Is Child Poverty the Same as Child Well-Being - Dissertation Example

Is Child Poverty the same as Child Well-being? Introduction: Poverty is one of the biggest problems facing the world today. The fact that it is present even in developed countries is appalling. It becomes even more difficult to overcome in these times of economic uncertainties. There are many causes for poverty. Mismanagement of a country’s natural resources is one among many and when it is paired with the unpredictability of climate change and environmental disasters there is not much any administration can do other than damage control. The section of society most affected by poverty is children. Even though poverty passes through various layers of the society children are the worst hit because they are the most vulnerable. This essay shall look at the concepts, Child Poverty and Child Well-being and try to understand the relation between these two if any and the differences among them. Child Poverty: Many organisations have identified Child Poverty as a unique problem and defined it. In the State of the world’s children, 2005, UNICEF has defined children living in poverty as “….those who experience deprivation of the material, spiritual and emotional resources needed to survive develop and thrive, leaving them unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential or participate as full and equal members of the society” (UNICEF,2005). It further states that Child Poverty needs to be seen as something different from the conventional way in which poverty as a whole is perceived. ‘Poverty is a measure not only of children’s suffering but also of their disempowerment.’ Even when the child lives in a financially stable household, if the environment is not conducive to his overall development he experiences poverty. (UNICEF, 2005). Children are more sensitive to the effects that can be had on relationships and the humiliation that results. It can be safely assumed that “the child’s experience of poverty is powerfully relational” (Woodsworth, D, McPeak, M & Feeny T 2005) Well-being: “According to a scholar, well being can be defined as the realisation of children’s rights and the fulfilment of the opportunity of every child to be all she or he can be in the light of a child’s abilities, potentials and skills.” Well-being is a state where a human being is healthy, comfortable and happy. There are a variety of factors that can ensure Well-being. They are a happy family life, rewarding job, a group of friends, enough money, good health etc. There are also characteristics that propagate a sense of Well-being like optimism, trust, kindness etc. Friedrich Nietzche, the philosopher once said “he who has a ‘why’ to live for can bear with almost any ‘how’” today we concentrate more on the ‘how’ and ignore the ‘why’. (Eckersley, n.d) The relationship between money and Well-being is rather complicated. Money is very important when it helps in satisfying basic needs. “Wealth does not always or automatically produce Well-being and that it can in fact be harmful when its pursuit crowds out more important sources of happiness. The need to belong is more important than the need to be rich. Meaning matters more than money” (Eckersley) Dimensions of poverty: “An adequate concept of poverty should include all the most important areas in which people of either gender are deprived and perceived as incapacitated in different societies and local contexts” (OECD, 2001). According to the OECD, dimensions of poverty define the areas in which human capabilities are compromised or found wanting. Economic capabilities: this refers to the ability to have an income, to consume and to possess assets. This leads us to many other issues like food security, social status and material well being. Apart from social security, the other two issues like food security and material well being address a man’s basic needs, food, clothing and shelter. Human capabilities: this refers to the facilities that have to be provided to improve a person’s livelihood, and includes clean water, education, health and nutrition. Illiteracy and sickness can be roadblocks to any productive work. Literacy among girls is considered a very important for their empowerment. Education can also be instrumental in social participation. Political capabilities. This includes issues concerning human rights and a common man’s influence over policy making and his involvement in the political process. Deprivation of political freedom is a major aspect of poverty and it can also exacerbate effects caused by other dimensions of poverty. Politically weak people do not have the access to the resources that can help them get out of poverty. Socio-cultural capabilities: social acceptance and the feeling of belonging to a society is a major aspect in a human being’s life. Social status, cultural factors and dignity are held in high esteem by poor people. Protective capabilities: insecurity and vulnerability are important dimensions of poverty and these can also affect other dimensions. Natural calamities, violent political conflicts and economic crises are major causes of poverty and the capability of a person to make him and his family immune to these calamities is a very vital aspect. The dimensions of poverty discussed above are also influenced by aspects like gender inequality and environmental degeneration. (OECD, 2001) Domains of Well-being that are associated with poverty. According to the child poverty action group (CPAG) the different domains of wellbeing are Health Subjective wellbeing Children’s relationship Material resources Behaviour and risk Education Housing and environment. The effects that poverty can have on the domains of wellbeing can be understood by taking into account various statistics provided by the CPAG. ‘One in four children in the poorest fifth of children do not have access to outdoor space or facilities where they can play safely and the parents of 42% of the children in the poorest fifth report that cannot afford to replace broken electrical equipment.’ (CPAG, 2009) The CPAG report also claims that more child pedestrian accidents are likely to happen in poor neighbourhoods. It is clear from this data that poverty has an influence upon aspects of wellbeing like material resources and housing and environment. Not having access to a space for playing can hinder the development of a child and not being able to repair electrical equipment can even cause safety hazards to a child. Infant mortality rate is also very high among poor families and children born in underprivileged families are likely to develop cerebral palsy. (CPAG 2009) ‘Evidence from many countries shows that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience poor health, fewer opportunities to access good quality education and be low paid or unemployed in the future. (UNICEF, 2007). As is evident from this statement poverty can also affect health and education. It can also affect the child’s future by not providing opportunity for the child’s development. Poverty has influences on many developmental aspects of childhood. In fact the effect that poverty may have during childhood is far more negative than what it might have during later stages of a person’s life. The longer a child lives in the conditions the worse the effects. The most detrimental effect that poverty can have on a child’s well being is in the domain of health. “Compared to their non-poor peers, children living in poverty are more likely to experience abnormal patterns of physical development, including stunted growth, and are more likely to be exposed to environmental toxins such as lead” (McCartney K, Philips D, 2007) Childhood is a developmental phase, physically and mentally. When children are not given a balanced and healthy diet they will not get the necessary nourishment. Poor accommodation, unhealthy living conditions and lack of clean drinking water can be a cause of lead poisoning. It is also possible to acquire diseases like asthma, meningitis and ear infections. These can lead to chronic conditions because proper medical care cannot be given to these children. It must be noted here that just like poverty increases a child’s vulnerability to health related problems, health related problems can also expose a child to the negative effects of poverty. “Biological vulnerabilities, such as low birth weight, tend to combine with environmental contingencies, such as poverty thus creating a synergistic effect in which their interaction is much more powerful than their main effect”. (McCartney K, Philips D 2007) Due to material deprivation caused by economic strain there is a possibility of the child not being able to perform at school. Since children possess immature coping capabilities they may not be able to cope with poverty and the stigma associated with it. This can affect the mental health of a child during early childhood that can even continue till middle childhood. Money spent on a child can vary in every family and it can depend on many factors. Families under poverty do not have enough economic resources to invest when it comes to their children. However it can be seen that parents who are educated do pay attention to their child’s education and somehow pay for their child’s tuition. Subjective Well-being of a child can also be affected by poverty. How a child feels about his or her life depends a lot on the child’s health and outlook towards life. When the child is living in an atmosphere that is not conducive to development and is unhealthy he or she is not bound to have a good impression of life. They can also fall into wrong company and commit acts of questionable legality. Even though it can be seen that all domains of well being are affected by poverty, it is possible to draw a conclusion that ‘health’ is the domain most affected by poverty, followed by ‘education’, ‘housing and environment’ and ‘material resources’. Even though income is the yard stick by which poverty is measured probably because it is readily available and easily measurable, subjective well being is related to a lot of non monetary factors, and therefore not influenced by poverty. Child Poverty in UK: When Tony Blair became the prime minister in 1999 he had a vision; to be part of a generation that would see the eradication of Child Poverty in the country. The mission was to get rid of Child Poverty by the year 2020. Gordon Brown now echoes the same sentiment and has referred to Child Poverty as ‘a scar on the soul of Britain’. In spite of the effort put into it, Britain still remains rock bottom when compared to other developed countries. Economic inequality in Britain which can be compared to that of the US is one of the main problems. In 1999 Britain was the worst among all western European nations in terms of Child Poverty and even though 600,000 have been rehabilitated and are past the breadline, Britain is still among the last on the list. Due to the fact that 30% of children in the country are below the poverty line the government has had to agree that the target of eradication of Child Poverty cannot be achieved by 2020 as agreed earlier. This is something that is not expected from a developed country like the UK. The recent recession is also bound to cause more problems. (Gentleman 2007) According to a report by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG 2009) that consisted of data collected from 29 European countries, the UK ranks 24th among 29 countries. For a country as affluent as UK this is a shocking revelation of sorts. Out of all the countries it is Netherlands that leads in the list and is consistently among the top three in all the domains that have been covered in the study. Scandinavian countries lead in the list; the countries include Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Finland. The domains that have been covered in the CPAG report are health, subjective Well-being, children’s relationship, material resources, behaviour and risk, education and housing and environment. It must be noted here that UK is mostly on the bottom of the table. France is on 15th and Italy is 19th. Let us look at UK’s performance on each of the domains. In the study there were 7 domains that consisted of 19 components with 43 indicators. 1. In the child health domain UK is in 24th position. This domain consists of indicators like health behaviour, immunisation, infant mortality and low birth weight; out of these even though UK did well on the health behaviour indicator it scored low on immunisation. 2. Subjective Well-being included the child’s perspective on his life, how he liked school, how he felt about life, his own health etc. UK’s position was 21 out of 28. 3. In the children’s relationship domain UK scored a comparatively high of 15 out of 28. This domain included indicators of peer group relationships, how comfortable children are at home whether they communicate easily with their parents etc. 4. In the material resources domain UK scores 26th out of 26. This domain includes issues like unemployment of parents and material deprivation caused by economic strain. 5. The behaviour and risk domain covers areas like violence, risky behaviour including early sexual intercourse, drug abuse, smoking and drinking. The UK stands at 18th out of 28. 6. In the education domain, UK is 22nd on the list. This domain covered issues like participation, education, primary enrolment etc. 7. Housing and environment domain addresses issues concerning housing, overcrowding and quality of neighbourhoods etc the UK is 17th in the list.(CPAG 2009) According to a report by the UNICEF about OECD countries in 2005, the countries with least percentage of Child Poverty are Denmark and Finland with less than 3 percent and the worst percentages come from Mexico and United States with more than 20 percent. Norway is the only country where levels of Child Poverty have been consistently going down. Governmental policies seem to have made a difference in the poverty levels. Even though UK is not last on the list it features among the bottom five. According to the report 15% of children in UK live in poverty. The report further shows that there was a decline of 3% in the year 1990. It is necessary to measure poverty levels before attempting to address it as an issue. (UNICEF 2005) The question that has to be answered is; what is it that is going on in these countries that make them better than the UK? The CPAG researchers have tried to answer this question. According to them, there is a relation between economic strain and Well-being, economic strain meaning access to necessities. The greater the strain the worse the child’s Well-being. There is a relation between the GDP of a county and its Child Well-being, this is debatable because Netherlands is high up on the list and its GDP does not even compare to that of UK. Child Well-being is not connected to family types. Family types refer to step families and step parents. Policies need not be directed at this aspect. Equality in the society happens to be a major factor in Child Well-being. Scandinavian countries which rank high on the list have more equal societies. When a government spends more on public services it does improve Child Well-being. When developmental policies are directed at families it reduces Child Poverty to a great extent. (CPAG 2009) Even though Child Poverty has been identified as one of the impediments of Child Well-being and in spite of the fact that measures have been taken, there has not been any significant progress. The CPAG has suggested a few plans to help in tackling the problem of Child Poverty. Job protection: The government must invest in people and institutions. This can help people retain jobs. Parental job loss is one major problem that leads to Child Poverty. As long as both parents have secure jobs families can lead comfortable lives. Increase acceptable income: There should be an accepted level of minimum income. Tax credits and benefits must be increased. Removing work barriers: discrimination by employers can prevent people from getting and remaining in positions. The government must interfere in such events and enable workers to learn skills necessary for the job. Improve benefits: Jobs are worthwhile only if they pay well. In work benefits like overtime pay must be ensured so that workers are not exploited. Child first strategy: even though increased employment levels are necessary to eradicate Child Poverty, a child-first strategy must be adopted by the government in policy making. A child’s needs must be the focal point of all childcare strategies. Education equality: it is essential for children to feel as equals among their peers. Low cost education and equality in school can enable even poor children excel in school. The inferiority that children under poverty feel must not affect their performance in school. Decent homes: it is necessary for every family to live in a comfortable house. There must be schemes that provide low cost decent housing to low income families. This can provide a healthy environment for children to grow and develop. (CPAG 2009) As can be seen from the suggestions from the CPAG, remedies suggested are focused mainly on job creation and employment. The HM treasury has also suggested a few measures. Apart from concentrating on providing employment it also suggests harnessing the help of non governmental organisations that are dedicated to the rehabilitation of children. It also has suggested that even though issues concerning Child Poverty have been handled by the HM treasury and the Department for work and pensions, a more cross government effort will be necessary to achieve the goals set by the government. The contribution of the voluntary, community and faith sectors also will be instrumental in providing suggestions for development and also delivering services. (HM treasury 2004) The outcomes of Child Poverty with reference to the progress of children plan In December 2007, the Department of children, schools and families (DCSF) published a children’s plan. Its main aim was to make England a better place for the children to grow and develop. The plan was centred on families and devoted to the benefit of children in UK. The plan was conceived with five points in mind. “Governments do not bring up children, parents do- so government needs to back up parents and families. All children have a potential to succeed, and should go as far as their talents can take them. Children and young people need to enjoy their childhood as well as grow up prepared for adult life. Services need to be shaped by and responsive to children, young people and families, not designed around professional boundaries. It is always better to prevent failure than tackle a crisis later.” (DCSF 2007) The plan suggests that even though it is the parents that bring up children the government must act like a parent and back the families by providing the necessary support to them. Children should be encouraged to pursue their talents and allowed to grow as individuals. It has also been suggested to prevent failure by being farsighted while making decisions regarding policy making According to the yearly report by the DCSF there have been many improvements in the situation after the implementation of the children’s plan. A network of children’s centres has been opened across the country to assist young parents and children in the initial years of the child’s life. Universal education is being provided to three and four year olds so that they get an opportunity to play and learn. It is being extended to two year olds as well. Due to improved investment in the teaching system, school leaders and teachers poor performance in school has been reduced considerably. Through reforms conditions that affect children like poverty, obesity, abuse etc have been reduced. Extra support has been given to those in vulnerable conditions by providing universal preventative services. The Schools white paper and implementation plan was published this year. It aims at bringing more schools together to work in tandem and deliver improvements and also widen child services. New play facilities have been set up in every community. 607 play sites have been opened in 82 local authorities. The youth crime action plan was launched in July 2008 to deal with the problems caused by antisocial behaviour by youth and reportedly it seems to have had an impact already. (DCSF 2007) There have been several other improvements due to the plan, through the Parent know-how program, support has been offered to 2.5 million parents. 4000 people have been trained as early-years professionals. There has been a reduction in the number of 16 to 17 year olds who were not in education, employment or training. 2000 families have been supported by the Family intervention projects. The target that was set for 2020 regarding the number of youth entering the youth justice system has been achieved. Keeping the future in mind more measures are being taken by the DCSF in making sure that the momentum of progress that has been achieved in the past years helps UK reach its goal of eradication of Child Poverty. Funding has been increased for education provision. An allocation of 202 million pounds has been made for the provision of a 50000 additional places for school leavers in sixth form. It has been realised in these 2 years that the people who really make a positive change in a child’s life are teachers, social workers, doctors, nurses, youth workers, police, support staff etc. (DCSF 2007) Conclusion: it is very important to understand the concepts Child Poverty and Child Well-being and the various dimensions of poverty before trying to solve the problems they cause. These two issues are not the same but they influence each other. It is very unsettling that in a developed and affluent county like the UK Child Poverty is common and it is necessary to rectify the situation. Even though the recent economic meltdown has caused monumental problems, initiatives like the Children’s plan by DCSF has made sure that Child Poverty is on the decline and will eventually be eradicated. The reason for the program’s success was because of the comprehension that the eradication of Child Poverty would not be possible through monetary means alone. The root cause of the problem was identified. Policies were made with the family and the child in mind and this will undoubtedly get rid of Child Poverty in the near future. References: Bellamy, C 2004, State of the world’s children: childhood under threat, United Nations Children’s fund, New York, Viewed 31 March 2010, http://www.unicef.org/sowc/archive/ENGLISH/The%20State%20of%20the%20World%27s%20Children%202005.pdf Woodsworth, D,McPeak, M & Feeny T 2005, Understanding Children’s experience of poverty: an introduction to the DEV framework, Christian children’s fund, Virginia, Viewed 29 March 2010, http://www.childfund.org/media/publications/program_docs/Children_and_Poverty__A_Review_of_Contemporary_Literature_and_Thought_on_Children_and_Poverty_-_Rethinking_the_Causes,_Experiences_and_Effects.aspx UNICEF 2005, Childhood under threat: the state of the world’s children, Viewed 29 March 2010, http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/fullreport.html Gentleman, A, 2009, Child Poverty statistics: how the UK compares to other countries, The Guardian, 11 September 2009, viewed 28 March 2010, http://www.guardian.co.UK/news/datablog/2009/sep/11/child-poverty-statistics-UK-countries Eckersley, R, n.d, What is Well-being and what promotes it?, National centre for epidemiology and population health, Viewed 28 March 2010, http://www.Well-beingmanifesto.net/Well-being.htm McCartney, K, Philips, D(ed) 2006, Blackwell handbook of early childhood development, Blackwell publishing, Malden HM treasury 2004, Child Poverty review, Stationary office, London, Viewed 29 March 2010, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.UK/d/childpoverty_complete_290704.pdf DCSF 2007, The Children’s Plan, Department of children, schools and families, Crown copyright, viewed 31 March 2010 http://www.dcsf.gov.UK/childrensplan//twoyearprogress/twoyearson/page2.cfm?id=2274 CPAG 2009, Child well being and child poverty: where the UK stands in the European table, Child poverty action group, viewed 1 April 2010, www.cpag.org.uk/info/ChildWellbeingandChildPoverty.pdf CPAG 2009, Ending child poverty: a manifesto for success, Child poverty action group, viewed 12 April 2010, www.cpag.org.uk/publications/extracts/CPAG_manifesto_0309.pdf Delamonica E, Minujin A, Davidziuk A, Gonzales ED 2006, Children living in poverty: Overview of definitions, measurements and policy, UNICEF, viewed 30 March 2010, http://www.unicef.org/Children_Living_In_Poverty.pdf OECD, 2001, The DAC guidelines Poverty reduction, OECD, OECD Publications UNICEF, 2007, Child poverty in perspective: an overview of child well being in rich countries, Innocenti report card 7, Florence: UNICEF innocenti research centre Read More