UNICEF
Innocenti Report Card 12Children in the Developed WorldChildren of the Recession
The impact of the economic crisison child well-being in rich countries

Innocenti Report Card 12 was written by Gonzalo Fanjul and edited by
Rick Boychuk.
The UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti would like to acknowledge
the generous support for Innocenti Report Card 12 provided by theGovernment of Italy.
Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced using
the following reference:
UNICEF Office of Research (2014). ‘Children of the Recession: The
impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries’,
Innocenti Report Card 12, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
The Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare theperformance of economically advanced countries in securing therights and well-being of their children.
In 1988 the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) established aresearch centre to support its advocacy for children worldwide and to
identify and research current and future areas of UNICEF’s work. The
prime objectives of the Office of Research are to improve international
understanding of issues relating to children’s rights, to help facilitate
full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Childsupporting advocacy worldwide. The Office aims to set out acomprehensive framework for research and knowledge within theorganization, in support of its global programmes and policies. Throughstrengthening research partnerships with leading academic institutions
and development networks in both the North and South, the Officeseeks to leverage additional resources and influence in support ofefforts towards policy reform in favour of children.
Publications produced by the Office are contributions to a global debate
on children and child rights issues and include a wide range of
opinions. For that reason, some publications may not necessarily reflect
UNICEF policies or approaches on some topics. The views expressed
are those of the authors and/or editors and are published in order tostimulate further dialogue on issues affecting children.

Cover photo © Shutterstock©United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), September 2014
ISBN: 978 88 6522 030 6
ISSN: 1605-7317

UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 2033 0
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org

Innocenti Report Card 12Children in the Developed WorldChildren of theRecession

The impact of the economic crisison child well-being in rich countries

Children of the Recession
Executive summary

The data and observations in this
Innocenti Report Card reveal astrong and multifaceted relationshipbetween the impact of the GreatRecession on national economies
and a decline in children’s well-being
since 2008. Children are suffering
most, and will bear theconsequences longest, in countries
where the recession has hit hardest.
For each country, the extent andcharacter of the crisis’s impact onchildren has been shaped by thedepth of the recession, pre-existing
economic conditions, the strengthof the social safety net and, mostimportantly, policy responses.
Remarkably, amid thisunprecedented social crisis, many
countries have managed to limit –or even reduce – child poverty. It
was by no means inevitable, then,that children would be the mostenduring victims of the recession.

The impact of the recession
on children
This report offers multiple anddetailed perspectives on how therecession has affected children in
the developed world. Official data
have been used to rank the impact
on children for countries in theEuropean Union (EU) and/or theOrganisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development(OECD):» In 23 of 41 countries analysed,
and in many of the highly
populated countries, childpoverty (children living inhouseholds whose income is2

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

below the poverty line) has
increased since 2008. In 18
countries child poverty has fallen,
sometimes markedly.

» The number of children entering
into poverty during the recessionis 2.6 million higher than thenumber that have been able toescape from it since 2008
(6.6 million, as against 4 million).
Around 76.5 million children livein poverty in the 41 most affluent
countries.

» The recession has hit young
people extremely hard, with the
NEET (not in education,
employment or training) raterising dramatically in many
countries. In the EU, 7.5 million
young people (almost the
population of Switzerland) were
NEET in 2013 – nearly a million
more than in 2008. The UnitedStates and Australia have had thelargest increases in the NEET rate
across non-EU OECD countries.

» Beyond income and employment
levels, the recession has affected
a number of other importantdimensions of people’s lives. From2007 to 2013, feelings of insecurity
and stress rose in 18 of the 41
countries, according to measurable
self-perception indicators(including access to food andsatisfaction with life). The
recession’s impact on personal
experiences and perceptions is
not yet over, and many indicators
have even worsened in the mostrecent years.

C a r d1 2

Universal aftershocks
Those countries most affected by
the recession have seen a steadydeterioration in the situation offamilies, mostly from job losses,
underemployment and cuts topublic services. The median income
in households with children has
decreased in almost half of thecountries with available data. The
number of families stating that theirsituation is ‘very difficult’ has risen
in most countries. Having a child orchildren in a household increases
the risk of ‘working poverty’(working, but below the povertyline) from 7 per cent to 11 per cent.
Since 2008, the percentage ofhouseholds with children that are
unable to afford meat, chicken or
fish every second day has morethan doubled in Estonia, Greece
and Italy. Inability to cope with
unexpected financial expenses has
increased by almost 60 per cent, on
average, in households withchildren in the
12 most affected countries.
Such changes have hugeconsequences for the young.
Children feel anxious and stressed
when parents endure
unemployment or income loss, andthey suffer family downturns in
subtle and painfully evident ways.
Housing, a large part of every
family’s budget, is one important
indicator of poverty. Evictions,mortgage defaults and foreclosures
all spiked in many countries
affected by the recession. Such
constraints at home have beenE x e c u t i v ecompounded by weakened safety
nets in healthcare, education andnutrition. Some 1.6 million morechildren were living in severematerial deprivation in 2012(11.1 million) than in 2008
(9.5 million) in 30 European
countries. The longer these children
remain trapped in the cycle ofpoverty, the harder it will be forthem to escape.

Poorer children suffer mostThe poorest and most vulnerable
children have suffereddisproportionately. Inequality has
increased in some countries where
overall child poverty has decreased,suggesting that tax changes andsocial transfers intended to help thepoorest children have been
relatively ineffective.
The ‘poverty gap’ (a measure of the
distance between the poverty line
and the income of people below it)has worsened in countries where
poverty has increased most,meaning that deprivation in thosecountries is more extensive andintense. It is notable that thisinequality has also increased insome places where overall childpoverty has decreased. Moreover,children in particularly vulnerable
situations – such as those injobless, migrant, lone-parent andlarge households – are overrepresented in the most severe
ranges of poverty statistics.
In 28 out of 31 European countries(EU plus Iceland, Norway and
Switzerland) the poverty rate has

increased more rapidly (or has
decreased more slowly) for the
young than for the elderly. In 24 of
the 31 countries, poverty levels
have decreased among the elderly,
while among children they haveincreased in 20 countries,
suggesting that safeguards for theold have been more effective thanfor the young.

A generation cast aside
Unemployment among adolescentsand young adults is a significant
long-term effect of the recession.
Among those aged 15–24,
unemployment has increased in 34of the 41 countries analysed. Youthunemployment andunderemployment have reachedworrying levels in many countries.
Even when unemployment orinactivity decreases, that does notnecessarily mean that young people
are finding stable, reasonably paid
jobs. The number of 15- to 24-yearolds in part-time work or who areunderemployed has tripled on
average in countries more exposedto the recession. Contract work has
become more common,
contributing to the generalprecariousness of labour markets.

An uneven response
Many governments adopted
economic stimulus packages in theinitial phase of the recession,
pushing up public spending. The
persistence of the recession led toa decrease in national revenues andan increase in deficits. Pressures u m m a r yfrom financial markets forced many
governments to cut budgets. The
Eurozone’s U-turn was particularly
abrupt, and there was a fall in social
spending on children and families.
Social protection responses havevaried considerably in magnitude
and makeup. When budget cuts
became unavoidable in certain
countries, particularly in the
Mediterranean region, the shift fromstimulus to consolidation increased
inequality and contributed toworsening living conditions forchildren. During the second phaseof the recession, the effectivenessof child poverty reduction efforts
declined in a third of EU countries.
Extreme child poverty in the UnitedStates increased more during theGreat Recession than it did in therecession of 1982, suggesting that,for the very poorest, the safety net
affords less protection now than it
did three decades ago.
No government was prepared forthe extent or depth of the recession
and none reacted in the same way.
Many countries with higher levelsof child vulnerability would havebeen wise to strengthen their safety
nets during the pre-recession periodof dynamic economic growth,which was marked by risingdisparity and a growing
concentration of wealth.
Governments that bolstered existing
public institutions and programmes
helped to buffer countless children
from the crisis – a strategy that
others may consider adopting.

I n n o c e n t i

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

3

E x e c u t i v e

s u m m a r y

The consequences of a Great
Leap Backward
All countries faced difficult choices,limited budgets and worsening
recessions. The enormity of thechallenges should not be
underestimated. Demand for
austerity measures was intense,
as were pleas from other vulnerable
sectors. Compromises wereundoubtedly necessary.
But if protection policies had beenstronger before, and if they had
been strengthened during therecession, how many more children
could have been helped?
A calculation of the impact of thecrisis on the median income ofhouseholds with children suggests
that, between 2008 and 2012,
Greek families lost the equivalentof 14 years of progress; Ireland,
Luxembourg and Spain lost a full
decade; and four other nations lost
almost as much. The GreatRecession has brought sufferingand life-long risks to an extra
619,000 children in Italy, 444,000
in France and 2 million in Mexico.

4

I n n o c e n t i

Re p o r t

The problems have not ended forchildren and their families, and it
may well take years for many ofthem to return to pre-crisis levels ofwell-being. Failing to respond boldly
could pose long-term risks – forexample, there has been a break in
the upwards trend in fertility rates.
In no region are these risks more
problematic than in Europe, where
inequality is rising within andbetween Member States,
threatening to undermine theambitious targets of Europe’s
2020 agenda.

The children of the recovery
What lies ahead for children
neglected by the global responseto the Great Recession? If theneglect persists, the crisis amongchildren will continue well after
any economic recovery. The longterm well-being of our societies
is at stake.
The analysis in this report suggests
the following principles andrecommendations for governments
to consider in strengthening childprotection strategies:

C a r d1 2

» Make an explicit commitment toend child poverty in developed
countries. Countries should
place the well-being of children
at the top of their responses tothe recession, aligning theirethical obligations with theirself-interest.

» Rescue, prevent and give hope.
Opportunities to break cycles ofchild vulnerability should bepromoted. Guaranteed minimumsocial standards would make apositive difference.

» Produce better data for informed
public debate. Availability,
timeliness and relevance of
information about the well-beingof children should be improved.

SECTION 1
Introduction“The child should be fully prepared to live
an individual life in society, and brought up
in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in theCharter of the United Nations, and inparticular in the spirit of peace, dignity,
tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity.”– Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Twenty-five years after theConvention on the Rights of the Child
became international law, many of its
commitments remain unrealized, andthe developed countries mostcapable of delivering on them arelosing ground. The Great Recession,
which was triggered by a financial
meltdown that started in the UnitedStates and spread rapidly across theglobe, has inflicted the economiccrisis on children. The gap between
rich and poor families has widened in
an alarming number of industrializedcountries. For many of thesechildren, once again place of birth
may determine their rights andopportunities in life.

As the data in this new edition of
the Innocenti Report Card series
show, in the past five years, risingnumbers of children and theirfamilies have experienced difficultyin satisfying their most basic
material and educational needs.
Unemployment rates not seen since
the Great Depression of the 1930s
have left many families unable toprovide the care, protection andopportunities to which children areentitled. Most importantly, theGreat Recession is about to trap
a generation of educated andcapable youth in a limbo ofunmet expectations and lasting
vulnerability.

To be sure, the situation describedhere varies from country tocountry. A small but significant
group of countries responded tothe crisis with ambitious andtimely plans that have shelteredchildren from the recession’s
most debilitating consequences.
Many others have implemented
partial reforms to safeguard such
essentials as health services,
housing and food. In some cases,
the honest efforts of governments
have been hindered by the weightof the conditions imposed onthem by the financial markets
and the providers of financial
assistance.

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

C a r d1 2

5

S E C T I O N

1I nt r o d u ction

This report is not intended torecommend specific responses tothe economic downturn or tocomment on the austerity policies
that some countries are pursuing.
Rather, its goal is to highlight thefact that the current and future livesof children have been – and arebeing – neglected in the global
response to the Great Recession.
Should this neglect persist, thecrisis for children will continue
to be felt well after the economic
recovery. The long-term social
health of our societies is at risk. If
generations have defining moments,
this is certainly one of them.
The structure of the report is asfollows: Section 2 features ‘league
tables’, the flagship tool of the
Innocenti Report Card series. The
tables rank the change, since theonset of the crisis, in the poverty

6

I nnocenti

Re p o r tlevels of children; the impact of therecession on youth; and what
repeated rounds of the Gallup
World Poll show about the change
in people’s perceptions of their life
circumstances over the past five
years. Section 3 describes theimpact of the Great Recession on
families, analysing the magnitude of
the shock on children andcomparing it with the condition ofother social groups. It also explores
the effects of the recession on
youth seeking to enter or remain in
the labour force in the middle of arecession. Section 4 offers an
explanation for why this happened,looking at the period that preceded
the crisis and describing the
responses of different
governments. Section 5 presents
conclusions and recommendations.

C a r d1 2

S E C T I O N

2

T h e

l e a g u e

t a b l es

SECTION 2
The league tables

Countries should place the well-being ofchildren at the top of their responses to therecession. Not only is this a moral obligation
but it is in the self-interest of societies.

Surveys and polls produced in theEuropean Union (EU) and/or theOrganisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development(OECD) countries offer valuable
insights into the impact of therecession on children and families.
Using such data, three important
rankings have been constructed:
the evolution of child poverty bycountry since 2008; the change inthe rate of young people not in
education, employment or training(NEET); and individuals’ selfperception of their living conditions.
Each of these league tables
describes a different dimension of

a complex concept – how children
have fared during the GreatRecession. The first covers
monetary poverty, a measure of theavailability of resources to purchasegoods and services to ensurematerial well-being. The second
ranking reports on the schoolingand employment status of young
adults, who have arguably been thehardest hit during this period. And
our third league table is somewhat
innovative, employing data fromthe Gallup World Poll to see what
individuals themselves say about
their experiences during thesetumultuous economic times.

The rankings focus on 2007/2008
up to the latest period for whichdata are available. A light blue
background indicates a place inthe top third of the table, midblue denotes the middle third,
and dark blue the bottom third.
While some macroeconomic
indicators in most affluent
countries show signs of recovery,
economic growth is slow andunemployment remains
abnormally high. The impact of
the recession on children, inparticular, will be felt long after
the recession itself is declared
to be over.

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d1 2

7

S E C T I O N

2

T h e

l e a g u e

t a b l es

League Table 1 Change in child poverty (anchored in 2008)
Rank

Country

Change(2008–2012)

1

Chile

-8.67

Chile

2

Poland-7.90

Poland3Australia-6.27

Australia

4

Slovakia-5.60

Slovakia

5

Switzerland-4.80

Switzerland

6

Norway-4.30

Norway7

Republic of Korea-3.40

Republic of Korea

8

Finland-3.20

Finland9

Turkey-2.76

Turkey

10

Japan

-2.70

Japan

11

Canada-2.44

Canada12

Romania-2.30

Romania13

Belgium-0.80

Belgium

13

Sweden-0.80

Sweden15

Austria-0.70

Austria16

New Zealand-0.40

New Zealand17

Czech Republic-0.40

Czech Republic

18

Germany-0.20

Germany

19

Israel0.55

Israel20

Bulgaria

0.60

Bulgaria

20

Malta

0.60

Malta

22

Netherlands

1.00

Netherlands

22

Portugal

1.00

Portugal

24

Denmark

1.10

Denmark

25

United Kingdom

1.60

United Kingdom

26

Slovenia

1.80

Slovenia

27

United States

2.06

United States

28

Cyprus2.70

Cyprus29

Hungary

2.90

Hungary

30

France3.00

France31

Mexico5.00

Mexico32

Estonia

5.10

Estonia

33

Italy

5.70

Italy

14.5
13.0

5.3

8.8

19.2

16.7

11.1

19.5

14.7

9.6

31.4

22.8
22.4

16.8

13.4
12.0

19.0

30.2

21.7

20.8

23.2
32.9
30.6

17.2
16.4

12.9
12.1
14.9
14.2

18.8
18.4

13.2
12.8
15.2
15.0

12.9
13.9

22.8
23.8

9.1
10.2

24.0
25.6

11.6
13.4
14.0

30.1
32.2
16.7

15.6

19.7

22.6

18.6

17.1

29.3
22.2

24.7

19.8

Luxembourg

6.50

Luxembourg

35

Spain

8.10

Spain

36

Lithuania

8.30

Lithuania

37

Ireland

10.60

Ireland38

Croatia

11.80

Croatia39

Latvia14.60

Latvia23.6
23.0

Greece17.50

Greece41

Iceland20.40

Iceland

35.1
35.6

25.5
26.1

20.4
21.0

34

40

26.3
28.2

18.0

36.3
31.1

28.6

15.8

27.6
38.2
40.5

11.2

10

31.6

20

30

Child poverty rate
2008

See data sources and notes on page 44.

8

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d

1 2

34.3

30.4

22.8

0

33.0

2012

40

50

S E C T I O N

A commonly used indicator of childpoverty is the proportion of thoseliving below an established poverty
line. League Table 1 ranks thechange in child poverty in 41 EU
and/or OECD countries between
2008 and 2012. This change iscalculated by computing childpoverty in 2008 using a poverty line
fixed at 60 per cent of medianincome. Using the same poverty line
in 2012, adjusted for inflation, therate is computed and the differencein the two rates is shown. A positive
number indicates an increase inchild poverty. Additional
explanations of these trends areprovided in Section 3.

Key findings:» The impact of the recession canbe felt in more than half of the 41
countries (and in most of thehighly populated countries) listedin League Table 1. In 23
countries, the income poverty ofchildren has increased since2008, with wide variations among
countries (from 0.55 percentage
points in Israel to 20.40
percentage points in Iceland).

» The largest increase in childpoverty has been in southern
European countries – Greece,
Italy and Spain – as well as in
Croatia, the three Baltic States

2

T h e

l e a g u e

t a b l es

and three other states that havebeen hard hit by the recession:
Iceland, Ireland and Luxembourg.
In the five countries at thebottom of the table, child povertyrose by 10 to 20 points – anincrease of over 50 per cent.

» In a remarkable group of
18 countries, families andgovernments found some
way to cope with the worst
consequences of the recession
and saw their child poverty
numbers reduced. This is thecase in Chile, Finland, Norway,
Poland and Slovakia, all of which
reduced poverty levels by some
30 per cent.

» The number of children entering
into poverty during the recessionis 2.6 million higher than thenumber that have been able toescape it since 2008 (6.6 million,
versus 4 million). Around76.5 million children live inpoverty in the 41 most affluent
countries.

Interpreting the data – League Table 1» In a surprisingly high number ofPoverty in affluent countries is usually measured using a relative
poverty line defined at either 50 per cent or 60 per cent of medianannual income. Using this approach, changes in poverty over timereflect changes in income and changes in the distribution of income.
This report, however, uses a fixed reference point, anchored to therelative poverty line in 2008, as a benchmark against which toassess the absolute change in child poverty over time. This measure
is particularly useful for assessing impacts of the recession, whenincomes of the entire population may be changing, and when
individuals compare their income to that of their neighbours, as wellas to their own circumstances before the crisis.

cases, average comparisons hide
the scale of the situation. In overhalf of the countries, more than
one child in five lives in poverty.
Greece, Latvia and Spain havechild poverty of above 36 percent. In the United States, childpoverty is 32 per cent, and in
Italy it is 30 per cent.

Using a relative poverty line each year obscures the impact onpoverty of the overall decline in median income. In the United
Kingdom, for example, relative child poverty decreased from24 per cent in 2008 to 18.6 per cent in 2012 due to a sharp decline
in median income and the subsequent lowering of the relative
poverty line. Using the anchored indicator, it actually increased from
24.0 per cent to 25.6 per cent from the start of the recession.

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d1 2

9

S E C T I O N

2

T h e

l e a g u e

t a b l es

League Table 2 Youth aged 15 to 24 not in education, employment or training (NEET), percentage
Rank

Country

Change(2008–2013)

1

Turkey-11.5

Turkey2Germany-2.1

Germany

3

Japan

-1.5

Japan

4

Luxembourg-1.2

Luxembourg5

Mexico-0.4

MexicoSweden-0.3

Austria

0.0

Austria

7

Canada0.0

Canada9

New Zealand

0.8

New Zealand

10

Switzerland

0.8

Switzerland

11

Israel0.9Israel12

France1.0

France12

Iceland1.0

Iceland14

Ireland

1.2

Ireland

14

Latvia1.2

Latvia14

Republic of Korea

1.2

Republic of Korea

14

United Kingdom

1.2

United Kingdom

18

Chile

1.5

Chile

18
18

Finland
Norway1.5

Finland1.5

Norway21

Denmark

1.7

Denmark

21

Malta

1.7

Malta

21

Netherlands

1.7

Netherlands

24

Australia

2.3

Australia

25

Lithuania

2.3

Lithuania

26

Czech Republic

2.4

Czech Republic

27

Belgium

2.6

Belgium

27

Estonia

2.6

Estonia27

Slovakia

2.6

Slovakia

30

Slovenia

2.7

Slovenia

31

United States

3.0

United States

32

Poland3.2

Poland33

Hungary

3.9

Hungary

33

Portugal

3.9

Portugal

35

Bulgaria

4.2

Bulgaria

36

Spain

4.3

Spain

37

Italy

5.6

Italy

37

Romania

5.6

Romania

39

Croatia

8.5

Croatia40

Greece8.9

Greece41

Cyprus9.0

Cyprus

8.5

6.9
6.2
5.0

7.8
7.5
7.1
7.1

Sweden

6
7

8.4

6.3

21.5
21.1

9.6
9.6

12.9
13.7

6.3
7.1

4.5
5.5

14.9
16.1
11.8
13.0
14.6
15.8
12.1
13.3
7.8

5.6
4.3
6.0

3.4

29.8
30.7

10.2
11.2

4.1

5.1

8.3

10.0
9.9

12.2

11.1

9.1
10.1
8.7

6.5

19.0
20.5

9.3

8.8
6.7

12.7

11.3
11.1

9.2
9.0

13.7

12.0
12.2
11.5

10.3

15.0

15.4
14.2

17.4

14.3
16.6
11.6
10.1

21.6

18.6
22.2

17.2
18.6

11.7

20.6

9.7

0

18.7

10

20

30

NEET rate (%)
2008

See data sources and notes on page 44.

1 0

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d

1 2

37.0

25.5

2013

40

S E C T I O N

The NEET rate is the percentage ofyoung people aged 15 to 24 who
are not participating in education,
employment or training. League
Table 2 shows the NEET ranking of
the 41 countries between 2008
and 2013.
Key findings:» The recession hit young people
extremely hard, with the NEET
rate rising dramatically in most
EU countries. The largest
absolute increases were in
Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy
and Romania, all with relativechanges of around 30 per centor higher.

» Across the EU, 7.5 million young
people (almost the entire
population of Switzerland) were
NEET in 2013, nearly a million
more than in 2008. In Italy alone,
more than a million young
people aged 15–24 were neither
studying nor working in 2013.

» Of the OECD countries that are
not in the European Union, theUnited States saw the largest
increase in the NEET rate,
followed by Australia.

» Across all the countries, thesharpest NEET rate decrease wasin Turkey. Even so, that country
retained the highest rate in thecomparison: one young person infour was NEET in 2013. Similarly
in Mexico, though the NEET rate
has remained stable, one young
person in five was NEET.

2

T h e

l e a g u e

t a b l es

» In countries such as Croatia andGreece, the deterioration in thecircumstances of youth went
hand in hand with an increase inchild poverty, but there does notappear to be a strong relationshipbetween the two. Iceland
mitigated a rise in the NEET rate
despite a dramatic increase inchild poverty, while Romania saw
the NEET rate rise even as childpoverty fell.

» Generally speaking, young people
have suffered more in countries
that have seen a greater decline
in economic output. The two
notable exceptions are
Luxembourg (where the NEET
rate fell during a specific periodof economic turbulence) and
Poland (where the NEET rateincreased, despite sustained
economic growth).

Interpreting the data – League Table 2

High NEET rates suggest an interrupted transition from school towork, or from school to further education, with long-term individual
and societal costs. Increases in the NEET rate reflect the recession’s
impact on a generation of young people; the kind of productive
adulthood their parents took for granted is slipping away.

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d1 2

1 1

S E C T I O N

2

T h e

l e a g u e

t a b l es

League Table 3 How people say their lives have changed
What people say about their living situation when asked...
Country rankings based on change 2007–2013, Gallup World Poll. Figures in columns 1 to 4 show the relative
position of each country in relation to the rest, and column 5 indicates the number of these indicators that had
worsened in each country between 2007 and 2013.
Countries ranked based on change 2007–2013

1
Country

Have there beentimes in the past
12 months when you
did not have enoughmoney to buy foodthat you or your familyneeded?

Germany
Switzerland
IsraelSlovakia
Chile
Iceland
Australia
AustriaJapan
Bulgaria
LatviaSwedenDenmark
MexicoLithuania
Republic of Korea
NorwayCzech Republic
France
Malta
PolandUnited Kingdom
Belgium
Italy
Luxembourg
New Zealand
CanadaHungary
Estonia
Croatia
Netherlands
Romania
Slovenia
FinlandUnited States
Portugal
Spain
IrelandTurkeyCyprusGreece2

Did you
experiencestress today?

4
3
4
26
1
18
13
4
8
1
28
4
8
23
29
32
16
8
26
20
18
8
13
13
16
23
8
41
35
29
29
32
20
20
37
35
23
32
40
38
39

9
12
29
13
32
16
6
16
7
n.a.
15
11
9
8
4
2
21
25
5
25
20
25
18
21
25
1
32
18
13
n.a.
30
3
34
34
21
21
30
36
38
37
39

See data sources and notes on page 44

1 2

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d1 2

3Overallsatisfaction
with life?

3
8
6
3
1
3
15
8
27
11
7
10
28
2
28
12
15
12
15
15
28
15
24
36
15
31
15
24
15
15
24
33
12
31
33
35
40
38
37
38
41

4

Do mostchildren in(country) havethe opportunity
to learn and growevery day, or not?
6
11
2
4
14
11
15
21
8
29
5
34
15
28
1
17
11
19
19
8
3
21
17
8
26
31
34
6
36
33
21
37
39
21
21
31
38
30
27
40
41

Direction ofchangeRecent Impact

5

6

Number of! = >2indicators
indicators
worseningworsened
2007–20132011–2013

0
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

!

!

!

!

!
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

S E C T I O NAnother way of looking at the impactof the Great Recession is simply to
ask people about their experiences
and perceptions. The Gallup World
Poll does that every year, using a
representative sample of 1,000
respondents in each country. The
four questions in League Table 3
come from those polls.
Key findings:» Beyond income andemployment levels, therecession affected a numberof other dimensions ofpeople’s lives. In 18 of the 41
countries, three or more ofthese indicators reveal risingfeelings of insecurity andstress from 2007 to 2013. The
most severely affected
countries are clustered at thebottom of the table.

» In 29 of the 41 countries, thesurvey shows an increase in thepercentage of respondents whoreported not having enough money
to buy food for themselves andtheir family. Again in 29 countries,
the stress indicator increased. In
almost half of the countries, overall
life satisfaction decreased. And in
21 of the 41 countries, fewer
respondents agreed with thestatement that children have theopportunity to learn and grow.

» In terms of its impact on personal
experiences and perceptions, therecession is certainly not over. In
13 countries, negative responses
to three or four questions were stillrising between 2011 and 2013,
particularly in countries such as
Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Israel, theNetherlands, Spain and Turkey.

Interpreting the data – League Table 3

Countries are ranked based on their average score across the four
indicators, each of which measures how responses changed
between 2007 and 2013. The highest number indicates the sharpest
change. Column 5 indicates how many of the responses to the four
were negative over the full period. Note that these data are collected
in a different way from those reported in official statistics and should
be interpreted with care when it comes to individual data points.i
Due to data availability, the numbers in the table refer to the
population in general, not to families with children. However, for thequestion on not having enough money to buy food, it was possible
to disaggregate respondents living in families with children for asubset of 31 countries. In the 10 countries where responses changed
the most, the increase was even higher in families with children (inall but one country).
i

For a more in-depth exploration of the Gallup World Poll, as well as avalidation exercise where Gallup World Poll indicators are compared tocorresponding indicators from other established data sources, see:
Holmqvist, G. and L. Natali, ‘Exploring the Late Impact of the Financial Crisis
using Gallup World Poll Data: A note’, Innocenti Working Paper 2014-14,
UNICEF Office of Research, Florence, 2014.

2

T h e

l e a g u e

t a b l es

» Some of the trends indicate that
dramatic societal changes areunder way. In Greece, the shareof respondents saying they
“experienced stress today”
jumped from 49 per cent in 2006
to 74 per cent in 2013. In the
United States, the share of
respondents that haveexperienced not having enoughmoney to buy food doubled, from
10 per cent to 20 per cent. The
share of respondents who thinkchildren have an opportunity tolearn and grow dropped by
between 10 and 20 percentage
points in five countries:
Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia, Spainand Romania.

Summary
The overall evidence from our threeleague tables paints a vivid pictureof how children and families have
fared during the Great Recession.
Although each league tableprovides somewhat different
dimensions of well-being, countries
like Croatia, Greece and Spain are
consistently placed in the bottom
third across all dimensions,highlighting how badly they havebeen hit by the recession. On theother hand, some relatively wealthy
countries (such as Canada, Finland,
the Netherlands and the UnitedStates) have seen only small
increases – or even declines – inchild poverty and yet rank in thebottom third of the Gallup league
table, suggesting that monetary
poverty alone does not tell thewhole story of the well-being offamilies during this period. The next
sections of the report provide moredetails behind these aggregate
numbers, in order to help us
understand who suffered most andhow countries responded.

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d1 2

1 3

SECTION 3
How a financial crisis turned
into a crisis for children
Box 1 Measuring the exposure
to the Great Recession

Bearing in mind that the recession was different in each country, we
have separated the countries into three groups, in order to assess
their exposure to the crisis: most, moderately and least affected.i
Most affected: a) Countries that are supported by International
Monetary Fund (IMF)/EU/European Central Bank programmes andthat promptly implemented fiscal adjustments: Estonia, Hungary,
Iceland, Latvia and Lithuania. b) Countries with evident fiscal
problems that experienced market pressure (with a Credit Default
Swap spread higher than 500 in 2012): Croatia, Cyprus, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
Moderately affected: Countries that are highly indebted (more than
60 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)) or that suffered alarge debt increase (more than the average): Austria, Belgium,
Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Malta, theNetherlands, New Zealand, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United
Kingdom and the United States.
Least affected: Countries least affected by the crisis:i i Australia,
Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Luxembourg, Mexico,
Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.
i

For a more extensive explanation of the rationale behind thisclassification see: Natali, L., B. Martorano, S. Handa, G. Holmqvist and
Y. Chzhen, ‘Trends in Child Well-being in EU Countries during the GreatRecession: A cross-country comparative perspective’, Innocenti Working
Paper 2014-10, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence, 2014.

ii
Although Luxembourg and Mexico suffered more than other countries
during the recent economic crisis, they are included in the least affectedgroup because a) they did not come under intense market pressure andb) debt levels were lower than 60 per cent of GDP. More detail about
these two countries is reported in Natali et al. ‘Trends in Child Well-beingin EU Countries during the Great Recession’.

1 4

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

C a r d1 2This section presents arguments
and data that show how the global
financial shock and ensuingrecession turned into a crisis forchildren. It reveals a strong
correlation between the extent towhich the recession ravaged
national economies and the decline
in child well-being since 2008. In
countries where the GreatRecession hit hardest, children are
suffering the most and will bear theconsequences the longest. Below, aconceptual framework traces thepaths that increased the risks tochildren and weakened the ability offamilies and states to mitigate thoserisks. The variables triggering therisks are numerous and diverse inintensity and duration. Two factors
prove particularly important forhouseholds with children: theposition of parents in the labour
market and the depleted capacity ofstates to protect families.

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

a

f in a nci a lc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisf o r

chi l d r en

Conceptual framework: How did the financial crisis turn into a crisis for children?
Global financial crisis
sovereign debt, economic crisis
The crisis originated in the banking and housing sectors in developed
countries and rapidly spread to other parts of the world. Although it
started as a financial crisis, it quickly evolved into an economic crisis, andin several European countries took the form of a sovereign debt crisis.

Policies to contain thenegative consequences ofthe macroeconomic shock

Social protection
system responses:
Automatic stabilizers,
such as unemployment
insurance andminimum income.
Discretionary policies,
such as cash paymentsin the early period andcuts in public spending
with different priorities
in the second period.

Transmission channels
Labour market: The decrease in demand for goods and services led to a
reduction in jobs and a tightening of labour conditions, provoking a drop
in household income.
Financial market: Loss in private wealth due to asset deterioration andrestricted access to credit.
Public sector channel: Rapid deterioration of public finances prompted
aggressive austerity programmes and diverse responses in the form of
higher taxes and/or lower spending on public services.

Policy responses

In the majority of the cases
monetary policy was
accommodating but
inadequate, since policy
interest rates were close to
zero. Many countries
depreciated their national
currencies to counter thedrop in international demand.
However, in the majority ofcases the only tool available
to policymakers was fiscal
policy (e.g. Eurozone).
Governments also
implemented active andpassive labour market policies.

Household impact
Reduced income due tounemployment, increased
taxes and reduced transfers
Family asset depletion
Deterioration in access toand quality of services

Reduced consumption
Stress and domestic violence
Lack of nurture and care
Social exclusion

Direct impact on children and youth
Material deprivation

Mental health

Nutrition/food security

Protection

Human capital investment
1. Health
2. Education

Employment opportunities
Fertility

Source: Natali et al. ‘Trends in Child Well-being in EU Countries during the Great Recession’.

Trapped in the cycle of poverty
Children rarely manage to sidestep
the stress and suffering of parents
enduring unemployment or asignificant reduction in income.
They experience downturns infamily fortunes in both subtle andpainfully evident ways. They suffer
minor slights and major humiliationsin front of friends and classmates.
They are consciously or
unconsciously affected by changes
in their diets, the elimination ofsports, music or other activities, ora lack of funds to buy school
materials. Extreme circumstances
may force their families from theirhomes or even their countries.

Poverty is a self-reinforcing cycle.
A child with unemployed parents
may do less well at school. Doing
less well at school may bringmore stress at home. And so on.
The longer a child is locked in thecycle, the fewer the possibilitiesof escape.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

1 5

H o waf in a nci a l

Difficulty making ends meet
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show theevolution of median income inEuropean households1 withchildren, and the percentage of
those households that are having
great difficulty in making ends
meet. The households are
categorized according to the
exposure of their national
economies to the recession (seeBox 1). The first case shows agroup of 14 (out of 30) countries
whose median income decreased,with sharp falls in Ireland, Spain andthe United Kingdom (all around
15 per cent), and even larger drops
in Greece, Iceland and Latvia (all24 per cent or higher).
These trends are confirmed in
Figure 3, which reports how
families say their circumstances
have changed. The proportion ofhouseholds stating that theirsituation is ‘very difficult’ has risen
on average in all categories, withthe greatest intensity in the
countries most affected.2

c r isist u r ne dac r isisf o r

chi l d r en

120
110
100
90
80

2007

2008

2009

Most affected

Year

2010

2011

Moderately affected2012
Least affected

Source: Eurostat. Median income is expressed in 2007 prices, national currency.
Note: No data for Cyprus, Croatia, Slovakia and Turkey.

Figure 2 European households with children making ends meet with great
difficulty (per exposure)
200
180
160
140
120
100
80

2006

Children with workless parents

2008

Most affected

Year

2010

Moderately affected2012
Least affected

Source: Eurostat.
Note: No data for Turkey and Croatia; Switzerland (2006); Ireland (2012).

Figure 3 Proportion of households reporting that their feeling abouthousehold income is ‘very difficult’ (per exposure)
120
Very difficult to live on
household income

Labour market exclusion and cutsin social transfers appear to be theunderlying factors driving thesechanges. From 2008 to 2012, theproportion of households where all
adults were workless increased
most in those countries with thehighest incidence of child poverty.3
The results of our own researchshow that the proportion of children
up to age 17 living in joblesshouseholds nearly doubled in
Portugal and Spain, and nearly
tripled in Denmark. The largest
absolute increases (above 5 percent) were in Bulgaria, Greece,
Ireland and Spain.

into

Figure 1 Median income in European households with children(per exposure)Median income – hhs
with children3

Hhs with children making ends
meet with great difficulty

S E C T I O N

110
100
90
80

2007

2008
Most affected

2009

2010
Year

2011

Moderately affected

2012

2013

Least affected

Source: Gallup World Poll.
Note: Out of the 41 countries covered in this report, the following are not included in this figure:
Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia
and Switzerland.

1 6

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

1 2

3

H o w

a

Figure 4 shows these trends by the
exposure of the different groups tothe recession. The implications of
this rise in unemployment werehighlighted by the OECD in a recent
report: “With more than one in eightworking-age individuals in mostcountries now living in workless
households, the success ofredistribution measures and active
social policies is gauged to a large
extent on whether they can improve
economic security for families
without any income from work.”4
The working poor and othervulnerable groups

f in a nci a lc r isist u r ne dinto

c r isisf o r

chi l d r en

180
160
140
120
100
2006

2008

Most affected

Year

2010

2012

Moderately affected

Least affected

Source: Eurostat.
Note: No data for Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden.

countries, the proportion ofhouseholds with children unable toface unexpected financial expenses
has increased by almost 60 per
cent, on average. For many
households, their toehold on thelower rungs of middle-class life isincreasingly fragile (see Box 2).

migrant or lone-parent families – andthe risks multiply. Having a child orchildren in a household increases
the risk of ‘working poverty’(working, but below the poverty line)from 7 per cent to 11 per cent. For
lone parents, this almost doubles(20.2 per cent).6 In the most affectedHouseholds with two children havespending needs that are, on
average, 40 per cent higher thancomparable families withoutchildren.5 As a consequence,
households with children are much
more likely to be poor. Add in otherlayers of vulnerability – such asa

Figure 4 Children in jobless households (per exposure)Children 0-17 living in joblesshouseholds

S E C T I O N

Figure 5 Change in severe child material deprivation in Europe (2008–2012)50

40

Per cent

30

20

10

0

Change (2008–2012)

2008

Hungary

CyprusGreeceLatvia

Italy

Malta

United Kingdom

Ireland

Bulgaria

Lithuania

Iceland

Estonia

Spain

Belgium

Denmark

Netherlands

Slovenia

Luxembourg

FranceSwedenCzech Republic

Finland

NorwaySlovakia

Romania

Austria

Portugal

Switzerland

PolandGermany-102012

Source: Eurostat.
Note: No data for Croatia.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

1 7

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

a

f in a nci a lc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisf o r

chi l d r en

Box 2 Europe: Less income, less protection,
more material deprivation

The overall picture of material well-being of families
is broadly captured by the ‘severe material
deprivation’ indicator. Children (0–17) are considered
to be severely materially deprived when thehousehold in which they live cannot afford at least
four of the following nine items: 1) to pay rent,
mortgage or utilities; 2) to keep the home adequately
warm; 3) to face unexpected expenses; 4) to eat
meat or proteins regularly; 5) to take a holiday; 6) tohave a television; 7) to have a washing machine;8) to have a car; 9) to have a telephone. In contrast
to purely monetary measures of the financial
resources of households, this indicator shows thesatisfaction of material fundamental needs.i
In 2008, there was an abrupt break in the positive
trend of previous years. In the first phase of therecession (2008–2010), the proportion of children
with severe material deprivation increased sharply inthe countries most affected by the Great Recession,
and was relatively stable in the remaining countries.
After 2010, deprivation worsened, on average,
everywhere. Two-thirds of the European countries inthis analysis saw material deprivation worsen after2008 (see Figure 5), with the largest absoluteincreases in Cyprus, Greece and Hungary. In relative
terms, the severe child material deprivation rate
doubled in Greece and tripled in Iceland, albeit froma very low base. In the group of hard-hit countries,
the proportion of severely deprived children nearly
doubled in four years.
The magnitude of this change is worthy of note. The
absolute number of children living in severe material
deprivation in the 30 European countries analysed
was 11.1 million in 2012 –1.6 million more than in
2008. This trend is the result of a net effect that
includes substantial decreases (more than 300,000
fewer deprived children in Germany and Poland) andunprecedented increases in four countries (Greece,
Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom).i i Almost half ofthe severely materially deprived children (44 per

1 8

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2cent) in 2012 lived in three countries: Italy (16 percent), Romania (14 per cent) and the United Kingdom(14 per cent).
Provisional estimates for 2013 show that somecountries – notably Estonia and Latvia – started on
the road to recovery in 2012. However, there are stillreasons to be concerned. The deterioration in thesevere material deprivation indicator is mainly related
to the first five components on the list, those mostsensitive to household income. The last four
deprivation items – the so-called ‘durables’ – arelikely to worsen in the latter phase, as the recession
continues and families are unable to repair or replace
their assets.i i i
Material deprivation and income poverty can be
combined for a more complete story of the impact of
the recession on households with children. Figure 6
shows that in Greece and Iceland – the two countries
at the bottom of the child poverty league table – notonly has the absolute number of poor children risen
dramatically, but it has done so in the context ofincreased severe material deprivation. The proportionof children who are income poor and severely
deprived has tripled in Greece and quadrupled in
Iceland.

ide Neubourg, C., J. Bradshaw, Y. Chzhen, G. Main, B.
Martorano and L. Menchini, ‘Child Deprivation,
Multidimensional Poverty and Monetary Poverty inEurope’, Innocenti Working Paper No. 2012-02, UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2012, p. 1.

ii

There was a break in 2012 in the United Kingdom
series: the figures should be interpreted with caution.

iii

McKnight, A., ‘Measuring Material Deprivation overthe Economic Crisis: Does a re-evaluation of “need”
affect measures of material deprivation?’, Gini Policy
Paper 4, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London
School of Economics, 2013. www.gini-research.org/
system/uploads/553/original/PP4.pdf?1380631527

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

Food, shelter and nurture
A shortfall in family income isparticularly hard on children. The
food they eat, where they live, thetime they spend with parents andfriends, and the public services towhich they are entitled – these areimportant factors that determine
their well-being.
Access to food
Daily nutritional intake and theconsumption of nutritious food, suchas fish and vegetables, declined in
the most affected countries during
the recession. After 2008, thepercentage of households withchildren unable to afford a meal withmeat, chicken, fish (or a vegetableequivalent) every second day morethan doubled in Estonia, Greece,
Iceland and Italy, reaching 10 per
cent, 18 per cent, 6 per cent and 16
per cent, respectively, in 2012.
UNICEF National Committees reportthat diverse public and private
initiatives have sprung up acrossEurope to combat the increasingproblem of malnutrition, including
school meal programmes, foodbanks and meal vouchers.
Furthermore, some 9 million poor
women and children in the UnitedStates receive federal foodassistance annually,7 with more than
47 million Americans living inhouseholds that have difficulty in
putting food on the table.8 Between
2008 and 2013, the use of foodbanks by families in Canada
increased by 23 per cent.9
Housing conditions
Evictions, mortgage defaults andforeclosures have been a tragic
reality in a number of countries hit by
the recession. In Spain, 244,000
evictions were registered from 2008
to 2012 by the European Federationof Public, Cooperative & Social
Housing. In Ireland, 400,000af in a nci a lc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisf o r

chi l d r en

Figure 6 Child poverty and severe material deprivation in Greece
and Iceland (2008 and 2012)
Greece 2012

Greece 2008

Per cent

Total poor
Poor only

23.0
16.9

Total deprived
Deprived only

10.4
4.3

Poor and deprived

6.2

Neither poor nor
deprived

72.7

Per cent

Iceland 2008

Total poor
Poor only

40.5
22.6

Total deprived
Deprived only

20.9
2.9

Poor and deprived

17.9

Neither poor nor
deprived

56.6

Iceland 2012

Per cent

Total poor
Poor only

11.2
10.7

Total deprived
Deprived only

0.9
0.4

Poor and deprived

0.6

Neither poor nor
deprived

88.4

Per cent

Total poor
Poor only

31.6
29.1

Total deprived
Deprived only

3.1
0.6

Poor and deprived

2.6

Neither poor nor
deprived

67.8

Source: EU-SILC.

mortgages were in negative equity
in 2013. In Greece, at least 60,000
house owners faced immediate
danger of eviction in 2013.10 In the
United States, where the financial
crisis began, more than 13 million
foreclosures have been filed since2008. The recession has also
affected savings and economic
opportunities throughout thecountry.11
The cost of housing may be achallenge for many people long
before evictions and foreclosures

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

1 2

1 9

3

H o w

a

f in a nci a ltake place. Rent, mortgage
payments and other housing costs
are generally the largest
expenditure in a family budget. The
proportion of children in families
overburdened by housing costs has
increased in 19 European countries
since 2008.12 In some cases, lack ofaccess to affordable housing leads
to homelessness of children andother extreme consequences.13
Parental time and care
The quantity and quality of time thatparents spend with their children isaffected by income reductions andcontextual stress. Loss of parental
time is more acute in poorer
families, contrary to conventional
wisdom.14 Long working hours, lesshelp at home and a lack of leisureactivities can have a debilitating
effect on family relationships,
affecting children in critical periodsof intellectual and emotional
development. For separated or
divorced couples in Italy, forinstance, income constraints causedby the recession add to thepressure on already stressed
relationships.15 Trends in violenceagainst children also feel an impact:
in the United States, the drop in
consumer confidence since 2007
has been associated with aconsiderable increase in theincidence of mothers hitting theirchildren frequently. We find that thelarge decline in consumer
confidence during the GreatRecession, as measured by theConsumer Sentiment Index, hasbeen associated with worse
parenting behaviour. In particular,
lower levels of consumer
confidence are associated withincreased levels of high-frequency
spanking, a parenting behaviour thatis associated with greater likelihoodc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisof being contacted by childprotective services.16

f o r

chi l d r en

in the income chain. In the end, how
the impacts are spread depends lesson the depth of the recession andmore on the existing economic
structure and social safety nets and,most importantly, on policy
responses.

Essential services
As family incomes decrease andcontextual conditions deteriorate, sorisk in children’s lives increases. And
the capacity of governments andpublic institutions to protect themhas not improved accordingly in
critical areas such as health andeducation. In European countries
that have been moderately andseverely affected by the recession,
the proportion of young adults withunmet health needs has increased
significantly since 2008. More than athird of OECD countries reduced
public education spending after
2010, and several more froze it.17
These cuts will have both short-termand long-term impacts.

To assess whether the impact of therecession did fall disproportionately
on children, the situation of averagechildren was compared to that ofthe poorest children in the income
distribution chain. The impact onchildren in particularly vulnerable
groups, such as migrants, loneparent families and workless
households, was also assessed, as
were the impacts on children
compared to the impact on othertraditionally vulnerable social groups,
such as the elderly, as well as onsociety in general.

Have children suffered most?

Impacts on the poorest

How does an economic crisis affectinequality? Inequality can lessen if
better-off households lose income,while poorer sectors of society
remain protected by existing public
policies and safety nets. But
inequality can worsen if the weightof the recession falls on the weakest

Since 2008, the position of thepoorest children has actuallyworsened in most of the countries
studied. The poverty gap indicator(see Figure 7) captures the depth of
this phenomenon by measuring the
distance from the poverty line to the

Figure 7 Change in poverty gap vs change in headcount (2008–2012)
Change poverty gap= 1.0352 + .22455 change headcount

Change in poverty gap (anchored)

S E C T I O N

GR

10

ES
DK

SK

5
PL

0

AT
BE
CH
NO

NL
PT
CZ
SI
BG
DE

FI

-5

HU
CY

SE

FR

IT

LV

EE LU
LT

UK

IE

MT
RO

-10
-10

0
10
Change in headcount (anchored)
Fitted values

R-squared=0.1426

Source: Eurostat for the anchored headcount; EU-SILC for the anchored poverty gap.

2 0

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

IS

1 2

20

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

a

f in a nci a lc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisf o r

chi l d r en

Box 3 The crisis in Greece through a child’s eyes

The indicators in this Report Card do not fully capture
how children’s views of their lives have changed. To
gain a deeper insight into the perspectives ofchildren, we commissioned early analysis of themost recent Health Behaviour in School-agedChildren (HBSC) survey (2014) on the behaviour of
11-, 13- and 15-year-old students in Greece, one of
the countries most affected by the recession. The
results are instructive.
Despite the best efforts of families to insulate theiroffspring from the worst consequences of therecession, school children in Greece revealed thatthey are highly aware of problems that affect their
immediate context. Those reporting that theirfamily’s economic situation is ‘not well off’ doubled
from 7.2 per cent in 2006 to 14.5 per cent in 2014.
An increasing share of them said that the economic
situation of the area where they live had worsened(from 22.2 per cent to 29.5 per cent in the same
period).i In 2014, more than one child in five reported
that at least one parent had lost their job, 5 per centsaid their family could not afford to buy food, andalmost 30 per cent reported that the family had

stopped going on holiday trips (see Figure 8).
Around one student in ten had to stop tutoring
sessions or had to move to another area or to a
relative’s house, and 3 per cent switched fromprivate to public schools.
The children surveyed were perceptive about otherconsequences of the recession, such as increased
stress on parents from income cuts or job losses.
These events affect family relationships, as seen in
the large share (as high as 27 per cent) of thosereporting tension and fights within their families. The
proportion of children reporting high satisfaction withrelationships within the family dropped by 3 per centbetween 2006 and 2014. As for their overall life
satisfaction, the share of children reporting a highquality of life dropped by almost 10 per cent over thesame period.

iKokkevi, A., M. Stavrou, E. Kanavou and A. Fotiou.
‘The Repercussions of the Economic Recession in
Greece on Adolescents and their Families’, Innocenti
Working Paper No. 2014-07, UNICEF Office of
Research, Florence, 2014.

Figure 8 Children’s self-reporting of the effects of the crisis in Greece
at least one parent lost job

21.3

inability to buy food

5.4

no vacation/travelling

27.9

stopped tutoring

10.5

changed school

3

moved to other area

8.2
27.3

family tension
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Per cent
Source: 2014 HBSC survey.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

2 1

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

a

f in a nci a lmedian income of those below theline, expressed as a percentage ofthe poverty line. For children, this
proportion increases as therecession advances in countries
that are more affected by it. The
poverty gap is higher in countries
where poverty has increased most,meaning that poverty in thosecountries is more extensive andmore intense. In Greece and Spain,
poor children were further below
the poverty line in 2013 than they
were in 2008. It is notable that thisform of discrimination increased insome countries where overall childpoverty decreased, such as Belgium
and Slovakia, suggesting that the
tax changes and transfers intended
to help the poorest children wererelatively ineffective.

c r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isis

Impacts on the most vulnerable
The poverty trends discussed above
may mask the situation of children inparticularly vulnerable situations, suchas those in workless, lone-parent,
large families, or migrant households.
Their deteriorating living conditions
have already been highlighted inReport Card 10, which called forpolicies and actions to protect
them.18 Recent data show how thesegroups consistently appear in the
most-severe range in poverty
statistics. Their needs call more thanever for specific types of attention
and services, which are often first to
disappear in a financial crisis.
Figure 9 shows that the impact of therecession on children in migranthouseholds19 in Europe was often
greater than it was on children fromf o r

chi l d r en

non-migrant households. In many
European countries, child poverty
increased faster (or fell more slowly)
for children in migrant households
than for other children. Most notable
is Greece, where poverty rates roseby 35 percentage points for children
in migrant households, comparedwith 15 percentage points for allother children. In Iceland, thepoverty rate for children in migranthouseholds increased by
38 percentage points, twice theincrease among non-migranthouseholds. Thus, in the twocountries where child poverty
increased the most, children inmigrant households suffereddisproportionately.
Other groups of children bearing aheavier burden in the recession

Figure 9 Absolute difference in anchored poverty change (2008–2012) between children in migrant households
and other children in Europe (percentage points)
25
20

Percentage points

15
10
5
0
-5
-10

Total child poverty rate decreased

Total child poverty rate increased/stayed the same

Source: EU-SILC.
Notes: Data for 2011 are used for Belgium and Ireland. Countries with insufficient case numbers of children in migrant households excluded.
Bars are changes in absolute poverty with positive values indicating a worsening among chldren in migrant households relative to other children.

2 2

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

GreeceIceland

Slovenia

Lithuania

Belgium

Italy

Portugal

Spain

CyprusUnited Kingdom

Estonia

Netherlands

MaltaFranceSwedenLatviaDenmark

Austria

Switzerland

Ireland

Luxembourg

Germany

NorwayFinland-15

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

include those in households with loneparents, low work intensity and large
families. Among 30 European
countries, the inequity of the impact
on children is highest in Greece. The
trend is similar in Iceland for children
in workless households and loneparent families. However, in somecountries at the highest end of therange of child poverty, poverty
decreased for children in vulnerable
households, such as lone-parent
households in Cyprus and the Czech
Republic, workless families in Belgium
and the United Kingdom, and large
families in Lithuania and Spain.
Mixed trends are also observed insome non-EU/OECD countries. In
lone-parent households in Israel, forexample, children have experienced
an increase in poverty, even asaf in a nci a lc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisf o r

chi l d r enincreases in poverty and material
deprivation than the national average.
In half of the European countries
studied, poverty increased faster (orelse fell more slowly) for children
than for the population as a whole.

poverty fell slightly in couple-parent
families. In contrast, child poverty
on the whole decreased in Canada
and Japan; but although childpoverty rates fell faster amongchildren in lone-parent families,
they remained substantially higher
than for those in couple-parent
families. This underscores the factthat economic conditions affectchildren in lone-parent families
more than other children.

The elderly, also vulnerable, farebetter than the young in thisanalysis. Figure 10 shows the at-riskof-poverty rate in populations aged
under 18 and over 65 in 2008–2012.
The blue dots measure the change
in poverty among children versus
the change in poverty among theelderly over this time period, withpositive values indicating that theposition of children worsened
relative to the elderly. In all but threeof the 31 countries analysed, therate increased more rapidly (ordecreased more slowly) for the

Impacts on children versus
other groups
Another approach to assessing
how hard children have been hit by
the recession is to compare thenumber of them in poverty against
the general population. In many
countries, households with children
have experienced more intense

Figure 10 Absolute difference in anchored poverty change (2008–2012) between children and the elderly(percentage points)
30
25

Percentage points

20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15

Difference in differences

under 18 (2008–2012)

LatviaCyprusSpain

Bulgaria

Romania

Croatia

Estonia

Malta

GreeceIreland

Italy

United Kingdom

Iceland

NorwayFrancePortugal

Denmark

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Belgium

Slovenia

Slovakia

SwedenFinlandCzech Republic

Austria

Hungary

Germany

PolandSwitzerland-20

65 or over (2008–2012)

Source: Eurostat (last update 14.07.2014).
Notes: Sorted by the difference in the anchored poverty rate increase between children and the population.
Break in the series for Austria and the United Kingdom in 2012.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

2 3

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

a

f in a nci a lyoung than for the elderly (positive
values for the blue dots). In 24 of
the 31 countries, the trend shows areduction in at-risk-of-poverty levels
among the elderly, whereas childc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isispoverty increased in 20 countries. In
eight countries, the gap in thechange in poverty between the twogroups exceeds 10 percentage
points. These numbers suggest that

Youth unemployment 15–24

Figure 11 Youth unemployment (15–24) per exposure

200

150

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year
Most affected

Moderately affectedf o r

chi l d r enprotection for the elderly works when
it is needed. This is less true forchildren.

A generation cast aside
One of the long-term impacts of theGreat Recession is to be found inadolescent and young-adultunemployment. Youth unemployment
and underemployment have reachedworrying levels in many countries. In
addition to the data in League Table 2(see Section 2), this Report Card looks
at key indicators in the labour market
for young people, including recent
data on self-perception. It is the storyof a generation that has been castaside, and failure to address it could
lead to high societal costs.
An epidemic of youth unemployment

Least affected

Figures 11, 12 and 13 paint a pictureof youth labour in the recession,
something European Union Human
Rights Commissioner Nils Muižnieks
calls a “pathology of austerity”.20

Source: Eurostat.
Notes: Long-term unemployment: Long-term unemployment (12 months or more) for young people 15–24.
No data for Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania; Sweden (2006); Luxembourg (2007 and 2009).
Underemployment: ‘Involuntary’ part-time workers, 15–24, percentage of active population. No data for
Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania or Luxembourg.
Temporary employment: Temporary employees (15–24) as percentage of the total number of employees(15–24).

Figure 12 Change in the youth (15–24) unemployment rate, 2008–2013
70
60
50

Per cent

40
30
20
10
0

Chile
Germany
Luxembourg
IsraelTurkeyJapan
Republic of Korea
Austria
Malta
Switzerland
NorwayMexicoCanadaIcelandUnited States
SwedenAustralia
Finland
New Zealand
Romania
Denmark
FranceUnited Kingdom
Belgium
Netherlands
Estonia
Hungary
Lithuania
Czech Republic
LatviaPolandSlovenia
Ireland
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Italy
Portugal
Croatia
CyprusSpain
Greece-10

Change (2008–2013)
Source: Eurostat; OECD.Stat.

2 4

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

1 2

2008

2013

3

H o w

Unemployment in the 15–24 age
group increased in all but seven of
the 41 countries covered in thisreport between 2008 and 2013.
Four stand out as having increases
in excess of 25 percentage points:
Croatia, Cyprus, Greece and Spain.
Youth unemployment in the same
four countries had fallen steadily
from 2004/2005 to 2007/2008. The
recession reversed that trend.
In Greece and Spain, the pattern isparticularly striking. Unemployment
in the 15–24 age group increased
from an already high base of over
20 per cent to more than 50 per
cent in 2013. Half of all young job
seekers remained unemployed.
Nations where such a large
percentage of young people are notworking face extraordinary
challenges, such as thesustainability of national pension
plans. Generally, youth
unemployment evolves in parallelwith overall adult unemployment,
but exceptions do occur: in Italy’s
15–24 age group, unemployment
levels increased nearly four times
more than in the 25–54 age group.
Too many young people not in
education, employment or training
As a tool for measuring the youth
labour market, unemployment rates
have significant limitations, because
they overlook those who are noteconomically active. So surveys
gather data on young people whoare not in education, employment or
training. The NEET rate includes
both those who are seeking work
(the unemployed) and those whoare not (the inactive). The rate offersa measure of the percentage of the
youth population that is absent fromthe labour market and education, as
well as of those who are
discouraged and disengaged.

af in a nci a lc r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisf o r

chi l d r en

Figure 13 Trend in youth underemployment, temporary employment andlong-term unemployment in the most affected countries
350
300
Index

S E C T I O N

250
200
150
100
2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year
Long-term unemployment

Underemployment

Temporary employment

Source: Eurostat.
Notes: Long-term unemployment: Long-term unemployment (12 months or more) for young people 15–24.
No data for Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania; Sweden (2006); Luxembourg (2007 and 2009).
Underemployment: ’Involuntary‘ part-time workers, 15–24, percentage of active population. No data for
Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania or Luxembourg.
Temporary employment: Temporary employees (15–24) as percentage of the total number of employees(15–24).

In certain countries, including Mexicoand Turkey, high inactivity rates
appear to be driven by large
proportions of young women raisingfamilies.21 In countries where the
NEET rate has increased most,notably Cyprus and Greece, thechange is dominated by rising youth
unemployment. In countries such as
Latvia and Lithuania (which haveseen a moderate upturn in the NEETrate) and Slovakia and Spain (whichhave had a larger surge), theincrease has also been driven byrising youth unemployment, in spiteof a concurrent decrease in inactivity.
By contrast, in Romania the increasein the NEET rate has been dominatedby increased inactivity. And in Turkey,
a vast decrease in the NEET rate has
been almost entirely due to adecrease in inactivity.
Unfortunately, even whenunemployment or inactivity rates
decline, it rarely means that youth
have found stable, reasonably paying
jobs (see Figure 13). In the 15–24
age group in countries more
exposed to the recession, thepercentage of those who are in parttime work or underemployed has
tripled. Full-time contract work foryoung people has become morecommon, contributing to theprecariousness of labour markets.
Increases in long-term
unemployment rates (12 months ormore) in countries more exposed to
the recession are largely due toyouth unemployment.
The labour market for adolescentsand young adults was already aproblem before 2008, but therecession has magnified it for awhole generation. The relevance of
these trends should not be
underestimated. A long period of
underemployment or inactivity canhave an enduring impact on one’s
lifelong financial security. It canstifle career plans, reduce
expectations and lead todemoralization. For whole societies,
it increases demand for social
benefits, decreases workforce
contributions to social security
systems, and erodes a pillar ofsocial cohesion.22

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

2 5

S E C T I O N

3

H o w

a

f in a nci a l

Summary
The Great Recession had thegreatest impact on the weakest,and possibly for the longest time.
This section has shown the many
overlapping ways in which children
suffered from the crisis, whileothers – such as the elderly –managed to be protected. It has
proved how many countries sawlarge increases in the material
deprivation of children (possibly a
better longer-term measure ofpoverty), and has highlighted thelifetime risks of entering the labour
market in a recession.
By any measure, this is a
discouraging reversal in what
was a positive trend in the
consolidation of young people’s

2 6

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

c r isist u r ne d

into

a

c r isisrights. The progress made ineducation, health and social
protection over the last 50 years
is now at stake.
Still, there are some signs of hope.
Eighteen of the countries analysed
for this report managed to limit, oreven reduce, child poverty amid thiseconomic storm. Four of them also
reduced the gap between poor andthe poorest children. Despite therecession, disproportionate youth
unemployment was avoided inseveral countries, and, in manyothers, public and private safety
nets have proved resilient in a timeof great need. Nothing is inevitable.
Section 4 looks at how countries
have responded, and theimplications for children.

C a r d

1 2

f o r

chi l d r en

SECTION 4
Uneven responses

Figure 14 compares changes inchild poverty to changes innational GDP. Of the 41 EU/
OECD countries listed, thosemore exposed to the recession
had larger increases in childpoverty. Yet a closer examinationof the data shows that, whilechild poverty increased in mostcountries, in others it declined.
Croatia and Cyprus, with similar
economic circumstances, hadvery different outcomes for thewell-being of children. Lithuania
and Mexico had modest (oreven dynamic) economic
growth, yet child poverty
indicators deteriorated.
To understand how governments
addressed the recession and, more
importantly, what worked well incountries where child poverty
indicators did not deteriorate (orwhere they even improved), thissection looks at the quantity andquality of government responses
over the past five years, with some
final considerations around theperiod before the recession.

Figure 14 Change in child poverty headcount (anchored) vs exposure
Change headcount = 71.806 - 70.946 GDP ratio

Change in child poverty headcount (anchored)

At the beginning of the GreatRecession, some countries were
better positioned than others toweather the economic storm, andsome had strong social protection
measures in place. Yet how
governments responded to thecrisis mattered a great deal.
Poverty increased in mostcountries, but decreased in some.
The recession was global, but it
did not result in a severe crisis forchildren in every country.

IS

20
GR
LV

HR

IE

10

LT

ES
LU
EE

IT

MX

HU
CY
UK SI DK
PT

0

FI

FR
US
NL NZ MT

AT SE
BE
CA
JP
NO

CZ

DE

IL

RO

BG
TR

CH

KR

SK

AU

PL

CL

-10
0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

Exposure (GDP ratio)
Fitted values
R-squared=0.4924

Source: See Data Sources: League Table 1 on page 44 for changes in anchored poverty; IMF World
Economic Outlook.
Note: The x-axis shows exposure to the recession, using the ratio of GDP from 2007 to 2012. The y-axis
shows change in child poverty from 2007 to 2012 (positive values indicate increases).

What was spent, and how
At the start of the recession, notsurprisingly, child poverty was lower
where public spending on families
and children was higher. During therecession, welfare states were
expected to increase their public
protection spending, and many
did.23 In such countries, the healthand well-being of citizens, especiallythose in financial or social need, aresafeguarded by grants,
unemployment assistanceprogrammes, pensions and otherbenefits. In a recession, thesebenefits act as counter-cyclicaleconomic stabilizers.
Beyond that, OECD countries andmany others adopted stimulus
packages in the initial phase of therecession, pushing up public
spending (see Figure 15). With thepersistence of the recession,
however, national revenues fell anddeficits increased significantly inmany countries. Increasing pressure
from financial markets forced many
governments to make budget cuts.
The Eurozone’s U-turn wasparticularly abrupt.

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

C a r d1 2

2 7

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

Figure 15 Change in public expenditure, 2007–2009

Change in public expenditure (GDP percentage points)

12

10

8

6

4

2

Malta

Hungary

Switzerland

PolandBulgaria

Romania

SwedenCzech Republic

Austria

Italy

FranceGermany

CyprusPortugal

Belgium

NorwaySlovenia

Netherlands

GreeceSpain

Denmark

Slovakia

LatviaUnited Kingdom

IcelandFinland

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Ireland

Estonia0

Source: Eurostat.

While Europe retrenched, Chile,
Japan, Republic of Korea and theUnited States maintained
expansionary policies to support
their economies. Norway was
Europe’s sole exception, while in
Sweden and Switzerland theconsolidation measures that were
implemented amounted to less than
0.5 per cent of GDP.
In countries that made a similar
fiscal effort and were equally
exposed to the recession (see Box 1
in Section 3 for exposure criteria),
the impact of the spending is mixed.
An assessment of government
responses suggests that theireffectiveness was related to the

2 8

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

initial margin of action, as well as tothe magnitude and design of thegovernment initiatives. Targeting
cash payments at the poorest
families with children helped toprotect vulnerable families andboost the economy at the sametime. Some examples:» Chile and Mexico had
experienced extraordinary
economic and social
improvements in the decade
before the financial crisis, but in
2008–2009 they were hit hard byrecession-induced trade declines.
Chile, which had more fiscal
space, spent twice as much as
Mexico on its stimulus package,
supporting families with children

C a r d1 2

by expanding existing social
protection programmes,
extending cash transfers to thepoorest families with children,and expanding labour market
measures such as unemployment
insurance. Mexico introduced asimilar stimulus package in theearly years of the recession, butworsening fiscal conditions
pushed the country into a
consolidation process from2010 onwards.

» Australia’s increase in spendingon families had a more positive
impact than the ambitious tax
cuts implemented in New
Zealand, where poverty andinequality stagnated (see Box 4).

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

Box 4 The Australian Household Stimulus Package

It is possible to extract useful policy lessons
from the Australian story. First, counter-cyclicalpolicies are crucial in mitigating the negative
consequences associated with economic
recessions. Indeed, the prompt and robust
reactions of the Australian government limited
the possible negative effects of the crisis
without jeopardizing growth – GDP growth has
increased steadily in Australia since 2009.
Second, maintaining a sound fiscal balance
during normal times obviously provides thepolicy space that allows a government to react
effectively during an economic downturn. But
some policies are more effective than others.
In this case, cash payments targeted at lowincome families with children appear to have
had a win-win effect, by protecting the poorest
children and stimulating consumption topromote economic recovery.

Back to School Bonus + Single Income Family Bonus

Share on income

3

2

1
0

1

2

3

4

5
6
Decile

7

8

9

10

7

8

9

10

Tax Bonus for Working Australians

2
Share on income

As Figure 16 shows, the Single Income Family
Bonus and the Back to School Bonus wereclearly more progressive than the Tax Bonus.
And while all these payments were able toprotect people from the risk of poverty, only
the cash payments targeted at low-income
families with children were able to stimulate
consumption among the poor, as can be seenfrom Figure 17.

Figure 16 Incidence rate of the Single Income
Family Bonus, the Back to School Bonus, andthe Tax Bonus for Working Australians

1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0

1

2

3

4

5
6
DecileFigure 17 Impact of the Australian Single
Income Family Bonus and the Back to School
Bonus on consumption expenditure, percentagechange between 2008 and 2009
Consumption expenditure(percentage change)

As with most other OECD countries, the GreatRecession hit Australia. But unlike many othercountries, Australia managed to protect
families as part of its economic recovery
strategy. One of the most important
contributory factors was a fiscal stimulus ofmore than 4 per cent of GDP (a move that was
facilitated by the fact that the country had thenecessary fiscal space). A portion of thestimulus package was designed to support
families in economic difficulties and to sustain
their consumption. In particular, the 2009
household stimulus packages were made upof three main one-off payments: the Tax Bonusfor Working Australians, provided to eligible
taxpayers; and the Back to School Bonus andSingle Income Family Bonus, which weretargeted at low- and middle-income families
with children.

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1

all deciles

I nnocentipoor families with children

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

2 9

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

In general however, social spending
suffered (at least in absolute terms),
particularly for children and families.
Although the recession increased
the need for unemployment andpension benefits, driving up social
protection spending in many
countries, the share spent on familyand child-related needs became alower priority. Figure 18 shows that2009 marked a turning point in thisregard, just when families were
under increasing pressure. Whilethe contribution of overall social

spending to public spending (blueline) levelled off and then began torise again, the share of thatspending on families and children(blue bars) declined.
The same is true in Europe, where
social transfers had an uneven
impact on child poverty (Figure 19).
In the first phase (left panel), 19
countries demonstrated an ability
to reduce child poverty (or to
support the income of families
with children) through socialtransfers, compared to only 11 in
the second phase (right panel).
Interventions in Denmark, Finland
and the United Kingdom wereeffective and sustained during therecession. But in more than a thirdof European countries, including inFrance and Hungary, the ability of
governments to reduce childpoverty declined, which contributed
to worsening living conditions forchildren. The design andimplementation of social
programmes clearly matters.

0.39

0.048

0.38

0.046

0.37

0.044

0.36

0.042

0.35

0.04

0.34

0.038

0.33

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

share of family and child spending
Source: Eurostat.

3 0

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

1 2

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

share of social protection spending

2012

0.036

Family- and child-related spending, share of total social protection spending

Social protection - share of total spending

Figure 18 Social protection spending, share of total spending (blue line, left axis) and family- and child-related
spending, share of total social protection spending (blue bars, right axis).

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

Figure 19 Amount of reduction in child poverty
First phase 2008–2010

Second phase 2010–2012

Lithuania

United Kingdom

Iceland

Belgium

Luxembourg

Malta

IrelandFinlandUnited Kingdom

PolandEstonia

Czech Republic

LatviaAustria

Spain

NorwayPortugal

Denmark

GreeceRomania

CyprusGermany

Netherlands

Bulgaria

Denmark

Luxembourg

Switzerland

Netherlands

Slovenia

Ireland

Bulgaria

Spain

Italy

CyprusFinland

Slovakia

Malta

Italy

Belgium

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Germany

GreeceAustria

Switzerland

FranceSwedenPolandIceland

Hungary

LatviaNorwayFranceSlovakia

Estonia

SwedenLithuania

Czech RepublicHungary
-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

Child poverty reduction 2008–2010

8

10

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Child poverty reduction 2010–2012

Source: EU-SILC.

Interpreting the data – Figure 19
Comparing child poverty before and after the receipt of government support offers a measure of how effective
governments were at reducing the number of poor children.
The horizontal bars represent how government responses to the crisis affected countries’ capacities to protect
poor children, by comparing the changes in child poverty reductions after social transfers in different periods:
between 2008 and 2010 (after the implementation of stimulus packages), and between 2010 and 2012 (during theearly stage of austerity). Positive values indicate that government interventions through social transfers have been
more redistributive. Negative values indicate that social transfers became less effective in reducing child poverty.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

3 1

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

the Gini index during the recession,broken into different income
components. In many countries, theburden of the adjustment fell on
those in the lowest income brackets.
By contrast, despite a reduction in
fiscal space during the crisis, Iceland

Although the need for budgetary
cuts was undeniable in somecountries (the Mediterranean region,in particular), the shift from stimulus
to consolidation widened inequality.
This is broadly reflected in Figure 20,
which shows the net evolution of

replaced a flat tax with aprogressive tax structure and used
the additional revenue to increasesocial protection, leading to a
reduction in inequality and a recent
decline in child poverty between
2012 and 2013.

Figure 20 Contribution of income, taxation and social transfers to changes in the Gini index, and other countries,
2008–2012
0.04
0.03
0.02

Gini index change

0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04

Taxes

Transfers

MarketSource: EU-SILC.
Notes: For Belgium and Ireland data refer to the period 2008–2011.

Interpreting the data – Figure 20

The Gini index is a common measure of inequality, which ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfectinequality). Figure 20 shows how different income sources (private household income, taxes and socialtransfers) contributed to changes in the Gini between 2008 and 2012. Positive bars indicate that theparticular source of income increased inequality during this period. In Spain, for example, all three sources
contributed to an increase in inequality.

3 2

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

1 2

Spain

CyprusDenmark

Hungary

Austria

Slovakia

Estonia

SwedenItaly

FranceGreeceSlovenia

Luxembourg

Czech Republic

IrelandFinland

Malta

United Kingdom

PolandPortugal

Belgium

LatviaGermany

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Netherlands

NorwayRomania

Switzerland

Iceland-0.05

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

Variations on a theme

Box 5 Did the crisis forchildren begin before 2008?

Highlights from Table 1 (overleaf),
which summarizes recent significant
changes in government
interventions directly related tochildren, show that, among non-EU
OECD countries, a number adopted
more generous and less restrictive
policies for children:» Since 2009, Chile has increased
family-related benefits. These
policies take an integrated
approach, including child care,education and health, as well aslabour integration programmes
for parents (mothers, inparticular). Targeted cashtransfers for families in extreme
poverty were increased in 2012
and in 2014.

» In 2010, Japan passed a childallowance act that increased thevalue and coverage of benefits
for those under 15, part of amulti-sector plan to improve tax
deductions and assist families
and lone-parent households.

» Turkey is working to integrate arights-based social protection
system. Most remarkable, in2012 it introduced general healthinsurance that covers healthservices for all children,
regardless of parental income or
employment status.
In the European Union, a range ofrecently implemented reforms havebeen positive:» Bulgaria increased child benefits
and child-care leave benefits in
2013–2014.

» Latvia eased conditions for childcare benefits in 2014, after
scaling back the parental leave
benefit in 2010.

When the storm of the Great Recession struck, some countries were
better prepared than others to shelter the most vulnerable sectors of
their societies.
The reality is that “in most industrialized countries, at least a decade
before the start of the Great Recession, time and again children were
found to be at a greater risk of poverty than populations as a whole”,
according to a background paper for this report. “Moreover,substantial differences in the risks of poverty persisted amonghouseholds with children long before [2008].”i A previous edition ofthis Report Card shows how, at the beginning of the recession, thelevels of poverty and deprivation among the most vulnerable families(jobless, lone-parent and migrant families and households with lowlevels of parental education) were already intolerably high in someOECD and/or EU countries.i iWith hindsight, many countries with higher child vulnerability would
have been wise to strengthen their safety nets during the preceding
period of dynamic economic growth. Social spending by OECD
countries had been in decline since 1995; it increased temporarily inthe first phase of the recession, but went on to resume its previous
trend (see Figure 21). For children, the recession followed a long
period of rising disparity and concentration of income (see Figure 22)– a trend, some argue, that undermines fairness, lowers commitment
to social cohesion and restricts social mobility.i i ii

Chzhen, Y., ‘Child Poverty and Material Deprivation in the European
Union during the Great Recession’, Innocenti Working Paper No. 2014-06,
UNICEF Office of Research, Florence, 2014.

ii
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New
league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti
Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2012.
iii

Deaton, Angus, The Great Escape: Health, wealth and the origins ofinequality, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2013; Wilkinson, R. and
K. Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why equality is better for everyone, revised
edition, Penguin, London, 2010; Corak, Miles, ‘Inequality from Generation
to Generation: The United States in comparison’, in Robert Rycroft (ed.),The Economics of Inequality, Poverty, and Discrimination in the 21stCentury, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA, 2013.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

3 3

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

Table 1 Recent significant changes to family benefits (family/child/birth/child care/tax credits and breaks)
CountryType ofbenefitYearphasedin

Benefitlevel/
duration

Eligibility

Australia

Various

2011–
2014

+/-

-

New paid parental leave. More generous family tax benefit supplement for
dependent 16- to 19-year-olds in full-time secondary education. Temporary
freeze on indexation of benefit amounts and income thresholds of family tax
benefits. Child birth benefits more restrictive and less generous.

Austria

Family2011--

More restrictive to over-18s. Less generous supplement for low-income
families with multiple children.

Belgium

Child

2013

-

-

More restrictive and less generous to over-18s. Cuts to school bonus
supplement.

Bulgaria

Child

2013–
2014

+

CanadaParental
leave

2011

Tax
credits

2011

+

Chile

Various

2010–
2013

+

Croatia

Tax break2012+

CyprusFamily

2011–
2012

+/-

Czech
Republic

Family2011–
2012

Denmark

Family2012

Estonia

FamilyFinland

Details

More generous child allowances and child-care leave benefits.
+

Paid maternity and parental leave extended to the self-employed, subject toconditions.
Two new narrowly targeted non-refundable tax credits.

+

Higher family allowance and maternity benefit (including a new bonus
payment from March 2014). More generous cash-transfer programme forfamilies in extreme poverty.
Income tax allowances for dependent children increased.

-

More restrictive and less generous child benefit and student grant; newlone-parent supplement.

-

Social allowance abolished, but care allowance for disabled children
increased; birth grant more restrictive.

++

Abolished ceiling on number of children eligible. Increased allowances fordisabled children.

2014

+

_

Income ceiling introduced. New benefit supplement for parents in vocational
training.

2013+

More generous child benefit. New supplementary benefit for low-income
families.

Family2013-

Freeze on indexation of child benefit amounts until 2015.

Child care

2014

+

Increased amounts of basic rates of maternity/paternity/parental leave
benefits; child home care, private day care and partial care allowances.

FranceFamily2014-/+

Tax break2014-

Child tax allowances reduced. ‘Family quotient ceiling’ reduced.

Germany

Family2010+

More generous child benefit and child tax benefit. More generous meanstested child allowance (from 2014).

Parental
leave

2011

-

-

Stricter eligibility and lower earnings-replacement rate.

GreeceFamily2013++

New means-tested single child benefit introduced.

Hungary

Family2011-

Family allowance more restrictive with respect to child age.

Tax break

2011–
2014

+

+

Family tax allowances more generous and less restrictive (alongside theintroduction of a flat rate income tax). From 2014, family tax allowances canbe deducted from social security contributions.

Iceland

Family2013+

Ireland

Family

2010–
2013

-

Tax
credits

2011-

IsraelFamily

2013

-

Italy

Family2014Child care

2013

Family2010

Tax
breaks2011

Child care

2014Child care
ParentalJapan

Latvia3 4

I nnocenti-

Reduction in the basic child allowance for under-3s (in families above acertain income level); baby bonus eligibility more restrictive; gradual increasein supplement for large families and lone-parent families.

Child benefit amounts increased.
+

Successive cuts to child benefit amounts; new means-tested benefits for
low income families introduced.
Tax credits for lone-parent families decreased.

-

Benefit cuts; income ceiling introduced.

+

Cash transfers to low-income families extended to migrants (both EU andnon-EU citizens).

+

Child-care voucher for mothers not using parental leave.

+/-

Child allowance extended to children under 15, income test abolished (butre-introduced in 2012) and benefit amounts increased. Child rearing
allowance extended to lone fathers.

-

Tax breaks for dependent children abolished.

+

More generous and less restrictive. Formerly for uninsured persons only.

2013

+

New child-care cost subsidy for pre-school children.

2010

-

Income ceiling introduced. Restrictions on work (to be reversed in late 2014).

Re p o r t++

C a r d1 2

S E C T I O N

r es p onses

Type ofbenefitYearphasedin

Lithuania

Family2010

Tax
breaks2014+

Tax allowance increased for first child.

Luxembourg

Parental
leave

2013

+

Increased duration of unpaid parental leave.

Malta

Child

2011

+

Increase in child allowance minimum rate.

Tax
breaks

2011–
2012

+

Temporary exemption from income tax for women with children who return
to work after a five-year absence. New tax regime for parents introduced.

Parental
leave

2012–
2013

+

Paid maternity leave extended by four weeks.

Child care

2014

Family2011–
2013

Child care
New ZealandTaxcredits

NorwayChild care

PolandFamilyEligibility

U ne v en

Country

Netherlands

Benefitlevel/
duration

4-

Details

Eligibility criteria more restrictive.

+

Free child care for parents in education or employment.

+/--Child allowance for second and subsequent children increased (reduced in2012, increased in 2013). Income ceiling lowered. Reform planned for 2015.

2012

-

-

Child-care allowance lowered and eligibility restricted.

2012

+

-

Higher rate, but lower income ceiling.

2012

+

-

‘Cash for care’ benefit abolished for 2-year-olds, but made more generous
for children aged 13 to 18 months.

2012

+

+

Benefit amounts and income ceilings increased.

-

Income testing of birth grant introduced.

-

Tax allowances for families with more than two children increased; income
test introduced for families with one child.

+

Paid parental leave implemented.

-

Income ceiling lowered.

2013
Tax
breaks2013

Parental
leave

2013

Child

2011

Tax
breaks2013

Child care

2013

+

Child-care subsidy extended and no longer income tested.

Tax
breaks2013+

Tax breaks for lone-parent families introduced.

Parental
leave

2011

+

Romania

Family2011-

Slovakia

Parental
leave

2011

+

Slovenia

Family2012--Less generous and more restrictive (until GDP growth exceeds 2.5%).

-

Birth grant abolished. Means-tested child benefit amount cut for under-3s.

Portugal

Republic of
Korea

+

+

Spain

Family2010-

SwedenFamily2010+

Turkey

Other

2012

UnitedKingdom

Child

2010

Child care

-

2009–
2012

-

2011

-

Less generous for families with one child. More restrictive income testing.
Unified parental leave benefit introduced (indexed regularly), allowing parents
to work without loss of benefit. Length of maternity leave extended andreplacement rate increased from 60% to 65%.

Benefit amounts increased.

-

2013
United States

More generous parental leave benefit (40% of earnings, up to a ceiling), withthe minimum equal to the former flat rate.

+

2013
Tax
credits

Tax allowances for children increased.

General health insurance introduced (free healthcare for all children).
No indexation of benefit amounts for three years. ‘Health in pregnancy’ grantabolished.

-

Income ceiling introduced.

-

Income ceiling lowered. Changes in indexation of benefit amounts. Workrequirement for couples with children increased.
Child-care element of tax credits reduced.

+

15 hours a week of free child care extended to 2-year-olds.

Other

2013

-

Spare room subsidy abolished. Benefit cap introduced.

Taxcredits

2010–
2012

+

‘Additional Child Tax Credit’ extended until 2017. It was due to expire in 2010,
then in 2012.

Other

2009–
2013

+

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) increased benefit
amounts until 2013.

Source: OECD Benefits and Wages, country-specific information; OECD, Society at a Glance 2014, Table 1.2; ’Investing in Children: Breaking the cycle ofdisadvantage‘, analysis by the European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion; Europe 2020 National Reform Programme reports; UNICEF National
Committees.
Note: A minus sign (-) means less generous: lower benefit levels (through cuts or changes to indexation rules) or duration of benefit receipt; stricter eligibility
conditions or cancellation of a programme. A plus sign (+) means the opposite.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

3 5

r es p onses

Figure 21 GDP and total expenditure

positive reforms in familytransfers, tax breaks and parental
leave in 2012–2013.

» Ireland cut child benefits several
times from 2010 to 2014, while
squeezing unemployment
benefits and social assistance.
On a positive note, tax reform in2011 reduced deductions for loneparents and disabled children,and in 2014 initiatives wereannounced to improve healthcoverage for children under six
and to reinforce school breakfast
programmes.

» Since 2010, the United Kingdom
has implemented a series of cutsthat have reduced the real value
and coverage of child benefits

3 6

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

100
90

Total expenditure index

GDP index

Source: Eurostat.

Figure 22 Evolution of Gini coefficient in 16 OECD countries since themid-1980s
0.32

0.31
Gini index

0.30

0.29

0.28

mid-1980s around 1990 mid-1990s

around 2000 mid-2000s

2010

Source: OECD income distribution database.

and tax credits for families withchildren. In 2013, a cap was
imposed on the total benefits ahousehold can receive, mainly
affecting a small number of large
families with high housing costs,
while housing benefits were cut(the so-called ‘bedroom tax’),
affecting large numbers of social
tenants. One positive note: childcare provisions for two-year-olds
have been expanded.

C a r d1 2

» Romania reformed its family
support system in 2011,
replacing two means-tested
family allowances with asingle benefit, and adding
extra provision for loneparents. The new benefit,
however, is less generous tofamilies with one child andmore generous to families
with three or more, and it has
a lower income ceiling.

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

80

» In Spain, unemployment benefits
have been tightened, child-carebenefits reduced and universal
birth benefits eliminated. The
share of the social protection
budget spent on families andchildren declined from 5 per centto 3.5 per cent between 2008
and 2011.

110

2002

In several countries, family-related
benefits were reduced. In Irelandand Spain, action was limited bydemands for financial adjustment
measures, leaving children behind
precisely when their poverty
indicators began to soar. Romania
and the United Kingdom performed
better in terms of child poverty, butdecisions made, or avoided, in later
years may affect this:

120

2001

of child-related allowances into aless restrictive, more generous
single benefit in 2013.

130

2000

» Greece made a disparate system

140

1995

comprehensive universal childcare plan in 2014.

150
Index (1995 = 100)

» Malta implemented a

160

1999

» Poland introduced modest but

1998

U ne v en

1997

4

1996

S E C T I O NS E C T I O N

Summary
Millions more children could havebeen helped if protection policies
had been stronger before, and had
been strengthened during, theGreat Recession. The recession has
brought suffering and life-long risks
upon an extra 619,000 children in

Italy, 444,000 in France and 2 million
in Mexico.24
All countries faced difficult choices,limited budgets and worsening
recessions, and the enormity of
the challenges should not be
underestimated. Demand for
austerity measures was intense,4

U ne v enr es p onses

as were pleas from other vulnerable
sectors. Compromises wereundoubtedly necessary. But, as wehave seen, some policies, and themanner in which they were
implemented, were more effective
than others.

Box 6 Children of the United States’ recession

The Great Recession was preceded by a period of
low interest rates internationally, and was triggeredby the 2007 sub-prime mortgage crisis in the UnitedStates. The low interest rates, combined with a trend
in the United States toward lower lending standards
and aggressive marketing of higher-risk, sub-prime
mortgage products, inflated real estate prices. In
2007, the bubble burst, asset values plunged andmortgage defaults and foreclosures surged.
Collapsing housing prices and the ensuing losses bylarge financial firms holding securities tied to realestate values triggered the largest, synchronous
global economic decline since the Second World
War. To counter rising unemployment and a falling
GDP, in 2009 the American government passed theRecovery and Reinvestment Act, an $800 billion
stimulus package to stabilize the economy andincrease protection for vulnerable groups. The act
expanded food stamp programmes, extended
unemployment benefits from 26 to 99 weeks,
improved the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), andintroduced the Making Work Pay tax credit (a refundof up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800
for married taxpayers filing joint returns). The social
protection components of the stimulus package costan estimated $200 billion.
Child poverty in the US, state by state
Between 2006 and 2011, child poverty increased in
34 states. The largest increases were found in
Nevada, Idaho, Hawaii and New Mexico, all of whichhave relatively small numbers of children. Meanwhile
Mississippi and North Dakota saw notabledecreases. In several large states, smaller
percentage increases mask substantial increases in
the absolute number of children who slid intopoverty: California (221,000), Florida (183,000),
Georgia (140,000) and Illinois (133,000). In the UnitedStates overall, 24.2 million children were living inpoverty in 2012, a net increase of 1.7 million from2008. Indeed, of all newly poor children in the OECD
and/or EU, about a third are in the United States.

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

1 2

3 7

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

League Table 4 Child poverty in the United States by state (and the District of Columbia)
Rank

US State

Change(2007–2012)

1
2
3
4
4
6
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
21
23
23
25
26
27
28
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

North Dakota
Mississippi
West Virginia
Wyoming
Virginia
MissouriMassachusetts
Iowa
Utah
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
NebraskaConnecticut
DC (District of Columbia)
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Kentucky
New Jersey
South Dakota
Maryland
Ohio
Colorado
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Maine
MichiganCalifornia
New York
North Carolina
Arizona
KansasOregonVermont
South Carolina
Georgia
FloridaAlabama
Illinois
Indiana
Washington
AlaskaDelawareMontana
Hawaii
New Mexico
Nevada
Idaho

-5.4
-4.3
-4.2
-2.9
-2.9
-2.1
-2.1
-1.6
-1.2
-1.1
-0.9
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.2
0.6
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.7
3.1
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.1
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.7
7.7
8.0
9.1
9.5
10.0

North Dakota
Mississippi
West Virginia
Wyoming
Virginia
MissouriMassachusetts
Iowa
Utah
Wisconsin
Tennessee
Pennsylvania
NebraskaConnecticut
DC (District of Columbia)
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Kentucky
New Jersey
South Dakota
Maryland
Ohio
Colorado
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Maine
MichiganCalifornia
New York
North Carolina
Arizona
KansasOregonVermont
South Carolina
Georgia
FloridaAlabama
Illinois
Indiana
Washington
AlaskaDelawareMontana
Hawaii
New Mexico
NevadaIdaho

Notes: Poverty estimates were computed using
three-year averages (2005-2006-2007 and 2010-2011-2012).
Figures are rounded to the first decimal.

3 8

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d

18.2

24.0
31.6
29.5

23.8
21.6
23.6
22.0

26.1
24.9
25.0
23.9

24.2
23.9

19.0
18.7

34.8
33.8

27.0
26.6

36.8
37.1

11.4
12.5

18.5
20.0

29.0
30.6

22.7
24.4
24.0
21.2
23.3

38.6
40.7

26.2
27.0

29.6

33.2

31.2

28.8
30.3
21.0

32.7
32.7
31.7

26.9

36.5

33.5

23.3
24.6

31.3

25.6

33.3
30.6
32.8

25.1
26.5

2006

37.2

25.5

22.6

20

35.8

32.0

27.8

10

39.4

34.5

31.5

28.1

37.9

32.7

30

Child poverty rate (%)

1 2

36.0

34.3
34.2
35.6

19.7

39.4
40.0

36.7
38.0

21.3
22.6
24.1
25.4

17.4

41.0
40.9

36.3
36.2

19.3
19.3

16.8

43.4

39.1

36.3

32.2

21.1
21.2

0

Source: CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

24.8

19.5

2011

41.9

34.6
36.5

40

50

S E C T I O N

4U ne v enr es p onses

Box 7 Social safety, American-style
In the United States in recent decades, the social
safety net has favoured the working poor more thanthe out-of-work poor. When the federal welfare
programme was reformed in 1996, a workforce
development component was added and a key
programme for the very poorest families was
rewritten: Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF)
replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children(AFDC), in place since 1935. TANF has declined
significantly since 1996. With a budget of $10 billion
in 2010, at the lowest point of the recession, it
reached just 2 million families, compared to morethan 5 million in 1994 (with a $30 billion budget).
Meanwhile, unemployment insurance paid $139 billion
in benefits in 2010. Half of that was from the extra
benefits that were part of the stimulus package,
including increased benefit amounts and extended
coverage periods.
For poor families with children, the most importantpart of the safety net is the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly called the Food
Stamp Program. The stimulus package added$40 billion in new funding to this, allowing for an
increase in the monthly benefit. As a result, almost
one person in seven in the country received thebenefit, and the budget reached $70 billion in 2011.
How did the safety net perform?
In counting the poor, the United States Census Bureau(USCB) uses annual income data to define the poverty
line, or the ‘poverty threshold’, as it is called. In 2013,
for example, the USCB poverty threshold for a threeperson family unit was estimated at $18,552.i
Figure 23 compares income composition in 2010 and
1982, when the last major United States recession

peaked.i i Panel A looks at the families whose income
falls below the poverty threshold; panel B looks atthe ‘extreme poor’, whose family income falls below
50 per cent of the poverty threshold. Several sourcesof income are compared: employment earnings,
unemployment insurance, food stamps, the EITC
and the TANF/AFDC programmes.
Among those at or below 100 per cent of the poverty
threshold, a large decrease in earned income and
TANF in 2010 is offset by large increases in foodstamps and the EITC. There was also a modest
increase in unemployment insurance. For this groupas a whole, the increase in child poverty was lower
during this recession than it was in 1982.
For those at or below 50 per cent of the poverty
threshold – the extreme poor – the story issomewhat different. Panel B still shows a large
decrease in earned income and TANF and a large
increase in food stamps, but it also shows a muchsmaller increase in the EITC and a slight decline inunemployment insurance, in contrast with thesituation of the regular poor.
This highlights how the United States safety net haschanged to provide more support for poor working
families and less for the extreme poor with no work.
As a result, extreme child poverty has also increased
more in this recession than in the recession of 1982,
indicating that the safety net was stronger for thepoorest children 30 years ago.

i

 ource: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/
Sdata/threshld/ii

T he composition of income is after taxes and transfers(ATTI).

Figure 23 Composition of after-tax and transfer income by source – below 50 and
below 100 per cent poverty
Panel B: below 50 per cent poverty

1982

2010

1982

UI/VET/WC

Foodstamps

EITC

AFDC/
TANF

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
EarnedincomeUI/VET/WC

Foodstamps

EITC

AFDC/
TANF

Percentage of ATTI

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
EarnedincomePercentage of ATTI

Panel A: below 100 per cent poverty

2010

Source: Bitler, M., H. Hoynes and E. Kuka, ‘Child Poverty and the Great Recession’, Innocenti Working Paper, UNICEF Office of Research,
Florence, 2014.
Note: UI/VET/WC: Unemployment Insurance (UI), Veterans (VET), Workers Compensation (WC).

I nnocenti

Re p o r t

C a r d1 2

3 9

SECTION 5
Conclusion

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith
famously coined the term
“conventional wisdom” to describe
general statements that mostpeople accept as true, even if they
are not. In the case of the GreatRecession and its impact onchildren, conventional wisdom has itthat the suffering was inevitable,
spread equally among social groups
and alleviated by themacroeconomic recovery.
This report suggests otherwise.
Children by the millions wereimmediately and directly affectedby the recession (more than othervulnerable groups, such as theelderly), and many will suffer theconsequences for life. And theimpact certainly has not been
spread evenly across all children
in all countries.
Figure 24 charts decreases inhousehold income from 2008 to
2012.25 It shows that years ofpotential progress have been lost in
the recession. In Greece, families
with children lost the equivalent of
14 years of income progress.
Ireland, Luxembourg and Spain lost
10 years; Iceland lost 9, and Italy,
Hungary and Portugal lost 8. The
situation is probably worse forchildren in families at the lowest
income levels.
The larger cost of this lost potential
may be seen in increased social
alienation and reduced population
growth. Upward trends in fertility
rates have slowed for the first timein a decade, a phenomenon at least

4 0

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r tFigure 24 The Great Leap Backward: years of progress lost for families
with children
14

GreeceIreland

10

Spain

10

Luxembourg

10
9

IcelandItaly

8

Hungary

8

Portugal

8

Belgium

6

Latvia6

United Kingdom

65Lithuania
Bulgaria

4

Estonia

4

Malta

4

Netherlands

4

Romania

4

Slovenia

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Years lost
Source: Eurostat.
Note: Estimates based on median equivalized incomes for households with children in national currency at2007 prices.

C a r d1 2

S E C T I O N

partially linked to young adults
delaying family formation due toeconomic conditions. Those worst
affected are countries that weremost exposed to the recession andyoung age groups (15–19 and
20–24). Such impacts magnify thedisadvantages of persistent poverty
and reduce educational andprofessional achievement potential.
Failure to respond boldly may havelong-term negative implications forsocieties.
These risks are most evident inEurope, where the plight of children
reflects rising inequality in andamong states. An increasing
inequality gap threatens theEuropean Union’s ambitious
convergence projects, such as theEurope 2020 strategy to “lift at least
20 million people out of poverty andsocial exclusion and increase
employment … to 75%”.26
Government responses to therecession have varied widely. In
some countries, and in very different
contexts, public institutions andprogrammes have been effective at
protecting children. An array of legal
and economic measures – from tax
reforms to protecting families fromeviction – was taken to contain childpoverty and safeguard thefundamental rights of children.
Since 2008, effective public
interventions have saved 4 million
children from poverty in 18
countries mildly exposed to therecession.
The effectiveness of these
responses may be debated for
decades to come, but one certainty
is that economic indicators alone do
not reveal the complexity of social
reality. Six years into the recession,
the impact on children and families
is still unfolding. It may be years

before many households get backto pre-recession levels of well-being.
High unemployment and fiscal
restraint will remain the norm for theforeseeable future in many
countries. Governments andinstitutions must consider how toensure that the “superior interest”
of children is guaranteed.27
The analysis in this report suggests
the following principles andrecommendations for governments
to consider in strengthening childprotection strategies:» Make an explicit commitment toend child poverty in developed
countries. At a time when theend of child poverty plays acentral role in the post-2015
development agenda, affluent
countries should lead the way byplacing the well-being of children
at the top of their responses tothe recession, for ethical reasonsand for their own self-interest.
– Child poverty and social exclusion
should be addressed from a childrights perspective, in accordancewith the commitments made in
the Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
– Comprehensive assessments
should be undertaken of therecession’s impact on children.
The current and future well-beingof children should be part of anational conversation, oriented
toward specific outcomes.
– The leave-no-one-behind principle
should form the foundation of
future social strategies indeveloped countries. Equity
should be at the centre of any
national plan for children andadolescents, including education,
housing, special needs and otherkey areas.

5

C onc l u sion

– States should consider drawing‘red lines’ – indicators of childpoverty and well-being – that, if
crossed, automatically trigger
public intervention.

» Rescue, prevent and give hope.
Opportunities to break cycles ofchild vulnerability should bepromoted. Certain guaranteed
minimum social standards would
make a positive difference.
– Rescue: poverty and deprivation
are at emergency levels in half adozen countries and areintolerably high in many others.
Governments should invest to
eliminate extreme poverty by:· implementing therecommendations of theEuropean Commission report’Investing in Children: Breaking
the cycle of disadvantage‘,28
which include a call for integrated
strategies, the development of
universal policies and the
involvement of stakeholders;· guaranteeing an appropriatebalance between universal andtargeted policies aimed at
supporting the mostdisadvantaged children; and· improving the education
system’s impact on equal
opportunities and strengthening
the responsiveness of the healthsystem to the mostdisadvantaged.
– Prevent: increasing investment insocial protection policies andprogrammes can reduce poverty,
enhance social resilience inchildren and support economic
development in an efficient, costeffective way. Such measures
include guaranteeing basic
incomes for families, helping

I nnocentiR e p ort

C a r d1 2

4 1

S E C T I O N

5C onc l u sion

parents integrate into economic
markets and protecting vulnerable
children from financial and social
exclusion. A child rights impact
assessment is a useful strategy
for decision-making in the bestinterests of children.
There needs to be a preventive
focus on children who face
increased risk due to multiple
disadvantage, such as those inmigrant and lone-parent families.
And there needs to be access toaffordable early childhood
education and care to facilitate
parents’ labour market
participation, and also to reduce
inequalities at young age.
– Give hope: adolescents andyoung adults must be part of any
economic agenda to recover fromthe recession. Governments
should draw up specific plans toaddress youth unemployment andhigh NEET levels by smoothing
the transition from education toemployment, reducing
underemployment, andstrengthening occupational
adjustment strategies.

4 2

I nnocentiR e p ort

» Produce better data for informed
public debate: availability,
timeliness and usefulness of
information about the well-beingof children should be improved.
– All countries should deepen datacollection, the better to measurepoverty levels, age groups, NEET
rates and other factors.
– New data should be released
promptly to help with timely
decision-making.
– Access should be improved to
information for non-profit, publicinterest research institutions.
Fifty years from now, we will lookback at this period as a criticaljuncture in the history of many
affluent countries. The GreatRecession may be remembered forthe generation of vulnerable children
it left behind. But it may also be
remembered as a transcendent
historical moment, when recovering
nations laid the foundations formore inclusive societies based onequality and opportunity for all. How
else will we repay the debt we oweto the children of the recession?

C a r d1 2

International abbreviations

International abbreviations (ISO) for
countries covered in the Report Card
AT	Austria
AU 	Australia
BE

Belgium

BG

Bulgaria

CA	CanadaCH	Switzerland
CL

Chile

CY	Cyprus
CZ

Czech Republic

DE

Germany

DK	Denmark
EE

Estonia

ES	SpainFI	Finland
FR	France
GR

GreeceHR

Croatia

HU	Hungary
IE	Ireland
IL	IsraelIS	Iceland
IT	Italy
JP

Japan

KR

Republic of Korea

LT

Lithuania

LU

Luxembourg

LV	Latvia
MT	Malta
MX	Mexico
NL	Netherlands
NO	Norway
NZ	New Zealand
PL

PolandPT

PortugalRO	Romania
SE	Sweden
SI	Slovenia
SK	Slovakia
TR

TurkeyUK

United Kingdom

US	

United States

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

C a r d

1 2

4 3

DATA SOURCES – THE LEAGUE TABLES

League Table 1
Data refer to children aged 0 to 17.
For the majority of countries covered,surveys detailing household conditions
are published annually (the latest available
is 2012) and they typically refer to income
levels of the previous year (2011).
For Canada, Chile, Israel, Mexico, New
Zealand and the Republic of Korea, period
differs from 2008 to 2012 (see sources
below).
Data for Turkey refer to children
aged 0–19.
The 2008 and 2012 (anchored) childpoverty rates for Croatia are not directlycomparable. The estimate for 2008 was
obtained from Eurostat. The anchoredchild poverty rate for 2012 was computedwith micro-data from the 2012 European
Union Statistics on Income and Living
Conditions (EU-SILC) using the 2008
poverty line obtained from the Household
Budget Survey (HBS) 2008, and uprated
for inflation.
Sources: The calculations for League
Table 1 are based on the latest Eurostat
estimates for 2008 and 2012 (estimatesfrom EU-SILC; break in time series for2012 data for Austria and the United
Kingdom).
For the remaining countries:» Australia: HILDA 2008 and 2012
(Household, Income and Labour
Dynamics in Australia survey);» Canada: Survey of Labour and Income
Dynamics (from Luxembourg Income
Study) 2008 and 2011;» Chile: CASEN 2006 and 2011;» Israel: Household Expenditure Survey(from Luxembourg Income Study) 2007
and 2010;» Japan: Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare’s Comprehensive Survey of
Living Conditions 2008 and 2012;

4 4

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t» Mexico: Encuesta Nacional de Ingresosy Gastos de los Hogares (ENIGH) 2006
and 2012;» New Zealand: Household Economic
Survey 2006/2007 and 2011/2012(estimates taken from B. Perry,Household Incomes in New Zealand:
Trends in indicators of inequality andhardship, 1982 to 2013, New Zealand
Ministry of Social Development,
Auckland, 2014);» Republic of Korea: Household andIncome Expenditure Survey 2007–2011
and Farm Household Economy Survey
2007–2011;» Turkey: Income and Living Conditions
Survey 2008 and 2012;» United States: Current Population
Survey (CPS) 2008 and 2012.
The income reference year is the calendar
or tax year previous to the survey year,with the exceptions of: Chile, Mexico,
Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom,
where the survey and income reference
years coincide; Australia, where theincome reference year goes from July of
the previous year to June of the survey
year; Croatia and Ireland (HBS 2008),
where the income reference period is amoving 12-month period preceding theinterview. Income reference years for
New Zealand are 2006 and 2011. For Israel,income is monthly, with the reference
period of the last three months before
the interview.

League Table 2
Data refer to children and young people
aged 15 to 24.
Quarterly and annual estimates are notdirectly comparable.
Sources: Latest Eurostat estimates for2008 and 2013 (estimates from theEuropean Union Labour Force Survey).

C a r d1 2

OECD, Society at a Glance 2014:» Australia: March 2007 and March 2013;» Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and theUnited States: Q1-2007 and Q1-2013;» Japan: Q4-2007 and Q4-2012.
OECD, Education at a Glance 2013 (2008and 2011): Israel, Republic of Korea.
CASEN 2006 and 2011: Chile.

League Table 3
Gallup collects and makes available
information on a number of self-reported
indicators in some 160 countries. A
representative sample of 1,000 adults (age15+) is contacted by phone in developed
countries with 80 per cent phone
coverage. Gallup data are increasingly
used by multilateral agencies, but there
are concerns about their statisticalreliability and a scarcity of disaggregateddata on children. Gallup data are available
for 2006–2013 via a paid subscription to
Gallup Analytics. See: http://www.gallup.
com/gallupanalytics.aspx
Where no data for 2007 were available,
the 2008 data were used; if the 2008 data
were not available, the 2006 data wereused. In general, 2008 data were used
for Austria, Finland, Iceland, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Malta, Norway andPortugal; 2006 data were used for
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Switzerland.
For the stress indicator: no data are
available for Bulgaria and Croatia; 2006
data were used for Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Greece, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia and Switzerland; 2007 data
were used for Chile and Mexico. Datafor the remaining countries refer to 2008;2012 data were used for Norway and
Switzerland, as data for 2013 were
not available.
n.a.: not available.

DATA SOURCES – THE BACKGROUND PAPERS

The original research for this report,
including further methodologicalexplanations, can be found in the
Innocenti Working Papers detailed below
and available at www.unicef-irc.org:
Bitler, M., H. Hoynes and E. Kuka,‘Child Poverty and the Great Recession’,
Innocenti Working Paper 2014-11,
UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/724
Chzhen, Y., ‘Child Poverty and Material
Deprivation in the European Union during
the Great Recession’, Innocenti Working
Paper No. 2014-06, UNICEF Office of
Research, Florence, 2014.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/723
Chzhen, Y. , ‘Subjective Impact of the
Economic Crisis on Households withChildren in 17 European Countries’,
Innocenti Working Paper No. 2014-09,
UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/725
Chzhen, Y. and D. Richardson, ‘Young
People (not) in the Labour Market in RichCountries during the Great Recession’,
Innocenti Working Paper 2014-12, UNICEF
Office of Research, Florence.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/726
Chzhen, Y., S. Hämäläinen and J. Vargas,‘Significant Changes to Family-related
Benefits in Rich Countries during theGreat Recession’, Innocenti Working Paper
2014-13, UNICEF Office of Research,
Florence.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/727
Holmqvist, G. and L. Natali, ‘Exploring theLate Impact of the Great Recession Crisis
Using Gallup World Poll Data: A note’,
Innocenti Working Paper 2014-14, UNICEF
Office of Research, Florence, 2014.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/728

Kokkevi, A., M. Stavrou, E. Kanavou andA. Fotiou. ‘The Repercussions of the
Economic Recession in Greece on
Adolescents and their Families’, Innocenti
Working Paper No. 2014-07, UNICEF
Office of Research, Florence, 2014.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/732
Martorano, B., ‘The Australian Household
Stimulus Package: Lessons from therecent economic crisis’, Innocenti Working
Paper No. 2013-09, UNICEF Office of
Research, Florence, 2013.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/697
Martorano, B., ‘Is it Possible to Adjust“With a Human Face”? Differences in
Fiscal Consolidation Strategies between
Hungary and Iceland’, Innocenti Working
Paper No. 2014-03, UNICEF Office of
Research, Florence, 2014.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/719
Martorano, B., ‘The Consequences of the
Recent Economic Crisis and Government
Reactions for Children’, Innocenti Working
Paper No. 2014-05, UNICEF Office of
Research, Florence, 2014.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/722
Martorano, B., ‘Pre-crisis Conditions andGovernment Policy Responses: Chile andMexico during the Great Recession’,
Innocenti Working Paper 2014-15, UNICEF
Office of Research, Florence.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/729
Natali, L., B. Martorano, S. Handa, G.
Holmqvist and Y. Chzhen, ‘Trends in Child
Well-being in EU Countries during theGreat Recession: A cross-country
comparative perspective’, Innocenti
Working Paper 2014-10, UNICEF Office of
Research, Florence.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/730

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

C a r d1 2

4 5

REFERENCES

1. EU-28 plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland
and Turkey. Natali et al. ‘Trends in Child
Welfare’ details cases where these data are
not complete.
2. This figure refers to all households, withand without children.
3. OECD, Society at a Glance 2014: OECD
Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, 2014.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance2014-en
4. OECD, Society at a Glance 2014, p. 21.
5. European Union, Social Europe: Manyways, one objective, Annual Report of theSocial Protection Committee on the social
situation in the European Union, 2014,p. 127.
6. ibid., p. 78.

13. At the end of 2011, when the worst
effects of the recession were still to beseen, a European report warned about theeffects of the crisis on the shocking levelsof homelessness among children: “Themost alarming tendency is the increase inchildren becoming homeless which isevident in a number of places, either
because their family has been left
homeless or because of a breakdown offamily relationships due to the strain
resulting from the crisis.” See: European
Commission, Directorate-General for
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,‘Homelessness during the Crisis’,Research Note 8/2011, 2011, p. 12.
Interestingly, the Great Recession does
not seem to have had a similar effect inother countries, such as the United States.

7. Data on the United States Special
Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants
and Children (WIC) Program are availableat www.fns.usda.gov/pd/wic-program

14. UNICEF, ‘The Children Left Behind:A league table of inequality in childwell-being in the world’s rich countries’,
Innocenti Report Card 9, UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre, Florence, 2010, p. 29.

8. United States Department ofAgriculture, ‘Food and Nutrition’.
www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/
usdahome?navid=food-nutrition

15. Caritas Europa, Europe 2020 Shadow
Report, Caritas Europa, Brussels, 2013,
pp. 26ff.

9. Canada Foodbanks, ‘Hungercount2013’. www.foodbankscanada.ca/
FoodBanks/MediaLibrary/HungerCount/
HungerCount2013.pdf
10. CECODHAS Housing Europe, Press
release, 2013. www.housingeurope.eu/
resource-144/about-time-to-stop-aeuropean-wave-of-evictions
11. RealtyTrac, ‘Foreclosure Report’,
2013. www.realtytrac.com/content/
foreclosure-market-report/2013-year-endus-foreclosure-report-7963
12. European Union, Social Europe: Manyways, one objective, p. 146.

4 6

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

16. Brooks-Gunna, J., W. Schneider andJ. Waldfogel, ‘The Great Recession andthe Risk for Child Maltreatment’, Child
Abuse and Neglect, vol. 37, no. 10, 2013,
pp. 721. www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0145213413002226. For
information on the increase see also:
Corak, M. ‘America’s Children are theSilent Victims of the Great Recession’,
PBS Newshour, 8 October 2013.
www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/
americas-children-are-the-sile/
17. OECD, Education Indicators inFocus 18, OECD, 2013.
18. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league
tables of child poverty in the world’s richcountries’, Innocenti Report Card 10,
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,
Florence, 2012.

C a r d1 2

19. Migrant households are defined as
those with at least one adult born outside
the European Union.
20. Center for Economic and Social
Rights, ‘European Rights Chief Warns ofAusterity’s “Lost Generation”’, 5 June
2014. http://cesr.org/article.php?id=1608
21. OECD, Education Indicators inFocus 18.
22. OECD, Society at a Glance 2014.
23. Sources as given for League Table 1
on page 44.
24. These figures are calculated on thebasis of the absolute children population
numbers behind League Table 1(see page 44).
25. The figure reports the number ofyears we must go back to observe medianhousehold income in families withchildren as low as it was in 2012.
26. European Commission, DirectorateGeneral for Employment, Social Affairs
and Inclusion, The Social Dimension of
the Europe 2020 Strategy: A report of theSocial Protection Committee, European
Commission, 2011. http://bookshop.
europa.eu/en/the-social-dimension-of-theeurope-2020-strategy-pbKEBA11001/
27. OECD, Society at a Glance 2014,p. 18.
28. European Commission, ‘Investing inChildren: Breaking the cycle ofdisadvantage’, Commission
Recommendation, 20 February 2013.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?do
cId=9762&langId=en

Acknowledgements

The Innocenti Report Card 12 project wascoordinated by the UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti, and assisted by apanel of advisors and reviewers. Research
was completed at the end of June 2014.
The full text and the backgound papers tothis report can be downloaded from the
UNICEF Office of research website atwww.unicef-irc.org.
Research and data analysis
Yekaterina Chzhen (Social andEconomic Policy Specialist, UNICEF Officeof Research)
Gonzalo Fanjul (Independent consultant)
Sudhanshu Handa (Chief, Social andEconomic Policy Unit, UNICEF Officeof Research)
Goran Holmqvist (Associate Director,
UNICEF Office of Research)
Bruno Martorano (Consultant,
UNICEF Office of Research)
Luisa Natali (Consultant, UNICEF Officeof Research)
Advisory board
Peter Adamson (Independent consultant)Marta Arias Robles (Advocacy Director,
Spanish Committee for UNICEF)
Jonathan Bradshaw (University of York;Durham University)
Chris De Neubourg (Maastricht University;
Tilburg University)
Liliana Fernandes (Portuguese Catholic
University)
Manos Matsaganis (Athens Universityof Economics and Business)

Kenneth Nelson (Swedish Institute forSocial Research, Stockholm University)
Dominic Richardson (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, Social Policy Division)
Judit Vall Castello (Centre for Researchin Economic Policy and Health, Pompeu
Fabra University)
Peter Whiteford (Australian National
University)
UNICEF Advisors
Prerna Banati (Senior Planning Specialist,
UNICEF Office of Research)
Aurélie Chun (Consultant, Private
Fundraising and Partnerships,
UNICEF Geneva)
Martin Evans (Social Policy Specialist,
Division of Data, Research and Policy,
UNICEF New York)
Sandrine Flavier (Communication
Specialist, Private Fundraising andPartnerships, UNICEF Geneva)
Marie-Claude Martin (Director,
UNICEF Office of Research)Jens Matthes (Senior Policy Specialist,
Division of Data, Research and Policy,
UNICEF New York)
Alison Rhodes (Programme Specialist,
Private Fundraising and Partnerships,
UNICEF Geneva)
Dale Rutstein (Chief, Communication Unit,
UNICEF Office of Research)

Administrative support at the UNICEF
Office of Research was provided by Cinzia
Iusco Bruschi and Laura Meucci.

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

C a r d

1 2

4 7

4 8

I n n o c e n t i

R e p o r t

C a r d1 2

Previous issues in this series:
Innocenti Report Card 1
A league table of child poverty in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 2
A league table of child deaths by injury in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 3
A league table of teenage births in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 4
A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 5
A league table of child maltreatment deaths in rich nations
Innocenti Report Card 6
Child poverty in rich countries 2005
Innocenti Report Card 7
Child poverty in perspective: An overview of childwell-being in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 8
The child care transition: A league table of early childhood
education and care in economically advanced countries
Innocenti Report Card 9
The children left behind: A league table of inequality inchild well-being in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 10
Measuring child poverty: New league tables of childpoverty in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 11
Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview

Graphics: MCC Design, UK (mccdesign.com)
Printed by: ABC Tipografia, Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy

Innocenti Report Card 12, 2014
Children of the Recession:
The impact of the economic crisis on
child well-being in rich countries

UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 20 330
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org
ISSN 1605-7317© The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
October 2014
ISBN: 978-88-6522-030-6

Sales No. E.14.XX.6
Stock no. 721U