Priorities in data collection for European poverty research
Creators: name: Bircan, Tuba
name: Nicaise, Ides
name: Gábos, András
name: Tóth, István
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2017
Subjects: data collection
poverty research

description: Poverty and social inclusion have constantly been hot topics on political and social agendas and hence the importance of survey data availability in coping with poverty is widely recognised. Empirical evi­dence is one of the main pillars for effective policy making. In order to study the dimensions and dynamics of poverty, and hence to take aim at reducing poverty - quality, adequacy, and timeliness of data is mission-critical. Appropriate and overarching data can bring the situation of the poor into the sight of policy makers. The poorest and most marginalised people are usually unknown and governments have insufficient information about their living conditions. Nevertheless, they are expected to be under the radar of policy makers in order to achieve the Europe 2020 target (reduction by 20 million) as well as the Sustainable Development Goal of zero extreme poverty in the next 15 years (Granoff <em>et al.</em>, 2015). Besides administrative records and censuses, national and international surveys are significant data resources for quantitative research. Although household surveys have been on the rise both in quan­tity and frequency over the past 30 years, poverty data still lags behind in coverage and comparability compared to most other socio-economic data. Serajuddin <em>et al.</em> (2015) use the label of <em>‘</em>data depriva­tion<em>’</em> for the data gap in key dimensions of human and social development. In our context, we refer to the data gaps in poverty research to investigate particularly vulnerable groups - or, to put it more positively, we aim to identify priorities for data collection in the coming years. Admittedly, great progress has been made across time and a variety of data sources are currently available. Nevertheless, research interests evolve as the ‘information frontiers’ are moving: a shift can be observed from merely descriptive research towards analysis and policy evaluation. The changes in paradigms and theoretical approaches (<em>e.g.</em> life course perspective, multilevel governance) as well as the availability of more advanced statistical techniques (longitudinal analysis, multilevel analysis etc.) boost the demand for detailed and appropriate datasets. In sum, priorities for data collection tend to shift over time, together with new trends in research, and vice versa. The aim of this report, therefore, to provide: an in-depth analysis of the shifting needs for comparable data in the field of poverty and living conditions; conclusions for a broader, multidimensional, and forward-looking analysis of the social exclusion and inclusion processes at the national and EU levels (with special focus on specific vulnerable groups); an assessment of new problems in empirical research, rethinking of the key tools for data collection such as EU-SILC. This report builds on three types of inputs: a selection of earlier statistical research on this topic in the European literature; methodological research on various vulnerable groups in poverty research, conducted in the frame­work of the InGRID project (Gábos &amp; Kopasz, 2014; 2015; Schäfer <em>et al.</em>, 2015; Kopasz, 2015; Bernát &amp; Messing, 2016; Esteve <em>et al.</em>, 2016; Schepers, Juchtmans and Nicaise, 2017; Wets, 2017). Furthermore, we made use of discussions at various expert workshops and Summer Schools on poverty research in the context of the InGRID project; a questionnaire survey among European experts. The questions in the survey deal mainly with the data sources that have been used, scholars’ experiences, insights and proposals on feasible solutions for improving poverty data. At the end of the questionnaire, an open question was devoted to more extensive remarks and/or suggestions about this topic. Despite the low response rate (30 out of 350) from numerous European countries such as Austria (2), Belgium (4), Czech Republic (1), Ger­many (2), Estonia (1), Finland (1), Greece (2) Hungary (2), Ireland (3), Italy (6), Latvia (1), Poland (2), Portugal (1), Slovenia (1), we think that the answers are useful and reflect the most pressing needs of the research community. The respondents primarily used EU-SILC (mentioned by 22 scholars), but also EQLS (5), EU-LFS (5), the European Social Survey (ESS) (4), OECD Regional Well-Being Database, German Socio-Economic Panel, WHO, World Bank poverty data, European Community Household Panel (ECHP), Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), Adult Educa­tion Survey (AES), Households Budget Survey (HBS), Household Finance and Consumption Sur­vey (HFCS), Generations and Gender Survey (GGS), European Values Survey (EVS), HBSC, ESPAD, PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, ICCS, Integrated and United the Quest for Citizenship in an Ever Closer Europe Survey (IntUne) and Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). We start with a summary of the expert survey (Sections 2 to 4). Then we summarise the recommen­dations we reached at while preparing the IPOLIS database (Section 5).