Fattigdom blandt børn født i 1995

Abstract

Med udgangspunkt i forskning om child well-being undersøger artiklen, hvilke implikationer det har for fænomenet børnefattigdom, når man anvender forskellige målingsinstrumenter til at afgrænse den del af børnepopulationen, som har en opvækst med utilstrækkelige materielle ressourcer. Analysen fokuserer på tre dimensioner: 1) Andelen af fattige (større) børn, 2) betydninger ved at være et fattigt barn og 3) årsager til, at børn lever i fattigdom. Med register- og survey-data fra Forløbsundersøgelsen af børn født i 1995, der var 15 år i 2011, viser analysen, at andelen af fattige børn er 3-7 pct., og at andelen af fattige børn er øget gennem denne kohortes opvækst. Om sammenhænge mellem fattigdom og centrale områder af hverdagslivet indikerer analysen, at fattige 15-årige hyppigere er udsatte og ledes ud på et spor, der kan føre til marginalisering ikke kun aktuelt, men også på lang sigt. Artiklen peger på, at de anvendte instrumenter til at måle fattigdom gør en forskel, idet en survey-baseret metode, der direkte spørger til familiernes økonomiske råderum, forekommer at være mest sensitiv i forhold til at indfange forskelle i børns levevilkår i hverdagen.
 
 
 ENGELSK ABSTRACT:
 
 Mai Heide Ottosen and Peter Rohde Skov: Poverty among Children Born in 1995 
 
 This article examines the implications of different measures of poverty for defining and understanding child poverty. It is based on recent research on child wellbeing. The analysis focuses on three dimensions of child poverty: the proportion of poor children, implications of being a poor child, and the explanations why children are living in poverty. Using register and survey data from the Danish Longitudinal study of the 1995-cohort (aged 15 in 2011) the analysis estimates the proportion of poor children to be 3-7 per cent; however the proportion of poor children has increased during the childhood of this cohort. With regard to the links between poverty and key areas of everyday life, the analysis suggests that poor children tend to be more socially vulnerable than their non-poor peers. Some of them may be at risk of social marginalization not only at present, but also in the future. The article suggests that different measures of poverty may lead to different insights. Thus, survey-based methods that directly ask families about their financial scope and deprivation appear to be the most sensitive to capture differences in children’s everyday lives.
 
 Key words: Child poverty, Danish Longitudinal Study, everyday life.

Ethno-Linguistic Affiliation and Income Poverty in Native Households with Children: Finland 1987–2011

“…Also in the Scandinavian countries, which in cross-country comparisons generally have lower child poverty rates than other rich countries (Chen and Corak 2008;Gornick and Jäntti 2012), ethnicity is a strong determinant of child poverty. Ottosen and Skov (2013) found that in Denmark, the odds of being poor is 17% higher for children whose parents are immigrants, and almost 30% higher for those who are immigrants themselves, as compared to children of Danish ancestry. In Sweden, being born abroad raises the child's probability of being poor, and it increases additionally if at least one parent was born abroad (Lindquist and Sjögren Lindquist 2012).…”

“…For example, in the UK, families with neither parent employed where found to be ten times as likely to be poor as families with both parents employed (Bradshaw and Holmes 2010). In Denmark, children whose parent with the family's highest socioeconomic status was outside the labour force were almost 70 times as likely to be found in poverty as compared to those with a parent employed at the highest level (Ottosen and Skov 2013). Results from a study in Sweden show slightly different results (Lindquist and Sjögren Lindquist 2012), as children who had at least one parent suffering from unemployment did not experience an increase in the probability of being poor.…”

“…In Sweden as well, many children in the household implies a higher probability of being poor. Likewise, children living in larger households both in Sweden and in Denmark are more likely to be poor than those living in smaller households (Lindquist and Sjögren Lindquist 2012;Ottosen and Skov 2013).…”

“…Analyzing the causes of child poverty is therefore of utmost importance, and international research on determinants of child poverty is indeed extensive. It is well-established that the likelihood of child poverty is higher in certain types of households, such as in those with a single parent (Bradshaw and 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2013) and in those experiencing unemployment or joblessness (Bradshaw and Holmes 2010;Chzhen 2014;Ottosen and Skov 2013). Although family structure and parents' attachment to the labour market are considered to be primary determinants of child poverty, it is a complex phenomenon typically explained by a range of factors (Chen and Corak 2008;Salmi et al 2014), ethnicity being one.…”

“…Although family structure and parents' attachment to the labour market are considered to be primary determinants of child poverty, it is a complex phenomenon typically explained by a range of factors (Chen and Corak 2008;Salmi et al 2014), ethnicity being one. Numerous studies show that children in ethnic minorities and immigrant families are overrepresented among the poor (Bradshaw and Holmes 2010;Galloway et al 2015;Lindquist and Sjögren Lindquist 2012;Ottosen and Skov 2013;Platt 2009). Ethnic minorities are found to be discriminated in the labour market (Booth et al 2011;Carlsson and Rooth 2007) and immigrants are found to have higher unemployment and lower labour market participation than natives (Bisin et al 2011).…”