Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T05:48:25.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

26 - The hard to reach among the poor in Europe: lessons from Eurostat’s EU-SILC survey in Belgium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Ides Nicaise
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
Ingrid Schockaert
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
Roger Tourangeau
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Brad Edwards
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Timothy P. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Kirk M. Wolter
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Nancy Bates
Affiliation:
US Census Bureau
Get access

Summary

Every year the European (and Belgian) authorities publish figures concerning poverty and precariousness, based on the EU Surveys of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). These surveys are carried out jointly by the statistical offices of the member states and coordinated by Eurostat. From these, it can be seen that the at-risk-of-poverty rate (AROP) in the EU for the year 2011 was 16.9 percent (European Commission, 2013). The income threshold used to define the AROP rate is set separately for each member state at 60 percent of the median equivalized disposable income in the country, and the EU average is weighted by the population size. Despite widespread consensus on the validity of this AROP rate, new problems arose with the extension of the EU in 2004. In the new member states from Central and Eastern Europe, the average standard of living was so low that the 60 percent norm looked unrealistically low. Therefore, two additional poverty criteria were introduced, namely, a material deprivation index (based on a list of necessities) and joblessness at household level. Households meeting any of the three criteria are called “at-risk-of-poverty-and-social-exclusion” (AROPE). Incorporating these criteria, the extended poverty rate for the EU was 24.1 percent in 2011, affecting 119.5 million people (European Commission, 2013). All three criteria are measured by means of EU-SILC. The importance of these indicators is also reflected in the Europe 2020 strategy, which aims (among other targets) to reduce poverty (based on the AROPE criterion) by 20 million individuals.

Apart from the three key indicators discussed above, EU-SILC produces data for a wider set of indicators relating to education, housing, health, etc. (the so-called Laeken indicators), which allow for a multidimensional comparison of poverty and living conditions (see, e.g., European Commission, 2013). Moreover, the survey is a “rotating panel,” with one quarter of the sample being renewed every year. In other words, every household forms part of the sample for between one and three years, which allows limited longitudinal analyses to be performed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

De Keulenaer, F., & Levecque, K. (2004). Mood and socio-economic status bias in survey non-response: results from an 11-wave panel. In van Dijkum, C., Blasius, J., & Durand, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Social Science Methodology: Recent Developments and Applications in Social Research Methodology (pp. 1–21). Amsterdam: Netherlands Institute for the Social Sciences (SISWO).Google Scholar
Delaunay, D., & Tapinos, G. (1998), La mesure de la migration clandestine en Europe, vol. I: Rapport de Synthèse. Eurostat Working Papers: Population and Social Conditions. Luxembourg: Eurostat.Google Scholar
Djajić, S. (2001). Illegal immigration: trends, policies and economic effects. In Djajić, S. (ed.), International Migration: Trends, Policies and Economic Impact (pp. 37–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2013). Social Europe. Current Challenges and the Way Forward. Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee (2012). Brussels: Directorate – General Employment and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (1998). Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heerweegh, D., Abts, K., & Loosveldt, G. (2007). Minimizing survey refusal and noncontact rates: do our efforts pay off?Survey Research Methods, 1(1) 3–10.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×