Chapter 1: Main Determinants of Child Poverty, Social Exclusion and Child
1.4 Social context: the role of migrant status and of ethnic background in
1.4 Social context: the role of migrant status and of
Luxembourg, Austria, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The share of non-EU migrant children is highest in Austria, at 15% (Figure 1.32 and Table A1.1.24).
The share of children living in EU migrant households is small – 1% on average across the EU – and the small number of observations hinders more in-depth exploration in the majority of countries. As an exception, there is a relatively high share of EU migrant children in Luxembourg (33%), Belgium and Ireland (3% and 6%, respectively).
Figure 1.32: Share of migrant children (aged 0–17) by migrant status of parents, percentage within child population
Source: Own calculations based on EU-SILC 2007, version 01.03.2009.
Notes: Estimates based on cell sizes below 50 have been omitted.
Countries are ranked by the share of children with migrant background among all children.
The incidence of pre-school age (0–5) children among non-EU migrants is relatively high in Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg. On the other hand, there are only minor differences in the age structure of migrant and non-migrant children in Austria, the country with the highest share of non-EU migrants (Table A1.1.25).
Household composition
Estimates of household structure are severely affected for most countries by the problem of small cell sizes. In the overall majority of countries (including Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Austria, United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden), the special feature of non-EU migrant children is that there is a higher share of children living with more siblings – i.e.
more children live in households with two adults and three or more children, and fewer in households with two adults and two children (Tables 1.23a and 1.23b). The share of children living in single-parent families is relatively high in Sweden and the United Kingdom:
23–24% of non-EU migrant children live in such households, while only 15–18% of local children do. Finally, more migrant children tend to live in ‘non-standard’ families with more than two adults. The share of non-EU migrant children living in these ‘other households’ is at least twice as high in Belgium, Spain, France and Sweden as the share of local children.
6
1 2 3 2
33
2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 8
3
9 10 10 10
10 15
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
FI LV NL DE EE DK SI CY IT ES IE EL UK FR SE BE AT LU
%
EU Non-EU
Table 1.23a: Distribution of children by household type – non-EU migrant children (%)
Single parent,
1+ child 2 adults, 1
child 2 adults, 2
children 2 adults, 3+
children Other household with children
Total
BE 13.4 6.7# 18.9 43.1 17.9 100
DK 23.6# 22.6# 38.9 100
DE 15.1 12.8# 34.9 29.7 7.6# 100
EE 22.6# 20.0# 25.6# 12.9# 18.9# 100
IE 25.5# 35.5 100
EL 3.9 17.2# 62.6 8.5# 7.8# 100
ES 7.1# 17.6 22.5 26.8 26.1 100
FR 14.4 8.2# 19.2 42.7 15.6 100
IT 8.9 19.2 31.6 20.3 20.0 100
CY 39.7# 17.0# 100
LV 24.7# 26.4# 100
LU 15.1# 7.9# 21.9 46.4 8.7# 100
HU 56.0# 100
NL 24.1# 17.3 34.6# 100
AT 11.7 15.2 27.0 30.7 15.4 100
PT 8.1# 100
SI 12.7# 45.2 15.9 18.4 100
FI 37.6# 100
SE 22.8 7.9# 24.2 33.9 11.1 100
UK 24.2 10.9# 16.9 36.5 11.5# 100
Total 15.4 12.8 24.7 32.2 15.0 100
Source: Own calculations based on EU-SILC 2007, version 01.03.2009.
Notes: Estimates based on cell sizes below 20 have been omitted.
# denotes estimates based on 20–49 sample observations.
Table 1.23b: Distribution of children by household type – local children (%)
Single parent,
1+ child 2 adults, 1
child 2 adults, 2
children 2 adults, 3+
children Other household with children
Total
BE 13.6 13.7 34.1 31.8 6.9 100.0
DK 16.7 13.7 41.4 25.2 3.0 100.0
DE 13.8 17.4 41.1 22.5 5.3 100.0
EE 14.1 19.1 33.8 17.3 15.7 100.0
IE 19.0 9.4 25.8 31.8 14.0 100.0
EL 3.6 16.1 59.2 10.5 10.6 100.0
ES 3.7 21.0 53.0 9.1 13.2 100.0
FR 11.6 15.2 40.9 26.9 5.5 100.0
IT 7.2 20.8 46.2 14.7 11.1 100.0
CY 4.3 10.8 52.5 21.6 10.9 100.0
LV 12.8 20.3 24.2 13.1 29.7 100.0
LU 7.3 17.0 56.7 13.1 6.0 100.0
HU 9.6 14.2 34.7 24.9 16.6 100.0
NL 9.2 12.9 41.3 31.9 4.7 100.0
AT 11.8 15.9 36.5 20.8 15.1 100.0
PT 6.1 25.6 39.1 10.2 18.9 100.0
SI 6.1 12.9 45.6 17.2 18.2 100.0
FI 12.8 15.1 35.0 32.6 4.6 100.0
SE 15.4 15.2 39.8 25.5 4.1 100.0
UK 18.0 15.0 38.3 19.9 8.9 100.0
Total 10.8 16.8 41.1 20.4 10.9 100.0
Source: Own calculations based on EU-SILC 2007, version 01.03.2009.
The risk of poverty among migrant children
Due to the problem of the small number of observations, we had to omit Poland and Slovakia altogether from the analysis of migrant children, and a number of other countries from the analysis of particular migrant groups, especially those from (other) EU countries.
For the latter group, only six countries are included in Figure 1.33.56
One non-EU migrant child in three is at risk of poverty in 14 out of the 18 countries for which such data are available (Figure 1.33). In Finland and Luxembourg, the at-risk-of-poverty rate surpasses 50%. In the overall majority of countries, there is a substantial (and statistically significant) gap between the situation of non-migrant children and those with parents born outside the EU.
With respect to children with parents born in another EU country, only six countries had evenly mildly robust estimates. In Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland, estimated at-risk-of-poverty rates among EU migrant children range from 22% to 42%. The risk of at-risk-of-poverty is lowest in Luxembourg (23–28%), and higher in Belgium (22–39%) and Ireland (26–42%).
Figure 1.33: At-risk-of-poverty rates of children by migrant group, showing the confidence interval of the estimates (%)
Source: Own calculations based on EU-SILC 2007 (version 01.03.2009).
Notes:
Estimates based on cell sizes below 50 have been omitted.
Countries are ranked by the at-risk-of-poverty rates of non-EU migrants.
Confidence intervals are provided for Germany, however the German sample is quota sample.
Material deprivation
The problem of small cell sizes also affects the estimates of the primary indicator of material deprivation (for a definition, see Box 4 above). We had to omit Poland and Slovakia altogether from our analysis of migrant children, and a number of other countries from our analysis of particular migrant groups, especially those from (other) EU countries.
56 In addition, we also calculated the confidence intervals (with a 95% probability) and included them in both Figure 1.33 and Table A1.1.26 in Annex 1.1. The large number of missing and flagged cells in Table A1.1.26, and the width of the confidence intervals in Figure 1.33 highlight the magnitude of the statistical problem.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
IE SI LV EE DE AT CY SE DK IT EL UK FR NL BE ES FI LU
%
EU Non-EU Local
The robustness of the estimates is rather weak, with confidence intervals reaching 19–23%
(even in cases where there are over 50 observations).
Deprivation of non-EU migrant children reaches or surpasses 30% in eight of the 18 countries for which such data are available (Figure 1.34 and Table A1.1.27). In Greece, Latvia and Cyprus, the estimated rate is likely to reach 50%. In the overall majority of countries, there is a substantial (and statistically significant) gap between the situation of non-migrant children and those with parents born outside the EU. Note that the ranking of the countries (by deprivation among non-EU migrant children) is rather different from that presented in Figure 1.33, referring to the at-risk-of-poverty rate.
Figure 1.34: Deprivation rates of children by migrant group, showing the confidence interval of the estimates (%)
Source: Own calculations based on EU-SILC 2007 (version 01.03.2009).
Notes: Estimates based on cell sizes below 50 have been omitted.
Countries are ranked by the deprivation rate of non-EU migrants. For methodological details see Box 4.
Confidence intervals are provided for Germany, however the German sample is quota sample.
Housing deprivation
Children with parents born outside the EU tend to face a much greater risk of housing deprivation, both in terms of housing cost overburden and overcrowding.
The housing cost overburden rate is particularly high among non-EU migrant children in Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom, with rates of around 30% or more (Table A1.1.28). Children with parents born in the EU appear to be in a better situation than those with parents born outside the EU in the majority of the few countries for which such data are available (Ireland, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden): in the former group, the rate varies from 1% to 11%, while in the latter from 9% to 14%. Belgium is an exception, where EU migrant children are more affected by housing cost overburden (19%) than are non-EU migrant children (15%).
Despite the clear national patterns in terms of overcrowding (characterised by high deprivation rates among the total population, e.g. in the Baltic States), non-EU migrant
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LU SI NL FI SE AT UK ES EE DE DK IT IE FR BE EL LV CY
%
EU Non-EU Other
children seem to be relatively disadvantaged (compared to local children) in all countries but Ireland (Table A1.1.29).
The share of non-EU migrant children who live in overcrowded households reaches two-thirds in Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia.
Children with parents born in the EU appear to be in a better position than those with parents born outside the EU in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Austria and Sweden:
overcrowding among EU migrant children varies between 10% and 38%, while in the non-EU migrant group the range is 34–63% in the same group of countries. Ireland is an exception in this respect (7% versus 4%), although it should be noted that the overcrowding rate is relatively low among all migrant groups.