TiPSE
Territorial Dimensions of Poverty and Social Exclusion
ESPON Workshop:
“How to make regions and cities more resilient to economic crisis”
11th European Week of Regions and Cities
Brussels, Tuesday 8th October 2013
Andrew Copus, The James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen
What do we mean by Poverty and Social Exclusion?
“Poverty” = Income poverty (usually)
• individuals/households
• quantifiable but relative.
- measured by ARoP rate
Social Exclusion = a broader, multi-faceted phenomenon.
• Affects groups
• Inclusion within labour market, administrative systems,
community, institutions, democracy…i.e “normal citizenship”
• Essentially relational and defined by processes
• Very difficult to quantify
2
Patterns of Poverty across Europe (2011)
Reykjavik
!
Canarias
!
Guadeloupe Martinique
!
!
Helsinki
!
Tallinn
Oslo
!
!
Stockholm
Guyane
!
!
Riga
!
Madeira
!
København
Vilnius
!
!
Minsk
!
Dublin
!
Acores
Per Cent of Population
!
!
!
!
London
Warszawa
Berlin
Amsterdam
Réunion
!
ARoP Rate: Share of
population with less
than 60% of the median
equivalised household
disposable income
(after welfare transfers).
Kyiv
!
!
3.4 - 9.9
Bruxelles/Brussel
!
Praha
!
Luxembourg
!
10.0 - 14.9
Paris
!
Kishinev
Wien ! Bratislava
!
Budapest
!
!
Bern
!
Vaduz
!
Ljubljana Zagreb
!
15.0 - 19.9
Bucuresti
!
Beograd
!
!
20.0 - 24.9
Sarajevo
!
Sofiya
!
Podgorica
!
Skopje
Ankara
!
Roma
25.0 - 44.3
Tirana
!
Madrid
!
!
!
Lisboa
!
Athina
!
Nicosia
!
El-Jazair
!
Tounis
!
!
Valletta
3
The importance of Welfare Policies…
Effect of
social transfers:
Before
After
Source: Eurostat, Statistics Explained, Income distribution statistics,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Income_distribution_statistics
The blue columns show the ARoP rate in 2011 (after welfare transfers).
The green coloured columns on top show what the ARoP rate would be in
the absence of welfare transfers.
What are the implications of austerity programmes?
4
Patterns of change during the Crisis…
Reykjavik
Canarias
!
Guadeloupe Martinique
!
!
Helsinki
Tallinn
Oslo
Réunion
!
Background shading:
comparison of the
(national) average ARoP
rates during 2005-07 and
2009-11.
Stockholm
Guyane
!
Riga
København
Madeira
Vilnius
!
Minsk
Dublin
Berlin
Amsterdam
Warszawa
Kyiv
London
Acores
!
Bruxelles/Brussel
Praha
Luxembourg
Paris
Kishinev
Bratislava
Wien
Budapest
Bern
Vaduz
Ljubljana
Zagreb
Bucuresti
Beograd
Change in At-Risk-of-Poverty Rate
Sarajevo
Sofiya
Podgorica
Roma
Pies: Where NUTS 2
data exists for both
periods the pies show the
proportion of regions
increasing (red) and
decreasing (blue).
Skopje
Ankara
>-0.25
Tirana
Madrid
-0.25 - 0.25
Lisboa
Athina
Nicosia
El-Jazair
>0.25
Tounis
Valletta
# NUTS 2 Increasing
# NUTS 2 Decreasing
5
National/Regional ARoP rates mask complex local variation…
At risk of Poverty in Nordic municipalities.....
...and across the UK
6
Patterns of Social Exclusion…
Some preliminary comments…
•
4 “domains” –
a) earning a living,
b) access to basic services,
c) social environment,
d) political participation
•
Labour market aspects well covered – other aspects (especially (d)) neglected.
•
Harmonisation issues
•
Different aspects (even within 4 domains) show different patterns (E-W, N-S, U-R)
•
Combining these separate dimensions of SE would result in a meaningless map!
•
Both analysis and policy need to recognise these different dimensions
7
Implications for Response to the Economic Crisis
1. Need a much clearer understanding of the different
dimensions of social exclusion, and their geography.
2. Are national/horizontal policies appropriate/sufficient to
address complex patterns of regional/local differentiation in
inequality?
3. A range of policy areas address poverty and social exclusion
is there sufficient policy coherence?
4. How do different welfare approaches relate to “inclusive
growth” – are they closely related/mutually reinforcing or
independent/incompatible?
5. Austerity underlines the increasing importance of
informal/voluntary local community-based solutions, - social
innovation.
8
Thank you for your attention…
[email protected]