In countries such as Greece, poverty of children and adults are two sides of the same coin, that is, child poverty reflects the poverty status of the.
THE STATE OF THE CHILDREN IN GREECE REPORT 2017 THE CHILDREN OF THE CRISIS
© UNICEF – 1st High School Of Toumpa (Thessaloniki)
HELLENIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR UNICEF 0
1
The State of the Children in Greece Report 2017 The children of the crisis
Prof. Christos Papatheodorou (Panteion University, Athens, Greece) Dr. Stefanos Papanastasiou (PhD in Social Policy)
April 2017
Hellenic National Committee for UNICEF
2
3
Table of contents 1. Introduction
5
2. Theoretical background
7
3. Research methodology
15
4. Empirical findings
17
5. Conclusions
30
6. References
32
4
1. Introduction The report summarizes the living and welfare conditions of children in Greece by employing alternative summary measures and indicators of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion and utilizing the most recent available empirical data (HSS and EUROSTAT surveys). The pronounced and protracted recession and the subsequent austerity policies by curtailing social spending have particularly affected families with children (Petmesidou, 2013; Papatheodorou, 2014). In consequence, children are up against a significantly higher risk of poverty and deprivation compared to the total population (Papatheodorou and Dafermos, 2010; Papanastasiou et al, 2016). This phenomenon is of importance because poverty lived in childhood, which is critical for the individual’s development, leads to accumulated disadvantages and tends to box individuals in poverty traps during the life cycle, reinforcing the intergenerational reproduction of poverty, deprivation and inequality (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Corcoran, 2001; d’ Addio, 2007; Papatheodorou and Papanastasiou, 2010; Papanastasiou and Papatheodorou, 2010). In countries such as Greece, poverty of children and adults are two sides of the same coin, that is, child poverty reflects the poverty status of the families/households in which they belong. However, the separation between child and adult poverty in the public discourse as well as in the policy implementation terrain leads to an implicit distinction between “willing” and “unwilling” poor. This distinction brings back the old, but precarious, idea of the “undeserving” vs. the “deserving” poor of whom the latter are regarded poor because of their own choices (Papatheodorou and Dafermos, 2010; Papanastasiou et al, 2016). In respect of policy design, this development signifies the transition from social protection to social investment (with an explicit emphasis on families with children). The prevalent policy paradigm at a national and 5
supranational level focusing on individuals’ “activation” and improvement of traits to get a better access in the labor market (improvement of “employability”) does not seem to effectively tackle the rapid worsening of poverty and deprivation among families with children (Petmesidou, 2014). The incapacity of those policies becomes particularly evident during the current economic crisis. The structure of the report is as follows: In the next section, the theoretical background of child poverty and deprivation is considered. In the third section, matters on data and methodologies used in the empirical analysis are described. In the fourth section, the basic empirical findings of the report on the living and welfare standards of children and their families are presented through a longitudinal and comparative analysis. Finally, in the fifth section, some concluding remarks and policy recommendations are provided.
6
2. Theoretical background Conceptualizing poverty as structural or relational leads to an understanding of the phenomenon as a process of differential integration in the socioeconomic structures of contemporary societies (e.g. the differential integration in the labor market and the rapidly increasing population of the “working poor”) rather than as a process of social exclusion (as it has prevailed over the last decades). In a similar vein, viewing child poverty as structural or relational brings to the forefront the power relations within social structures (i.e. family, school, community, etc.) as well as socioeconomic and political factors (i.e. social stratification, policy decision-making, social protection provision, etc.). In the public and academic discourse as well as in the policymaking terrain, the plethora of views on the causes of poverty have two basic theoretical points of departure: “Social selection”: Poverty is ascribed to individual traits due to inherited and/or non-inherited endowments from the family of origin (e.g. health, skills, motivations, aspirations, etc.). “Social causation”: Poverty is attributed to the modern social, economic and political structures characterized by scarcity of institutional opportunities, weakening of social protection, abundance of low-paid and precarious jobs, reproduction of inequalities, etc. More particularly, the public and academic discussion on the determinants of poverty is carried out around four main thematic areas: a) culture, b) idiosyncrasy (nature), c) family background (nurture) and d) socioeconomic structure. It is apparent that the various interpretations on the causal aspect of poverty reflect different schools of thought. 7
In the 1960’s, the interpretations of poverty and deprivation are greatly influenced by the theory of the “culture of poverty” emphasizing cultural and behavioral traits of poor individuals and groups (Lewis, 1965; 1969). Relating poverty with the “culture of poverty”, however, results in political choices to combatting poverty by changing values and behaviors of the poor (Ludwig & Mayer, 2006). By contrast, changing the circumstances of the socioeconomic environment within which poor people live does not appear to be political priority, because structural compared to individual causation is considered less relevant. The concept of the “culture of poverty” has been criticized for its incapacity to take account of institutional and structural dimensions of poverty. The criticism is levelled at the blaming of the poor that tends to depoliticize the social problem of poverty, as it cultivates the belief that poverty is related to the individual values and behaviors rather than the structural circumstances of the socioeconomic environment. Moreover, employing the “culture of poverty” as an interpretative tool of inequalities offers the “advantage” of putting into margin the parameter of social relationships in contemporary democracies and, as consequence, diverts the attention of the public opinion from the extent to which the dominant rhetoric (or culture) is responsible for reproducing the poverty circumstances. In this context, a relevant question would be if there is a “culture of enrichment” among the upper and middle strata contributing to the social marginalization of poor individuals and groups (Moore, 2001). The discussion on the “culture of poverty” also turns to behavioral factors leading to “welfare dependeny”. In this context, it is argued that the welfare reliance results in the perpetuation of deviant values, attitudes and conducts, which are responsible for poverty and deprivation (Mead, 1986, 1992). The welfare recipients are viewed as reluctant to take most of the opportunities arising in life due to negative motivation as result of the so-called dependency on the welfare state (Murray, 1984). 8
The theories of “welfare culture” criticize the welfare state because it is considered responsible for the passive behavior of welfare recipients, without investigating other causes leading to the dependency on the welfare state, such as the narrowing of the children’s horizons due to lack of socioeconomic opportunities. Similarly, a group of researchers focuses the epicenter of the analysis on cultural and behavioral parameters of the “underclasss” (Murray, 1984, Jencks & Peterson, 1991). This school of thought has embraced the concept of the “underclass” as basic interpretative tool of poverty and deprivation due to the intrinsic weaknesses and the strong criticism of the “culture of poverty” on the one hand, while on the other it is because of the comparative advantages of the “underclass” vis-à-vis the “culture of poverty”. First, the term is more neutral; Second, it does not concern the entire poor population but just a subgroup; And third, it reflects only a small part of society and, as result, the restructuring of the redistribution system may not be considered necessary (Morris, 1989). The “underclass” is regarded as a marginal social group that exhibits distinct values, attitudes, norms and conducts that are responsible for poverty (Swinton & Burbridge, 1981). Among academic and political cycles, there is a belief that the inherent characteristics of the “underclass” are responsible for poverty (e.g. inactivity, passive dependency, low education level, limited social participation, lack of motives or abilities). The cultural theories of the “underclass” tend to individualize the causes of poverty and mask broader socioeconomic factors and relations. Thus, Myrdal (1962) argues that the accumulated disadvantage of the “underclass” is due to the structural unemployment, the lack of redistributive policy and the institutional and social discrimination. Smith (1992) stresses that the existence of poverty among the
9
«underclass» is due to the circumstances of the labor market entailing inequality and discrimination. What is more, Wilson (1987) focuses on the wage cuts since the early 1970’s and the deindustrialization process in developed countries entailing the loss of a great number of job positions. In a wider context, Hariss-White (2005) puts emphasis on the capital accumulation characterizing the developed world that may produce benefits for a large chunk of society, but pushes at the margin individuals and groups not able to negotiate their labor power within the free market economy. At the same time, the ongoing restructuring of the welfare state in the western societies entails the weakening of social protection for individuals and groups facing the risk of poverty and deprivation due to the political reorientation from “passive” to “active” measures. Lastly, one could draw the attention to the role of the “overclass”, which systematically avoids participating in redistribution practices that can contribute to mitigating poverty among the “underclass”. Over the last decade, newer approaches of poverty focus on the “coping strategies”. According to this approach, those strategies are likely to help the poor avoid further impoverishment, but often lead to the reproduction of the circumstances hindering the escape from poverty and deprivation (Hulme et al, 2001, Moore, 2001). The “coping strategies” produce desirable, short-term outcomes, but jeopardize more desirable strategies offering the possibility of covering needs and maintaining rights on a long-term basis (Wood, 2000, Hulme et al, 2001). The added value of the concept of adverse integration is the underscoring of the relational dimensions of poverty, that is, the interactions between structure, family and individuals. A version of adverse incorporation focuses on the adverse conditions of participation of individuals and groups in social and economic processes hindering the escape from poverty and deprivation (e.g. “working poor”) (Murray, 2001, Bracking, 2003, du Toit, 2004). The approach of adverse 10
incorporation broadens the scope of the causes of poverty by analyzing through a political economy perspective (Murray, 2001, Hickey & du Toit, 2007). The political economy approach is appropriate to understand the multidimensional nature of poverty because it provides insights into the power relations characterizing the contemporary societies. By political economy, it is meant the approach that considers society as a field of conflict between antagonistic social group and classes. On the contrary, most of the mainstream theoretical models are governed by an individual-centric bias in the sense that they place a one-dimensional emphasis on the individual aspect of poverty. For instance, some researchers have turned to investigating the contribution of idiosyncratic traits in formulating the individual future outcomes. As idiosyncratic traits are meant the inherited or innate individual characteristics, such as cognitive skills, work ethics, sociability, aspirations, motivation, etc. Some researchers argue that the genetic (Heckman & Murray, 2001, Saunders, 1996, 1997) and the personality (Heckman & Rubinstein, 2001; Heckman & Carneiro, 2003, Heckman et al, 2006) traits account for a large part of the variation in individual attainments. The studies focusing on idiosyncratic traits have been criticized that they are governed by intrinsic limitations, because they fail to capture the interactions with the family and the broader socioeconomic environment. The relationship between genetic and/or non-genetic factors and the individuals’ future attainments should be studied in conjunction with characteristics of the family and of the broader socioeconomic environment. In this context, it is difficult to estimate whether and to what extent the cognitive and non-cognitive abilities is result of genetic rather than family and social parameters (especially during the first years of the children’s life).
11
The emphasis on idiosyncratic traits relates to the wider discussion on “resilience” vis-à-vis poverty and deprivation. “Resilience” means that the individual may come up against and overcome the adversities related to socioeconomic deprivation based on its personality abilities and merits (Bird, 2007) and, thus, achieve the “positive deviance” (Engle et al, 1996, Yaqub, 2000). However, the reasoning behind this is that it focuses on individual rather than structural causes of poverty. If we consider a common experience among the poor the lack of resources and economic opportunities, the only factor that can explain why some individuals overcome poverty while others are trapped in it are the individual characteristics (Boyden and Cooper, 2007). Nevertheless, the most widespread interpretative tool of poverty and deprivation among researchers and policymakers is the approach of «human capital». This approach cultivated the conviction that poverty and inequality are due to low productivity and specialization that the poor people display (Mincer, 1958, Schultz, 1966; Becker & Tomes, 1979; 1986; Becker, 1993). As consequence, education became the “great equalizer” of the individuals’ socioeconomic circumstances (Cremin & Kendell, 2003). Moreover, the view that education can reduce the inequalities was reinforced by empirical studies, which found that: first, equality in education is associated with greater equality in the distribution of incomes (Mincer, 1974). Second, the social and family background of the individuals exerts very small influence on the individuals’ future outcomes (Blau & Duncan, 1967, Duncan et al, 1968, Hauser, 1969). And third, more education exerts positive influence on the individuals’ future outcomes irrespective of social and family origin (Blau & Duncan, 1967, Duncan et al, 1968, Hauser, 1969). Those empirical findings greatly affected the policy design process and, as result, the lion’s share of the public spending to combatting poverty and deprivation is given to financing programs of education, training and lifelong learning. However, the education reforms of the 20th century did not bring about the expected results of greater equality of opportunities among individuals regardless of socioeconomic origin (Heineck & 12
Riphahn, 2007). This can be attributed to the constant decline of education for the individuals’ future outcomes over the last decades (Breen & Goldthorpe, 2001, Erikson & Goldthorpe, 2002). Some studies found that the differences in public investments in education cannot account for the variability of intergenerational social mobility across developed countries (Shavit & Blossfeld, 1993; Erikson & Jonsson, 1996; Esping-Andersen, 2007). Moreover, many remain distrustful as to the possibility of equalizing the individuals’ status through widening the educational opportunities, insofar as the latter tends to disproportionately benefits children coming from richer families compared to those coming from poor families (Papatheodorou, 1997, Ellwood & Kane, 2000, Acemoglu & Pischke, 2001, Blanden et al, 2004, Blanden & Gregg, 2004, Blanden & Machin, 2004, Machin, 2004, Esping-Andersen, 2005). The extent of inequality depends on the how much wide is the wage structure in the labor market. Thus, reducing inequalities can be attained not only by widening the possibility of access to tertiary education for children coming from poor families, but in the main by widening the possibility of those children to capitalize the economic returns to tertiary education. This points out the need to promote labor market policies aiming at reducing wage dispersion among the employees with the aim to constraint the importance of social inheritance as determinant of the individual welfare. What is more, some empirical studies put into doubt even the core hypothesis of the significant role of education for the future income (or wage) (Breen & Goldthorpe, 2001, Erikson & Goldthorpe, 2002). Warren et al (2002) found that the direct effect of education on the future wage is low and gets even lower within the individual’s work lifecycle, while Card (1999) estimates that education can barely explain 1/5 of the variation in wage.
13
On the other hand, an increasing number of researchers stress the importance of childcare to develop the cognitive abilities of children at the age of 0-6 years (Brooks-Gunn et al, 1993, Heckman & Lochner, 2000, Carneiro & Heckman, 2003, Esping-Andersen, 2004α, 2004β, 2005, Corak, 2006). This is considered the most sensitive and critical period for the anatomic and functional development of the children’s brain (Berk 1996, McCormick et al, 1992, McEwen & Stellar, 1993, Yacub, 2002). Therefore, many researchers point out that childcare focusing on the early cognitive stimulation can become basic vehicle for the longterm reduction in inequalities under the prerequisite that the childcare system is of universal character an of high quality (Waldvogel, 2002, Esping-Andersen, 2004α, 2004β). Thus, those researchers argue that the big bet for reducing inequalities does not lie in the formal education than the child and pre-school care emphasizing the development of the children’s cognitive abilities. Nevertheless, Brooks-Gunn (2003) pointedly stresses that the early investment in children should also be accompanied by proper structures during the entire child and adolescent age (e.g. family, school, neighborhood), else the positive results from the early investment may be faded out or even be cancelled.
14
3. Research methodology The analysis utilizes the Eurostat’s data from the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), which is a yearly sample survey carried out in all EU member-states since 2003. The sample has longitudinal structure consisting of four alternating panels. The most recent available data on the living conditions in Greece and the EU come from EU-SILC 2015, which refers to incomes of the previous year (that is, 2014). Thus, to precisely illustrate child poverty trends and patterns, the presentation of the empirical findings is based on the income reference year and not the year the survey was conducted. To measure child poverty, the broadly used Eurostat’s definition of poverty is adopted, according to which the poverty threshold is set at the 60% of the corresponding median equivalized income of the households or (individuals) in the country. A child is regarded poor, if the family-household in which it lives has gross disposable equivalized income lower that the poverty threshold. The disposable income is defined as the gross income of the household from all sources after having subtracted the direct taxes (income taxes) and the social security contributions. By accepting economies of scale in consumption, the modified OECD equivalence scale (or Eurostat’s scale) is employed to weigh the incomes of individuals with different size and composition. According to this scale, the first adult member of the household is weighed by 1, each additional adult by 0.5 and each child by 0.3. At the same time, the material deprivation indicator is employed in the analysis. It is an alternative measure of illustrating the living conditions that is not based on income, but it documents the capacity of the household to meet basic needs (goods and services) that are deemed critical for the welfare and living standards, such as payment of mortgage or utility bills, dealing with unexpected but necessary expenses, proper nutrition, adequate heating, 1 week holiday every year and access to durables (car, telephone, washing machine and colored
15
TV). A child faces deprivation if the household in which it lives lacks at least 3 of the 9 items and severe deprivation if it lacks at least 4 items. Additionally, the “at risk of poverty or social exclusion” indicator is employed in the analysis. These are children living in households that are in risk of poverty or extreme material deprivation or have very low work intensity (that is, the household members worked less than 20% of the usual employment during the previous year).
16
4. Empirical findings Based on the broadly used definition of relative poverty (Eurostat), the children face a much higher poverty risk than the adults in Greece. As shown in Figure 1, the relative poverty risk increases from 23% in 2009 to 28.8% in 2012 and then it slightly drops to 26.6% in 2014. This means that approximately half a million children live in poor families. Moreover, it appears that the implications of the economic crisis are more acute for the children than the adults. Figure 1 Child and adult poverty, Greece, 2007-2014 (surveys 2008-2015)
Source: Eurostat (access 23/3/2017)
However, relative poverty is not the most appropriate indicator to illustrate the changes in the living standard of both the total population and children during crisis and austerity. And that because after 2009, there is a dramatic reduction in incomes in the country, which brings about corresponding changes in the relative poverty threshold computed as percentage of the median equivalized income of the country each year. As result, over this period the poverty line (for a 17
single household) was reduced from 598 euro/month in 2009 to only 376 euro/month in 2014 (see Figure 2). In other words, the poverty line was reduced by 37% reflecting the respective reduction in incomes at the middle of the distribution in the country. Thus, a significant part of the poor households in 2009 are regarded as non-poor in 2014. More appropriate indicator to illustrate the worsening of the living standards of children is the one calculated based on a poverty line anchored at a fixed point in time, such as 2007, by weighting the incomes as to their differences in the purchasing power. As shown in Figure 2, based on the poverty line of 2007 (2008 survey) the child poverty rate declines from 22.6% in 2008 to 20.7% in 2009. Next though it increases rapidly amounting to the critical level of 55.1% in 2014 (2015 survey). This means that in 2014 the 55.1% of the children in the country had similar living conditions as the ones of the 20.7% of the children in 2009. These figures reveal the devastating implications on the living standard of the households with children during the first 5 years of the economic crisis and of the implementation of austerity policies in the country. Figure 2 Child poverty in Greece, 2008-2014 (2009-2015 surveys)
Source: Elaboration of Eurostat’s data (access 23/3/2017) 18
From a comparative perspective, the child relative poverty rate in Greece based on the most recent data (referring to 2014 incomes) is one of the highest in the EU-141 alongside the ones of the remaining South European countries (Figure 3). The Nordic countries and the Netherlands exhibit the best performance followed by the Continental countries. On the contrary, the countries of southern Europe and Great Britain display quite high child poverty rates. Figure 3 Child poverty in the EU-14, 2014 (2015 survey)
Source: Eurostat (access 23/3/2017)
As comes out in Figure 3, the clustering of the EU-14 countries based on distinct and longstanding welfare state types corroborates the importance of the social protection systems in tackling child poverty.2 1
These are the old EU member states except Luxembourg, which is not considered in the analysis because it is an outlier in terms of its small population and its particularly high incomes. 2 This analysis is based on Esping-Andersen’s (1990) welfare state typology as well as the relevant debate on the social protection system of the south Euroepan countries 19
More specifically, based on the widespread welfare state typology it appears that lower child poverty is displayed in countries with social protection systems based on generous and universal provisions (Nordic countries and the Netherlands). By contrast, the highest poverty risk is exhibited by the South-European countries characterized by the inadequacy of the welfare state and the strong influence of “familism”. Particularly revealing for the role of the social protection system in mitigating child poverty is the comparative analysis of the effect of social transfers in cash (that is, the various social benefits) in the EU-14 countries. Figure 4 depicts the child poverty risk based on the disposable income of the households before social transfers, after pensions and after total social transfers. As shown in Figure 4, the high child poverty risk of the south European countries is mainly due to the weak redistributive role of social transfers. In addition, in all countries expect for Spain, Greece and Portugal the reduction in child poverty is largely attained through the other social transfers except for pensions. Pensions have a marginal effect on the incomes of the households with children. Still, the pension effect on child poverty is particularly significant in three countries of southern Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal). This is due to the high rate of the elderly/ pensioners who cohabitate with the families of their children in those countries. This fact reflects the particularities of the social protection system of the south European countries, in which the large gaps in social protection and the lack of supportive structures are substituted by the family and kin networks (Papatheodorou, 2009; Adam and Papatheodorou, 2016). Thus, it is quite often that the elderly/pensioners co-live with the families of their adult children, contributing with pensions to the household’s income, while at the same time they provide care to the young children of the household or they become care recipients themselves when they need it. (Leibfried 1992, Ferrera 1996). More specifically, it relies on the ensuing typology that has been elaborated by Papatheodorou and Petmesidou (2004;2005), Papatheodorou et al, 2008; Papathedorou and Dafermos, 2010). 20
Figure 4 Child poverty in the EU-14 countries before and after social transfers, 2014 (2015 survey)
Source: Elaboration of Eurostat’s data (access 23/3/2017)
In Greece, pensions have the greatest effect in mitigating the poverty risk of children among the EU-14 member states. The magnitude of this effect is at the same level as the one of the other social transfers in cash. In addition, the other social transfers have the lowest effect in child poverty reduction among the EU-14 countries reflecting the structural inefficiencies of the social protection system to promote the living standard of vulnerable population groups and to deal with poverty and inequality (Papatheodorou, 2009, Papatheodorou and Dafermos, 2010, Papathedorou and Missos, 2013). Especially during the economic crisis and the implementation of austerity policies, the cuts in social protection expenditures have further weakened the already weak role of the social transfers in the country with obvious implications in escalating child poverty. The material deprivation index captures an equally dramatic picture for the situation of children in Greece. As shown in Figure 5, in 2015 almost 21
one-in-two children in Greece live in circumstances of material deprivation (that is, their household-family cannot meet at least 3 of 9 basic needs). With 45%, Greece is by far the country where children face the highest material deprivation among the old EU-14 member-states. This percentage is almost double than that of the next EU-14 country in terms of the worst performance in child material deprivation. This indicator is strongly associated with the social protection systems that the EU-14 countries have developed, corroborating findings from other empirical studies on this matter (Papatheodorou and Petmesidou, 2004; 2005, Papathedorou and Dafermos, 2010, Papathedorou and Missos, 2013). A distinctive pattern is the extremely low child material deprivation rate in the Nordic countries and the Netherlands. The social protection system of those countries is characterized by the institutionalized commitment of the state to reduce poverty and Inequality through a welfare mix of generous and universal provisions in cash and in kind. In contrast, high material deprivation is evident in countries with liberal social protection system (Great Britain, Ireland), which is characterized by the limited state interventions to promote total welfare through means-tested provisions, as well as in the south European countries. Equally high is the percentage of children who live in circumstances of extreme deprivation (that is, they live in households not able to meet at least 4 of 9 basic needs). Again, this percentage is double than that of the next EU-14 country with the worst performance. Countries such as the Nordic ones, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria exhibit extreme deprivation rate lower than 5% corroborating the importance of the social protection systems to deal with the material deprivation of families with children. These findings reveal the dramatic situation in which many families with children live in Greece, while at the same time they demonstrate the inadequacy of the social protection system of the country.
22
Figure 5 Child material deprivation in the EU-14 countries (2015)
Source: Elaboration of Eurostat’s data (access 23/3/2017)
Focusing on the 9 basic needs of the material deprivation index for the years 2009 and 2015 in Greece, Figure 6 reveals that the biggest problem with deprivation among families with children is not related with the possession of certain durables (which many households already had prior to the crisis), but in paying utility bills, meeting unexpected needs, having adequate heating and utilizing leisure time. The dramatic increase of the inability of households with children to meet certain needs between 2009 and 2015 reveals the adverse situation in which those households live during crisis and the enforcement of austerity. Thus, in 2015 the 58.5% of the households with children are unable to pay mortgage or utility bills, the 54.4% to meet unexpected but necessary expenses, the 55.8% to enjoy one week vacation each year and the 29.6% to have proper heating at home.
23
Figure 6 Material deprivation in families with children, Greece, 2009-2015
Source: Eurostat (access 23/3/2017)
Analyzing deprivation by age brackets, it appears that the child deprivation rate was 20% in 2007 lower than that of the adults (18-64) and the elderly (Figure 7). But between 2007-2015, the child deprivation rate more than doubled reaching 45% in 2015. In other words, in 2015 approximately 1 million children live in families facing material deprivation. Children are the age group with the biggest deterioration of deprivation during this period revealing that crisis and austerity have particularly afflicted families with children. Thus, in 2015 the material deprivation of the elderly (mainly pensioners) was around 10 percentage points lower than that of children. This is because the social transfers system of the country is largely based on pensions. Thus, amid crisis and austerity the elderly population has experienced less losses in living standards compared to the other age groups. However, deprivation increases significantly also among the age 24
groups that comprise the active population. This reflects the high unemployment rates in the country as well as the decline in incomes of the already employees leading them to “in-work poverty” (Ioannidis et al, 2012). Figure 7 Material deprivation by age bracket (inability to afford at least 3 of 9 items)
Source: Eurostat (access 23/3/2017)
The overlapping between child poverty and material deprivation is a crucial topic in terms of capturing the living standards of children as well as of designing respective policies. Figure 7 presents the evolution of child poverty and material deprivation over time. Until the outbreak of the crisis the percentage of children in relative poverty was larger than that of the children in material deprivation. Since the outburst of the crisis and the enforcement of austerity, nevertheless, the percentage of children in material deprivation rises fast and surpasses the percentage of children in relative poverty (which displays a smaller rise). This finding 25
reveals that in periods of income decline, monetary poverty cannot explain sufficiently the worsening of the household’s living standards. As mentioned above, the relative poverty threshold is computed according to the median income each year. In consequence, in periods where the income declines, the poverty threshold declines too, altering the critical criterion by which a household is defined as poor. The material deprivation indicator shows similar results in terms of the worsening of the living standards with the ones of the anchored poverty at a certain point in time (as shown in Figure 2). Monetary poverty may be considered an explanatory factor of material deprivation, but it cannot explain by itself the rampant escalation of deprivation in the country. Figure 8 Overlapping between child poverty and deprivation (Greece, 2007-2014)
Source: Elaboration of Eurostat’s data (access 23/3/2017)
Figure 9 depicts the correlation analysis between child poverty and deprivation in Greece for the time span 2003-2015. The analysis shows that monetary poverty can explain alone the 65% of the variation in 26
child material deprivation. The relatively high value of the coefficient of determination (0.65) corroborates the importance of income as explanatory factor of material deprivation. At the same time, however, it reveals that a large part of the causal factors of material deprivation remains unspecified. From a policy perspective, this means that income transfers cannot deal by themselves with the problem of material deprivation facing children. Thus, in-kind social provisions (e.g. care, health, education, housing, reconciliation of life and work, etc.) maybe be of critical importance to lessen the deprivation risk of households in the country. Here it needs to be stressed that the fiscal multipliers of social protection expenditures (especially in-kind benefits) are particularly high (Dafermos and Papatheodorou, 2013). Social protection should be an organic part of the macroeconomic policy. Thus, reinforcing the social protection system to become more efficient in tackling child poverty and deprivation may have a positive effect in promoting the country’s economic growth.
27
Figure 9 The association between child poverty and deprivation in Greece (2003-2015)
Source: Estimates based on Eurostat’s data (access 23/3/2017)
The adverse situation of children in Greece is also corroborated by the percentage of children who live in circumstances of “poverty or social exclusion”, which is the hallmark indicator of the EU 2020 strategy on social matters. As shown in Figure 10, the percentage of children living in “poverty or social exclusion” has significantly increased during the period of the economic crisis and of the implementation of austerity policies. In addition, the risk of “poverty or social exclusion” of children in Greece differs considerably from the respective average figure for the EU-27.
28
Figure 10 Percentage of children in “poverty or social exclusion”, 2007-2015
Source: Elaboration of Eurostat’s data.
29
5. Conclusions The empirical findings indicate the dramatic worsening of the living standards of children in Greece. During the economic crisis, the welfare of families with children has particularly been afflicted compared to the rest of the population in the country. Experiencing poverty in childhood leads to accumulated disadvantages that will negatively affect their attainments in adulthood, reinforcing thus the reproduction of poverty and inequality. This is excepted to have a significant impact on the national economy by affecting the qualitative traits of the workforce. The worsening of poverty and deprivation renders necessary the need of designing and implementing adequate policies to support and ameliorate the situation of families with children. The curtailment of social spending amid crisis and austerity weakens the country’s already weak social protection system in terms of tackling child poverty and deprivation. It is imperative that the reform and reinforcement of the social protection system should take place to intercept the worsening trends of poverty and deprivation that disproportionately affect the children. In this context, the support of families with children should become basic priority in the governmental agenda. This support should be based on public policies through a proper welfare mix (in cash and in kind) and regulations (e.g. parental leaves and other arrangements to facilitate the harmonization of work and family life). Supporting children from the early years and throughout childhood is expected to have a significant economic return and the avoidance of costly interventions in the future. In addition, social spending can play a crucial role in promoting economic growth as an organic part of the macroeconomic policy. Lastly, emphasis should be placed in promoting the “highest interest of the child”. This term describes a series of social policy interventions in various dimensions (health, education, care, etc.) that must be made in 30
favor of the child. It conveys the commitment of supranational and national bodies to recognize and secure fundamental rights for children and, thus, it should be taken into serious consideration by policymakers when designing and implementing relevant policies.
31
6. References Acemoglu, D. and Pischke, J.-S., (2001) “Changes in the wage structure, family income and children’s education”, European Economic Review, Vol. 45 (4-6), pp. 890904. Adam, S. and Papatheodorou, C. (2016) “Dismantling the feeble social protection system of Greece: Crisis and austerity measures consequences”. In K. Schubert, P. de Villota and J. Kuhlmann (eds): Challenges to the European Welfare Systems, Springer, pp. 271-300 Becker G., (1993), Human capital, (Third Edition), Chicago: The University of Chicago press Becker. G. and Tomes. N., (1979) “An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 87, pp. 1153-1189 https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhome page/teaching/Ec%20237/Becker%20and%20Tomes%20(JPE)%201979.pdf Becker, G. and Tomes, N. (1986) “Human capital and the rise and fall of families”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 1-39. Berk, L. (1996) Infants, children and adolescents, Allyn & Bacon: Boston. Bird, K. (2007) The intergenerational transmission of poverty: An overview, CPRC Working Paper 99, Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/885.pdf Blanden, J., (2006) “Bucking the trend”: What enables those who are disadvantaged in childhood to succeed later in life?, Department for Work and Pensions, Working Paper No 31 http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7729/1/WP31.pdf Blanden, J. and Gregg, P., (2004) “Family income and educational attainment: a review of approaches and evidence for Britain”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 20(2), pp. 245-263 Blanden, J., Gregg, P. and Machin, S. (2003) Changes in educational inequality, The Centre for Market and Public Organization, University of Bristol http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/wp79.pdf 32
Blanden, J. and Machin, S. (2004) “Educational inequality and the expansion of UK higher education”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 51(2), pp. 230–249 http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/17497/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_sh ared_repository_Content_Blanden,J%26Machin,S_Educational%20inequality_Blande n_Educational%20Inequality_2014.pdf Blau, P. and Duncan, O. (1967) The American occupational structure, New York: Free Press Boyden, J. and Cooper, E. (2007) Questioning the power of resilience: Are children up to the task of disrupting the transmission of poverty, CPRC Working Paper 73, Manchester: CPRC http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/CP_2006_Boyden_Cooper .pdf Bracking, S (2003) The political economy of chronic poverty, CPRC Working Paper 23, Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre https://ssrn.com/abstract=1754446 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1754446 Breen, R. and Goldthorpe, J. (2001) “Class, mobility and merit: The experience of two British birth cohorts”, European Sociological Review, Vol. 17 (2), pp. 81-101. Breen, R. and Jonsson, J. (2005) “Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: recent research on educational attainment and social mobility”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 31, pp. 223-243 https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2009/SOC409/um/Breen_Johnson_2005.pdf Brooks-Gunn, J. and Duncan, G. (1997) “The effects of poverty on children”, Future of Children, Vol.7(2), pp. 55–71 https://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/docs/07_02_03.pdf Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P., Liaw, F. and Spiker, D. (1993) “Enhancing the development of low- birthweight, premature infants: Changes in cognition and behavior over the first three years”, Child Development, Vol. 64, pp. 736-753 Brooks-Gunn, J., Liaw, F. and Klebanov, P. (1992) “Effects of early intervention on cognitive function of low birth weight preterm infants”, The Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 120(3), pp. 335-358.
33
Card, D. (1999) “The causal effect of education on earnings”. In O. Ashenfelter and D. Card (Eds), Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3A, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science http://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/eeelabchp/3-30.htm Carneiro, P. and Heckman, J. (2003) “Human capital policy”. In J. Heckman and A. Krueger (Eds) Inequality in America: What role for human capital policy? Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc233a.pdf Corak, M. (2006) Do poor children become poor adults? Lessons from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility, Discussion Paper No. 1993, Bonn: IZA http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf Corcoran, M. (2001) “Mobility, persistence, and the consequences of poverty for children: child and adult outcomes”. In S. Danziger and R. Haveman (Eds) Understanding poverty, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 121-141 d’ Addio, A. (2007) Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: Mobility or immobility across generations? A review of the evidence for OECD countries, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 52, Paris: OECD http://www.oecd.org/els/38335410.pdf Dafermos, Y. and Papatheodorou, C. (2013) The contribution of social protection system in economic growth. Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE (in Greek) http://ineobservatory.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/simvolisistimatos.pdf Dafermos, Y. and Papatheodorou C. (2010) Macroeconomic environment, inequality and poverty: An empirical investigation on the impact of economic growth and of social protection in Greece and the EU. Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE, (in Greek). http://ineobservatory.gr/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/meleti3.pdf Duncan, G. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds) (1997) Consequences of growing up poor, New York: Russell Sage. Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J. and Klebanov, P. (1994) “Economic deprivation and early childhood development”, Child Development, Vol. 65(2), pp. 296-318.
34
Duncan, O., Featherman, D. and Duncan, B. (1969) Socioeconomic background and occupational achievement: Extensions of a basic model, Project No. S-0074, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023879.pdf du Toit, A. (2005) Poverty measurement blues: Some reflections on the space for understanding ‘chronic’ and ‘structural’ poverty in South Africa, CPRC Working Paper 55/PLAAS Chronic Poverty and Development Series 6, Manchester & Bellville: Chronic Poverty Research Centre and PLAAS https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/128108/WP55_duToit.pdf Ellwood, D. and Thomas, K. (2000) “Who is getting a college education? Family background and the growing gaps in enrollment”. In S. Danziger and J. Waldfogel (Eds) Securing the future: Investing in children from birth to college, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 283-324. Engle, P., Castle, S. and Menon, P. (1996) “Child development: vulnerability and resilience”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol 43(5), pp. 621-35 Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. (2010) “Has social mobility in Britain decreased? Reconciling divergent findings on income and class mobility”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61 (2), pp. 1-20. Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. (2002) “Intergenerational inequality: A sociological perspective”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16 (3), pp. 31-44 http://personal.psc.isr.umich.edu/yuxieweb/files/pubs/Articles/Erikson_Goldthorpe 2002.pdf Erikson, R. and Goldthorpe, J. (1992) The constant flux, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Esping-Andersen, G. (2007) “Investing in children and their life chances”, Paper prepared for the Foundation Carolina International Workshop ‘Welfare State and Competitivity’, Madrid. Esping-Andersen, G. (2005) “Social inheritance and equal opportunities policies”. In S. Delorenzi, J. Reed and P. Robinson (eds.) Maintaining momentum, Promoting social mobility and life chances from early years to adulthood, London: Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 10-30.
35
Esping-Andersen, G. (2004a) “Unequal opportunities and the mechanisms of social inheritance”. In M. Corak (Ed) Generational Income Mobility in North America and Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289-314 Esping-Andersen, G. (2004b) “Untying the Gordian knot of social inheritance”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 21, pp. 115-139. Esping-Andersen, G. (2005) Social bases of changing income distributions, DemoSoc Working Paper, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. https://repositori.upf.edu/bitstream/handle/10230/269/EspingAndersen_Social.pdf;sequence=3 Esping-Andersen, G. (2002) “A new gender contract”. In G. Esping-Andersen, D. Gallie, A. Hemerijsk and J. Myles (eds.) Why we need a new welfare state, Oxford: Oxford University Press Esping-Andersen, G. (1999) Social foundations of post-industrial economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press Esping-Andersen, G. (1996) “Welfare states without work: Τhe impasse of labour shedding and familialism in continental European social policy”. Ιn G. EspingAndersen G (Ed) Welfare states in transition. National adaptations in global economies, London: Sage, pp: 66-87. Espring-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Oxford: Policy Press. Ferrera, M. (2000) “Restructuring the welfare state in Southern Europe”. In S. Kuhnle (Ed) The Survival of the European welfare state, London: Routledge, pp. 131-155. Ferrera, M. (1996), “The ‘Southern Model’ of welfare in social Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol, 6, pp. 17-37. Goldthorpe, J. (2002) “Globalisation and social class”, West European Politics, Vol. 25 (3), pp. 1-28. Gregg, P. and Machin, S. (2001) “Childhood experiences, educational attainment and adult labour market performance”. In K. Vleminckx and T. M. Smeeding (Eds) Child well-being, child poverty and child policy in modern nations: What do we know?, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp 129-150.
36
Harriss-White, B. (2005) Poverty and Capitalism, Queen Elizabeth House Working Paper 134, Oxford: Oxford University http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps134.pdf Hauser, R. (1969) “Schools and the stratification process”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 74, pp. 587-611. Hauser, R. and Featherman, D. (1976) “Equality of schooling: Trends and prospects”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 49, pp. 99-120. Heckman, J. and Carneiro, P. (2003) Human capital policy, NBER Working Paper 9495, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Heckman, J. and Lochner, L. (2000) “Rethinking myths about education and training: Understanding the sources of skill formation in a modern economy”. In S. Danziger and J. Waldfogel (Eds) Securing the future: Investing in children from birth to college, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Heckman, J. and Rubinstein, Y. (2001) “The importance of non-cognitive skills: Lessons from the GED testing program”, American Economic Review, Vol. 91(2), pp. 145-149. Heineck, G. and Riphahn, R. (2007) Intergenerational transmission of educational attainment in Germany: The last five decades, Discussion Paper No. 2985, Bohn: IZA http://repec.iza.org/dp2985.pdf Herrnstein, R. and Murray, C. (1994) The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life, New York: Free Press Hickey, S. and Du Toit, A. (2007) Adverse incorporation, social exclusion and chronic poverty, CPRC Working Paper 81, Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP81_Hickey_duToit.pdf Hill, M. and Duncan, G. (1987) “Parental family income and the socioeconomic attainment of children”, Social Science Research, Vol. 1, pp. 39-73. Hulme, D., Moore, K. and Shepherd, A. (2001) Chronic poverty: meanings and analytical frameworks, CPRC Working Paper 2, Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP02_Hulme_et_al.pdf
37
Ioannidis, A., Papatheodorou, C. and Souftas, D. (2012) Working poor. Dimensions of poverty of the workers in Greece, Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE (in Greek). http://ineobservatory.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/report6.pdf Jencks, C. and Peterson, P., (1991) The urban underclass, Washington DC: The Brookings Institution. Leibfried, S. (1993) “Towards a European welfare state? On integrating poverty regimes into the European Community”. In C. Jones (Ed) New perspectives on the welfare state in Europe, London & New York: Routledge, pp. 133-146 Lewis, O. (1969) “The culture of poverty”. In D. Moynihan (Ed) On understanding poverty, New York: Basic Books, pp. 187-200. Lewis, O. (1965) La Vida: a Puerto Rican family in the culture of poverty, New York: Random House. Lipset, S. and Bendix, R. (1992) Social mobility in industrial society, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Lipset, S. and Zetterberg, H. (1956) “A theory of social mobility”, Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. 2., pp. 155-177. Ludwig, J. and Mayer, S. (2006), “Culture” and the intergenerational transmission of poverty: The prevention paradox, Future of Children, Vol. 16(2), pp. 175-196. http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/Future_of_Children_2007.pdf Mayer, S. (1997) What money can’ t buy: Family income and children’ s life chances, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mead, L. (1992) The new politics of poverty: The nonworking poor in America, New York City: Harper Collins. Mead, L. (1986) Beyond entitlement: The social obligations of citizenship, New York: Free Press. Mincer, J. (1974) Schooling, experience and earnings, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York: Columbia University Press.
38
Mincer, J. (1958) “Investment in human capital and personal income distribution”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 66, pp. 281-302. Moore, K. (2005) Thinking about youth poverty through the lenses of chronic poverty, life-course poverty and intergenerational poverty, Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/57Moore.pdf Moore, K. (2001) Frameworks for understanding the intergenerational transmission of poverty and well-being in developing countries, CPRC Working Paper 8, Manchester, Chronic Poverty Research Centre http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP08_Moore.pdf Morris, M. (1989) “From the culture of poverty to the underclass: an analysis of a shift in public language”, The American Sociologist, Vol. 20(2), pp. 123-133. Murray, C. (2001) Livelihoods research: Some conceptual and methodological issues, CPRC Background Paper 5, Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre http://www.chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_files/WP05_Murray.pdf Murray, C. (1984) Losing ground: American social policy, 1950-1980, New York: Basic Books. Myrdal, G. (1963) Challenge to affluence, London: Gollancz. Nolan, Β., Esping-Andersen, G., Whelan, C.Τ. and Wagner, S. (2011) “The role of social institutions in intergenerational mobility”. In R. Erikson, M. Jantti and T. Smeeding (Eds) The Comparative Study of Intergenerational mobility, New York: Russell Sage, pp. 305-325 Papanastasiou, S. and Papatheodorou, C. and Petmesidou, M. (2016) “Child poverty and intergenerational poverty transmission in the EU: What is the impact of social protection policies and institutions?”. In Petmesidou, M., Papatheodorou, C., Delamonica E. and Aldrie H.-L. (Eds): Child Poverty, Youth (un)Employment and Social Inclusion, Stuttgart: CROP/ibidem, pp. 67-89 Papanastasiou, S. and Papatheodorou, C. (2010) “Intergenerational transmission of poverty in the EU: An empirical analysis”. Paper presented at the 1st IIPPE International Conference in Political Economy “Beyond the Crisis”, Rethymno, Crete http://www.iippe.org/wiki/images/f/f3/CONF_GREEKPOVERTY_Papanastasiou.pdf
39
Papatheodorou, C. (2014) “Economic crisis, poverty and deprivation in Greece: The impact of neoliberal remedies”. In S. Mavroudeas (Ed) Greek capitalism in crisis: Marxist analyses, London: Routledge, pp 179-195. Papatheodorou, C. (2009) “Inequalities and Deficiencies in Social Protection The Welfare System of Greece”. In K. Schubert, S. Hegelich, Ur. Bazant (eds.) The Handbook of European Welfare Systems, London/Oxford: Routledge, 2009, pp. 225243 Papatheodorou, C. (1997) Poverty and family background in Greece: The role of father’s occupation and education, Welfare State Programme No. WSP/ 133, LSESTICERD, London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Papatheodorou, C. and Dafermos, Y. (2010a) Structure and trends in economic inequality and poverty in Greece and EU, 1995-2008. Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE (in Greek) http://ineobservatory.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/report2.pdf Papatheodorou, C. and Dafermos, Y. (2010b) Dimensions of poverty and deprivation of the workers in Greece and the Attica, Athens: Hellenic Social Policy Association (in Greek). http://utopia.duth.gr/%7Echristos/papers/Working_Poor_Attica%20.pdf Papatheodorou, C., Dafermos, Y., Danchev, S. and Marsellou, E. (2008) Economic Inequality and Poverty in Greece: Comparative Analysis and Intertemporal Trends. Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE & UADPhil-Econ (in Greek) http://ineobservatory.gr/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/report1.pdf Papatheodorou, C., Dafermos, Y., Papadopoulou, E. and Sakellaridis, G. (2010) Economic growth, inequality and poverty: Theoretical and empirical approaches. Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE, (in Greek) http://ineobservatory.gr/wpcontent/uploads/2010/12/meleti2.pdf Papatheodorou, C. and Missos, V. (2013) Inequality, poverty and economic crisis in Greece and the EU. Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE (in Greek). http://ineobservatory.gr/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/REPORT-9.pdf
40
Papatheodorou, C. and Papanastasiou, S. (2010) Intergenerational transmission of poverty in Greece and the EU: Theoretical approaches and empirical analysis. Observatory on Economic and Social Developments, Labour Institute, Greek General Confederation of Labour, Athens: INE-GSEE (in Greek) http://ineobservatory.gr/wpcontent/uploads/2014/08/download7.pdf Papatheodorou, C. and Petmesidou, M. (2005) “Inequality, Redistribution and Welfare Regimes: Comparing Greece to other EU countries”. In G. Argitis (Ed), Economic Changes and Social Conflicts in Greece, Athens: Typothito-G. Dardanos (in Greek), pp. 213-254 Papatheodorou, C. and Petmesidou, M. (2004) “Inequality, Poverty and Redistribution through Social Transfers: Greece in Comparative Perspective”. In M. Petmesidou and C. Papatheodorou (Eds), Poverty and Social Exclusion, Athens: Exantas (in Greek), pp. 307-366. Petmesidou, M. (2014) “From the golden age to the current crisis” (in the Greek translation of) Esping-Andersen, G. The three worlds of welfare capitalism, Athens: Topos, pp. 7-31. Petmesidou, M. (2013) “Crisis and austerity: A painful watershed for the Greek welfare state”, Political Insight, Political Studies Association (8 November 2013) https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/crisis-and-austerity-painful-watershedgreek-welfare-state Saunders, P. (1997) “Social mobility in Britain: An empirical evaluation of two competing theories”, Sociology, Vol. 31, pp. 261-288 Saunders, P. (1996) Unequal but fair? A study of class barriers in Britain, London: IEA. Shavit, Y. and Blossfeld, H. (Eds) (1993) Persistent inequality: Changing Educational Attainment in Thirteen Countries, Boulder: Westview Press. Smith, D. (1992) Understanding the underclass, London: Policy Studies Institute Townsend, P. (1987) “Deprivation”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 125-146. Waldfogel, J. (2002) “Child care, women’s employment and child outcomes”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol.15, pp. 527-548.
41
Waldfogel, J. (1999) Early childhood interventions and outcomes, CASE Paper 21, London: London School of Economics, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.519.5815&rep=rep1&typ e=pdf Warren, J., Hauser, R. and Sheridan, J. (2002) “Occupational stratification across the life course”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 67, pp. 432-455. Wilson, W. (1987) The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass and public policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wood, G. (2000) Prisoners and escapees: Improving the institutional responsibility square in Bangladesh, Institute for International Policy Analysis, University of Bath http://staff.bath.ac.uk/hssgdw/pris.pdf Yaqub, S. (2002a) Chronic poverty: Scrutinizing patterns, correlates and explorations, CPRC Working Paper No. 21, Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=92A0E7626A0A060B7E0E 4058A2B552A8?doi=10.1.1.562.5514&rep=rep1&type=pdf Yaqub, S. (2002b) “Poor children grow into poor adults: harmful mechanisms or over- deterministic theory”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 14 (8), 108193 Yaqub, S. (2000) Intertemporal welfare dynamics: Extent and causes, Background Paper 72, New York: UNDP Zill, N., Moore, K., Smith, E., Stief, T. and Coiro, M. (1995) “The life circumstances and development of children in welfare families: A profile based on national survey data”. In P. Chase- Lansdale and J. Brooks-Gun (Eds) Escape from poverty: What makes a difference for children, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 38-62.
42
43
HELLENIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR UNICEF 8, A. Dimitriou & 37 J. Kennedy strs, 161 21 Kaissariani, Athens – Tel.: 210 7255555 – Fax: 210 72 35555 www.unicef.gr unicef.gr @unicefgreece 44
