Transcript Tackling child poverty in Romania by learning from other countries

CHILD POVERTY AND CHILD RELATED POLICIES:
A COMPARISON OF ROMANIA AND CZECH
REPUBLIC
Silvia Avram*, Eva Militaru**, Silvia Cojanu**, Cristina Stroe**
2013 EUROMOD Research Workshop
Lisbon, Portugal
2-3 October 2013
*National Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection, Bucharest
**ISER, University of Essex
2
Outline
o Motivation & aim
o Methodology
o Results
Effects on poverty and income distribution
o Conclusions
3
Motivation & aim
• Why focusing on child poverty in Romania?
• More than 30% of the children were at risk of poverty in Romania during the
last 5 years (EU27 average= approx. 20%).
• Can child poverty in Romania be reduced by changing the child related
policies?
.
• What would be the effects of implementing the Romanian child related
benefits in the Czech Republic?
• Our paper focuses on the effectiveness of the Romanian family policy system
in reducing child poverty and attempts to establish the extent to which policy
design itself, size of the benefits and/or the interaction between policies
contribute to poverty reduction in Romania.
4
Child poverty
Romania, Czech Republic, EU
Source: Eurostat, At-risk-of-poverty rate (60% pov.line)
5
At-risk-of-poverty rate, by household type
(poverty line at 60% of median equiv. income after social transfers)
Source: Eurostat, 2011
6
Methodology (I)
• comparative framework, ‘swap’ the system of child support between Romania
and the Czech Republic
• compare the effects of implementing the Czech child related policies in
Romania and the vice versa
• we evaluate poverty and income distribution effects (overall and separately
for family types), before and after the implementation of the swapping
scenario
• 3 non-contributory family benefits in each country and 1 tax element related
to children
7
Methodology (II)
• re-scale monetary parameters (i.e. income thresholds, benefit amounts, etc.)
with respect to the poverty line in each country
• poverty lines and quintiles are fixed at the values of the original system
• change definitions and tax units accordingly
• add two swap systems, one for both tax and benefits and one for benefits
only
• capture the interactions between the redistributive effect of these child-related
policies and the broader tax-benefit system
8
Child support systems
Income
test
Family size
Number of
children
Child age
Single parent
State allowance for children
no
no
yes
yes
no
Means tested family allowance
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
Allowance for new-born children
no
no
yes
yes
no
Tax allowance for dependent persons
yes
no
yes
no
no
Child allowance
yes
no
yes
yes
no
Social allowance
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Birth grant
no
no
yes
yes
no
Refundable child tax credit
yes
no
yes
no
no
ROMANIA
CZECH REPUBLIC
9
Scenarios
No benefit
system
2007 baseline
(Original
system)
CZ Swap
system
(benefits)
CZ Swap
system
(benefits+tax)
RO Swap
system
(benefits)
RO Swap
system
(benefits+tax)
ROMANIA
State allowance for children
x
x
x
Means tested family allowance
x
x
x
Allowance for newborn children
x
x
x
Tax allowance for dependent persons
x
x
x
x
x
Child allowance
x
x
x
Social allowance
x
x
x
Birth grant
x
x
x
Refundable child tax credit
x
Other tax-benefit elements
x
x
CZECH REPUBLIC
Other tax-benefit elements
x
x
x
x
x
x
10
Data
• 2007 tax-benefit systems, Ro and Cz
• EU-SILC (and national SILC for CZ) 2008 with 2007 income
• we use EUROMOD tax-benefit microsimulation model, version F6.36
11
Poverty reduction effects (CZ system in RO)
•
•
•
•
•
RO original system is more effective in reducing relative poverty than borrowed policies, for all groups with the exception of
single parent families (possibly due to the CZ social allowance treating lone parents on more generous terms)
RO policies are most effective for families with young children (very generous benefits for children under 2)
when using the 40% threshold, we see that CZ policies are more focused on the very poor
RO policies seem to be better at targeting those who are close to the 60% poverty line
Swapping both taxes and benefits yields to better results compared to swapping benefits alone
12
Poverty reduction effects (CZ system in RO)
•
Better performance of CZ policies in reducing the poverty gap, compared to the poverty rate; CZ policies are more
likely targeted at the very bottom of the distribution, but are not actually lifting the poor above the poverty line
• RO policies are more effective in reducing the poverty gap for families with young children and families with 1 or 2
children
13
Poverty reduction effects (RO system in CZ)
•
RO child related benefits are more effective in reducing poverty (both at 60% and 40% thresholds), compared to the
original CZ system
•
Better results when swapping benefits only
•
RO tax allowance related to children is less effective in reducing poverty, compared to the CZ refundable child tax credit
14
Poverty reduction effects (RO system in CZ)
•
RO benefit system (related to children) seems to be better than the CZ original system at filling in the poverty gap and
bringing the poor closer to the poverty line (both at 40% and 60% level)
• Both CZ and RO systems are most ineffective in reducing the poverty gap for single parent families
15
Income distribution effects (CZ system in RO)
•
CZ policies are more targeted towards the very bottom of the income distribution, compared to the RO ones, overall and
for families with children on the whole
• for the rest of the income distribution, RO original seems to perform better
• however, the changes in the average HDI are less pronounced at the middle and top of the income distribution
• CZ tax system (the refundable child tax credit) is effective in providing some poverty relief
16
Income distribution effects (CZ system in RO)
•
RO child-related policies perform better for families with young children (under 2) than the CZ system, especially for the
middle of the income distribution
• CZ policies are more effective for single parent families at the very bottom of the distribution
17
Income distribution effects (CZ system in RO)
•
CZ child related policies are very effective for large families (3+ children) with very low incomes
• less income effect for both CZ and RO policies for families with 1 or 2 children
18
Income distribution effects (RO system in CZ)
•
RO child related tax advantage (tax allowance) is not effective in compensating the income of the poor
• Ro benefit system is more effective in the Czech Republic, compared to the CZ original system
19
Progressivity
• Kakwani progressivity indicator
• CZ policies are more progressive than the RO ones
• Both CZ and RO policies are more progressive in RO than in CZ, possibly
due to the fact that in CZ the income structure of the population is much more
equal than in RO
• Benefits seem to be more progressive than tax concessions both in CZ and
RO
20
Conclusions (I)
At the 60% poverty line,
• RO policies are more effective in reducing poverty in the Czech Republic than
in Romania
• CZ policies achieve greater poverty reduction in the Czech Republic than in
Romania, as well
• RO population characteristics diminish the poverty reducing potential of the
given set of policies
• The rest of the tax benefit system is likely to influence the success of the child
related policies
• At the 40% poverty line, the differences in the effects of the child related
policies are less pronounced, except for single parent families and large
families (with 3+ children)
21
Conclusions (II)
• The Czech child support policies make the bottom part of the income
distribution more equal, but worse off in absolute terms
• The Czech population is much more equal than the Romanian population, so
less targeted, but slightly more generous benefits (as the Romanian system
has) would be more effective than in Romania where the structure of the
population is much more unequal
• Targeting the bottom of the income distribution as the Czech family policies do
is more effective in relieving severe poverty (but not the one based on the
higher threshold)
• Our results suggest that the interaction between policies and the socio-
demographic characteristics of the population plays an important role in
determining the redistributive effect of policies
22
Thank you!