Risk of poverty Obj. Poor: Risk of Obj. non-poor:Risk
(objective) subj. poverty of subj. Poverty
Wave Modestly higher risk Modestly lower risk Modestly higher risk
after crisis after crisis after crisis
Regime Post-soc >> South Higher risk in post- Post-soc >> All other
> Lib > Con > SD soc.; lower in South > SD
Age Lower for young

particularly among
tertiary

fixed-term
Gender Higher for women No gender differences No gender differences
Age Lower for young Lower for young Lower only for very
young
Education Gradual effect; lower Gradual effect; lower Gradual effect; lower
particularly among particularly among particularly among
tertiary tertiary tertiary
Living with parents Protective effect, but Higher risk of feeling Higher risk of feeling
(hous. autonomy) least so in South poor, weak effect poor, part. SE

fixed-term
Gender Higher for women No gender differences No gender differences
Age Lower for young Lower for young Lower only for very
young
Education Gradual effect; lower Gradual effect; lower Gradual effect; lower
particularly among particularly among particularly among
tertiary tertiary tertiary
Living with parents Protective effect, but Higher risk of feeling Higher risk of feeling
(hous. autonomy) least so in South poor, weak effect poor, part. SE
Employment Highest for UE, Highest for UE, As before, but

situation agency work, short- agency work, short- generally more
fixed-term fixed-term modest
(4) Summary
Measurement of Poverty
• Reasonable to differentiate between objective and
subjective measures
• Descriptive analyses: no necessary overlap between
dimensions
• Multivariate analyses: differences in the
determinants/group-specific pattern
• Future research: use both dimensions and integrate
them into joint analyses
(4) Summary
(Selected) Policy-relevant findings
• Differentiated effect of the 2008 crisis
• Decreases the risk of perceived poverty for the
objectively poor
• Increases the risk of perceived poverty for the
objectively non-poor
 Need to take into consideration for evaluating public

opinion and its consequences (public protest, voting
behavior)
(4) Summary
• Ambivalent effect of housing autonomy
– Living with parents decreases objective risk to be
poor
– But at the same time, increases the risk of
subjectively feeling disadvantaged (particularly
among the effectively non poor!)
 Need to promote financial autonomy of young

individuals outside the parental household
(4) Summary
(Selected) Policy-relevant findings
• Interesting differences in the effect of employment
types: particularly negative effects of unemployment,
agency work, short fixed-term, surprisingly „positive“
effects of long fixed-term employment
 Not all „atypical“ work forms are detrimental to

objective and subjective poverty
 Need to promote work forms that provide more of a
long-term perspective
Social Exclusion
This project has received funding from the European Union’s

Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement No 649496

Objective and Subjective Measures of Poverty A Pan-European Comparison of Patterns and Determinants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objective and Subjective Measures of Poverty A Pan-European Comparison of Patterns and Determinants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objective and Subjective Measures of Poverty A Pan-European Comparison of Patterns and Determinants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Objective and subjective measures of poverty

A pan-European comparison of patterns and

Dirk Hofäcker, Iris Neumann-Schmidt, Simone Braun

(1) Research question

Perceived poverty Subjective Measures

Subjective Poor Non-poor

Subjective – Perceived Standard of Living

Poor Subjectively not

Subjective Poor Non-poor

Living with parents

Age Lower for young

Education Gradual effect; lower

Age Lower for young

Education Gradual effect; lower

Employment Highest for UE,

Age Lower for young

Education Gradual effect; lower

Employment Highest for UE,

Employment Highest for UE,

Employment Highest for UE, Highest for UE, As before, but

 Need to take into consideration for evaluating public

 Need to promote financial autonomy of young

 Not all „atypical“ work forms are detrimental to

This project has received funding from the European Union’s

You might also like