Identifying and Explaining Different Poverty Trajectories Using a Group‐based Trajectory Analysis – A Case Study of South Korea

Abstract

In this study, we propose a group-based trajectory analysis to examine why and how people fall into and out of poverty despite spiralling public expenditure on anti-poverty policies. By analyzing the poverty experiences of 1,001 low-income households between 1999 and 2008 in Korea, we identify five groups based on their poverty trajectories: exiting, declining, slowly rising, rapidly rising and chronic. Household members in each group demonstrate heterogeneous labour market experiences, educational levels and demographic factors. The exiting group has a high proportion of full-time workers, high school graduates, and younger and male-headed households, whereas the chronic group has more part-time workers, high school dropouts, and older and female-headed households. Among the declining, slowly rising and rapidly rising groups, educational background, age and sex are factors that differentiate the poverty dynamics of household members. Lastly, a number of social policies for helping low-income households to leave and stay out of poverty are proposed.

Inattention in boys from low-income backgrounds predicts welfare receipt: a 30-year prospective study

“…Studies of trajectories of long-term welfare receipt are scarce. Previous work shows that the proportion of participants following trajectories of chronic welfare receipt vary from 3.8% in a Finnish population sample (Ilmakunnas and Moisio, 2019), to 6.9% for low-income households in South Korea (Kim and Shin, 2014), to 10.1% among African American women living in low-income neighborhoods of Chicago (Juon et al ., 2010). While methodological and contextual differences (e.g.…”

Social assistance trajectories among young adults in Finland: What are the determinants of welfare dependency?

“…In general, studies analyzing trajectories that focus on poverty or social assistance receipt have been relatively scarce (for exceptions, see e.g., Juon, Green, Fothergill, Kasper, Thorpe, & Ensminger, 2010;Kim & Shin, 2014;Vandecasteele, 2010;Wagmiller, Kuang, Aber, Lennon, & Alberti, 2006). Studies have typically described the dynamic characteristics of social assistance by using a priori classifications and these may not fully represent heterogeneity in individual trajectories (e.g., Kauppinen et al, 2014;Snel, Reelick, & Groenenboom, 2013).…”