Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The growing divide: Poverty in today’s Sweden The concept, the crisis, and the consequences Björn Halleröd Dept. of Sociology University of Gothenburg www.gu.s e GDP index (year 2000 = 100) and GDP change (per cent) 1990 – 2012. Figures for 2010 – 2012 are based on estimates 120.0 6.0 2.0 GDP index 100.0 0.0 80.0 -2.0 GDP change in per cent 4.0 -4.0 60.0 -6.0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 GDP index GDP change Source: Statistics Sweden and Government Offices www.gu.s e 240.00 0.350 220.00 0.300 200.00 0.250 180.00 0.200 Gini Income Mean and median equivalent disposable income and gini coefficient 19752008 (2007 prices). 160.00 0.150 140.00 0.100 120.00 0.050 100.00 0.000 Income: Mean Income: Median Gini 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1975 Källa: Statistics Sweden www.gu.s e Mean income divided by income deciles 1995 – 2008 and income change (per cent) between 1991 and 2007. 600 90 80 500 70 Procent 60 300 200 50 40 30 20 100 10 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 SEK *100 400 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 www.gu.s e Poverty rates according to three different operationalizations (1991, 1995 – 2008) 14 12 10 Per cent 8 Income <60% Incom below SA norm 6 SA recipients 4 2 0 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1991 www.gu.s e Some complementary indicators of economic hardship 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 Hard to meet expenses Economic crisis Lack of cash margin 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 www.gu.s e Absolute, relative or maybe both? • Functionings are absolute • Resurces are relative • Resources need to be converted into capabilities that enables the maintainance of functionings that the individual has reason to value. Resources Capabilities Functions (A. Sen) www.gu.s e National norm for social assistance. Single adult household 1998 – 2009 (2009 prices). 4000 3500 3000 Kronor 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Källa: Socialstyreslen www.gu.s e Relative changes of median income and the national norm for social assitance (1998 – 2009). 140 135 130 1998=100 125 National SA norm 120 Median income 115 110 105 100 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 www.gu.s e Relative poverty rates (<60%) divided by labour market attachment among 20 to 64 years old (1999 – 2008). 70 60 Per cent 50 All 20-64 40 Employed Students 30 Income maintinance Not employed 20 10 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 www.gu.s e Lack of cash margin and employment status 1986 2007 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 Students Employed Early retired/unemployed 15.0 Retired 10.0 5.0 0.0 www.gu.s e Questions to be asked before the election • To the government: – If the ‘making work pay’ policy fails, what then? – The return of the deserving and undeserving poor. • To the opposition (i.e., social democrats): – Compared to last time (1994-2006); what will you do different? • Research – Longitudinal data, trying to understand processes www.gu.s e www.gu.s e www.gu.s e Sambandet mellan inkomst och att tvingas avstå från konsumtion på grund av bristande resurser 5 4,5 Predicted value 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 0 1 2 3 4 Equivalent disposable income (100 000 SEK) 5 6 Can't af ford www.gu.s e