IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Reassessing the EU 2020 Poverty Target an Analysis of EU-SILC 2009

Listed author(s):
  • Bertrand Maître

    (Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin)

  • Brian Nolan

    (School of Applied Social Sciences, University College Dublin)

  • Christopher T. Whelan

    (School of Sociology and Geary Institute, Univeristy College Dublin)

As part of its 2020 Strategy adopted, the EU has set a number of headline targets including one for poverty and social exclusion reduction. Our analysis in this paper suggests that, in focusing on the union of the three chosen component indicators, cross-nationally we are not comparing like with like and the case for aggregating the indicators to produce a multidimensional indicator is seriously undermined. In relation to the measurement of deprivation, the development of this target was conducted on the basis of information available in the European Union Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) that was generally recognised to be less than satisfactory. More recently the introduction of a special module on material deprivation as part of EU-SILC 2009 provides an opportunity to explore the consequences of critical choices in relation to the index utilised and the threshold employed. In order to deal with problems relating to the fact that neither the union or intersection of all three of the current dimensions proves to be particularly useful, we explored a consistent poverty approach using both the EU severe material deprivation 4+ threshold and a 3+ and nationally relative threshold based on an alternative basic deprivation index. Employing the EU material deprivation index, extreme deprivation is largely abolished in more affluent member states. A purely relative measure produces much higher rates in these countries but leads to a compression of rates across counties. The basic deprivation 3+ index largely manages to avoid both of these problems.. Understanding the scale of between country difference countries while continuing to be able identify those groups who should remain the focus of national welfare state efforts is a formidable challenge. However, the capacity to respond to such a challenge in a coherent fashion is an indispensable part of any attempt to develop EU poverty targets.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Geary Institute, University College Dublin in its series Working Papers with number 201213.

in new window

Length: 28 pages
Date of creation: 09 May 2012
Handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:201213
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Arts Annexe, Belfield, Dublin 4

Phone: +353 1 7164615
Fax: +353 1 7161108
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Romina Boarini & Marco Mira d'Ercole, 2006. "Measures of Material Deprivation in OECD Countries," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 37, OECD Publishing.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:201213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Geary Tech)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.