children to 76 per cent for lone parent HRPs with intermediate level qualifications. Within the Leaving Certificate plus group, by far the highest level of vulnerability is associated with lone parent HRPs where the figure reaches 42 per cent. A large gap follows before the next highest level of 17 per cent is observed for children. It then ranges between 12 to 3 per cent for the remaining groups. As we noted earlier, the highest absolute level is observed within the intermediate level for lone parent HRPs. This is likely to be accounted for by the fact that those possessing such qualifications are likely to be younger single parents while those with no qualifications are more likely to be separated/divorced or widowed. Following this group, we find children and those living alone with rates of almost 40 per cent. The rate is then halved for those living with a partner with children and those living alone. A similar reduction is then observed for those living with a partner and older people where the rates fall to just above 10 per cent.
5.4
Economic
Vulnerability
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Children Living w ith Others Working
Age
Living w ith Partner Working
Age
Lone Parent Living w ith Partner w ith
Children
Living Alone Working Age
Older People
Leaving toTertiary level Inter level No qualifications
Finally, within the no qualifications group the highest level of close to 60 per cent is again found for lone parent HRPs. For children in this category the figure rises to 50 per cent and for those living alone to 45 per cent. For those living with a partner and children it rises to 36 per cent. For older people and those living with others the figure exceeds 25 per cent and for those living with a partner to just below 20 per cent.
Figure 5.7: Economic Vulnerability by Family Life Cycle and HRP Educational Qualifications: Per Cent At Risk
Focusing on relativities, we find that throughout most life cycle stages the absence of qualifications raises the risk level by close to five to one. For those living with a partner without children this rises to over seven to one while for lone parents it falls to two to one. These finding reflects the fact that even at high levels of education lone parents experience relatively high levels of vulnerability while for individuals living with a partner in the highly educated group these risk level come close to zero. In terms of the overall level of structuring by both life cycle and education economic vulnerability occupies an intermediate position to ‘at risk of poverty’ and consistent poverty.
In Figure 5.8, we break down levels of economic vulnerability by family life cycle and social class. The range runs from 4 per cent for middle class individuals living with partners to 58 per cent for working class lone parent HRPs. Within the middle class, the range runs from the former figure to 45 per cent for lone parents. The figure then falls to 13 per cent for children and those living alone and does not arise above 8 per cent for the remaining groups. Vulnerability rises modestly but fairly systematically for the self-employed with the level running from 10 per cent for those living with partners to 56 per cent for lone parents. For children the level reaches to over 20 per cent. The remaining groups are found in the narrow range running from 13 to 15 per cent. Among the working class group, the range goes from 18 to 58 per cent for lone parents. On this occasion, the level for children climbs to 44 per cent and for those living alone to 40 per cent. The remaining groups display levels in the mid to high twenties.
82 THE LIFE CYCLE PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL INCLUSION IN IRELAND:AN ANALYSIS OF EU-SILC 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Children Living w ith Others Working
Age
Living w ith Partner Working
Age
Lone Parent Living w ith Partner w ith
Children
Living Alone Working Age
Older People
Middle class Self-employed Working class
Figure 5.8: Economic Vulnerability by Family Life Cycle and HRP Social Class: Per Cent At Risk
In terms of relativities we observe above average effects for membership of the working class for children and those living with partners whether with or without children. For the remaining groups such membership raises the odds on being economically vulnerable by a factor of four to one. However, for the children and for those living with partners the figure is between five and six to one. Self-employment has very little impact on risk of vulnerability.
Figure 5.9 shows variation in the risk of economic vulnerability by household work composition. The range of variation runs from 1 per cent for those living together with partners where both are at work, to close to 80 per cent among the no work lone parents, children and those living with partners and children. Within the all work group, the figure reaches 35 per cent for lone parents before dropping sharply to 13 per cent for children and 10 per cent for those living alone. For the remaining groups it does not rise above 4 per cent. For the mixed work group the level for lone parents rises to close to 50 per cent before falling to 23 per cent for children and to 17 per cent or less for the remaining groups. Within the no work group the lowest level of 36 per cent is observed for those living with partners, it rises to 50 per cent for those living alone and living with others before rising to 80 per cent for the remaining groups.
In terms of relativities, the impact of household work composition is particularly strong for those living with partners while it is significantly below average for those living alone and lone parents. For the remaining groups being in the no work class raises the odds of being economically vulnerable in comparison with the work group by a factor of over twenty to one. For those living alone it falls to ten to one and for lone parents to below eight to one. In contrast, for those living with partners and children it rises to over sixty to one. Mixed work raises the odds of vulnerability for all groups by a factor of three to one. As in the case of consistent poverty, the consequence of the observed pattern of interaction is to lead to a narrowing of the pattern of inequalities across the life cycle. While among
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Children Living w ith Others Working Age
Living w ith Partner Working Age
Lone Parent Living w ith Partner w ith Children
Living Alone Working Age
All w ork Mixed w ork No w ork
the no work and mixed work groups the highest odds ratio relating to comparison of life cycle groups is seventeen to one and for the all work group it falls to six to one.
Figure 5.9: Economic Vulnerability by Family Life Cycle and Household Work Composition
I
n this chapter, we have shown how the risks in relation to impact of socio-economic attributes on a number of social exclusion outcomes varies across the life cycle. What we have not done yet is to bring out the consequences this has for the composition of those socially excluded. In what follows we do so for ‘at risk of poverty’ in relation to the combined impact of life cycle and the educational qualifications of the HRP. Similar outcomes can also be shown for other outcomes but the effects are most dramatic where significant patterns of interaction are observed.In Figure 5.10 we show the ‘at risk of poverty’ for four key life cycle groups broken down by the educational qualifications of the HRP. The first two life cycle groups namely lone parent HRPs and those living alone of working age have been chosen because they combine modest absolute size with their distinctively high risk rates. The remaining two groups are namely children and those living with partners and children because they combine higher absolute size and more modest overall risk levels with particularly strong variation in such risk levels by educational qualifications of the HRP. For lone parents their overall risk rate is 37 per cent and this varies from 21 per cent for those with third level qualifications to 53 per cent for those with no qualifications. For those of working age and living alone a high absolute risk level is combined with sharper variation by educational qualifications than in the case of lone parents. Their average risk level reaches 32 per cent and range from 10 per cent at the top of the educational hierarchy to 59 per cent at the bottom. Therefore, the relative position of lone parents and those living alone are reversed as one moves from one end of the occupational continuum to the other. Focusing on those living with a partner and children, we find that their overall risk rate at 15 per cent is modest. However, this varies sharply from 4 per cent for those where the HRP has a Leaving Certificate or higher to 36 per cent where they have no qualifications. The overall rate for children is 23 per
5.5
Risk and
Composition
Perspectives
on Life Cycle
and Socio-
Economic
Effects
84 THE LIFE CYCLE PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL INCLUSION IN IRELAND:AN ANALYSIS OF EU-SILC 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Children Lone parent Living alone Working age Living with partner and children No Quals Intermediate Level Leaving Cert Level Tertiary Level All
cent but ranges from 7 per cent at the top of the HRP educational continuum to 43 per cent at the bottom. While children and those living with partners and children enjoy a comparative advantage over lone parents and those living alone at every point on the educational spectrum. However, the magnitude of this advantage declines substantially as one moves from the top to the bottom of the educational hierarchy.
Figure 5.10: ‘At Risk of Poverty’ by Selected Life Cycle Groups by Educational Qualifications of the HRP
In Figure 5.11 we combine the information above relating to probabilities of being ‘at risk of poverty’ with that relating to the size of the groups so affected to document the overall proportion of the population accounted for by those ‘at risk of poverty’ for each combination of life cycle stage and educational category. Overall lone parent HRPs and those living alone of working age who are below 60 per cent of equivalent income each comprise 1 per cent of the population.
Those ‘at risk of poverty’ and living with partners and children make up 3.3 per cent and the subset of this group where the HRP has less than a Leaving Certificate. The comparable figures for children are 6.2 per cent and 3.3 per cent. Thus identifying and targeting those ‘at risk of poverty’ requires not only that we take note of variation in risk levels across the life cycle but that we also take into account the size of these groups and variation in risk levels within such groups by key socio-economic factors. Thus ‘at risk of poverty’ children from disadvantaged educational backgrounds constitute a group four times larger than poor lone parent HRPs or those of working age living alone. In interpreting these findings, it is necessary to think both in life cycle and household type terms since households with children also contain their parents and lone parent households also include their children. Of course, in the former case any policy response would also need to take into account the children living in lone parent households.
Figure 5.11: Population Size of ‘At Risk of Poverty’ Groups by Combined Life Cycle Stage and HRP Educational Qualifications
I
n this chapter, we have considered the joint effects of family life cycle and socio-economic attributes.• Our analysis confirms the impact of ‘old risks’ that were traditionally the concern of welfare state redistribution, in the case of children but much less so in the case of older people. This remains true despite the fact that the estimate of ‘at risk of poverty’ for older people deriving from EU-SILC 2005 is significantly higher than the corresponding figure based on EU-SILC 2006.
• The highest level of risk relates to ‘new risk’ groups such as lone parent HRPs and those living alone.
• However, the existence of such effects does not allow us to neglect the substantial impact of socio-economic factors such as educational qualifications and social class.
• The situation is complicated by the fact that the impact of each type of factor depends on one’s situation in relation to the other and the extent to which this is true depends on the social exclusion outcome on which one focuses.
• The relative impact of life cycle position is a great deal stronger at lower educational and social class levels.
• Similarly, the impact of being in a no work household is much weaker for lone parents and those living alone than for individuals living with a partner. In contrast, it is much stronger for individuals living with a partner and children leading to a reversal of their position relative to the two former groups.