Overview Innocenti Social Monitor - Unicef-irc
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page iUNICEFInnocenti Research CentreIntroduction . 1Child income poverty:disadvantage is becomingconcentrated in specific groups . 5Non-income indicators confirmthe disparities. 11The Policy Implications: addressinginequalities through economicpolicies, income support,and improved delivery ofsocial services . 19Better investment in childrenis an investment in a better futurefor all in the region . 25OverviewInnocentiSocial Monitor 2006Understanding Child Povertyin South-Eastern Europeand the Commonwealth of Independent States
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page iiThe opinions expressed are those of the contributorsand editors and do not necessarily reflect the policiesor views of UNICEF. The designations employedin this publication and the presentation of the materialdo not imply on the part of UNICEF the expression ofany opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of anycountry or territory, or of its authorities, or thedelimitation of its frontiers.All correspondence should be addressed to:UNICEF Innocenti Research CentrePiazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, ItalyTel.: ( 39) 055 203 30Fax: ( 39) 055 203 32 20E-mail (general information): florence@unicef.org(publication orders): florenceorders@unicef.orgwebsite: www.unicef.org/irc 2006 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)ISBN 10: 88-89129-46-8ISBN 13: 978-88-89129-46-3Layout: Bernard & Co, Siena, ItalyFront cover photo: UNICEF/HQ04-1003/Giacomo PirozziPrinting: ABC Tipografia, Florence, Italy
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 1INTRODUCTIONThis is a study of child poverty in a fast-changing region. Since 1998 almost all countries of theSouth-Eastern Europe and Commonwealth of Independent States (SEE/CIS) region have shownsigns of economic recovery; most violent conflicts have been subdued if not resolved, and thenumbers living in income poverty has fallen. This period of economic growth has undoubtedlyled to improved living standards and expanding opportunities for many children in the region,and signals a turning point in the dramatic decline in living standards experienced by most children in the region in the early 1990s.Yet the danger remains that a part of the new generations of children born since the start of thetransition is being left behind: there is evidence that not all children are benefiting equally fromthe economic growth, and that tackling disadvantage and deprivation among children is notbeing given sufficient policy priority by governments in the region. The purpose of the study isto measure and understand better the nature and scale of child poverty, as distinct from adultpoverty, in the region; to highlight the large disparities in child well-being which have emergedin this period of economic expansion, between countries, between regions within countries, andbetween families; and to point to ways in which governments in the region could and should beaddressing disadvantage and disparities among children.This overview summarises the main findings of the Innocenti Social Monitor 20061. The studyexamines child poverty and deprivation in 20 of the 28 countries that now stand in the place ofthe original nine centrally planned countries in Europe and the Soviet Union prior to 1989: the12 Former Soviet Union countries which are part of the CIS and the eight countries in SEE2. Forthe purposes of this study, child poverty is understood both as income poverty, when a child livesin a household with consumption expenditure below a minimum level, and also as deprivationsmeasured in non-monetary terms, such as education and health deprivation, living in overcrowded housing conditions, or being deprived of a family upbringing. One in four children inthe region is living in extreme income poverty, and child poverty is becoming concentrated inspecific population groups: children in large or non-nuclear families, children living in institutions, in rural areas, and in certain regions and smaller towns. It is also among these vulnerablegroups that improvements in health indicators have been slow, and enrollments in pre-school andupper secondary education are below average.The Innocenti Social Monitor 2006 contains extensive analysis and detailed reference material. It also contains thematic tables, and is accompanied by a CD with the TransMONEE database, and two background working papers:Kitty Stewart and Carmen Heurta (2006) ‘Reinvesting in Children? Policies for the very young in South-EasternEurope and the CIS’, Innocenti Working Paper, No. 2006-01, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence; andLeonardo Menchini and Gerry Redmond (2006) ‘Child Consumption Poverty in South-Eastern Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent States’, Innocenti Working Paper, No. 2006-04, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence.1The CIS countries included in the study are Belarus, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine (Western CIS); Armenia, Azerbaijan,Georgia (Caucasus); Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan (Central Asia). The SEE countries are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia.2Innocenti Social Monitor 2006An Overview1
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 2Each of the countries covered by the study has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Childand by doing so have formally committed themselves to ensuring the realization of children’s civil,political, economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination of any kind. In this context,they also recognize “the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical,mental, spiritual, moral and social development”, and the duty of the state to support families in theirchild-rearing responsibilities. There is broad agreement that poverty strongly compromises the enjoyment of human rights of people in general, and of children in particular.In keeping with their commitment to work towards the realization of child rights, governmentsin the region need to undertake urgent policy measures to reduce poverty and disparities directly2An OverviewInnocenti Social Monitor 2006
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 3affecting children, primarily through improving children’s access to public services of quality, andprovision of meaningful income support to families with children. At present, a clear opportunityexists to act on poverty among children, due to the recent economic growth, and also because governments in the region are now engaged in internationally agreed policy and planning processes toimprove human well-being. In particular, all countries have signed the Millennium Declaration of2000, and have agreed to set and strive towards the achievement of key goals (the MillenniumDevelopment Goals or MDGs). Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers have been devised by theWorld Bank and the International Monetary Fund as a mechanism for supporting governments, inpart with official development assistance, to prioritize policy measures and target budget resourcesUNICEF/HQ04-0994/Giacomo PirozziInnocenti Social Monitor 2006An Overview3
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 4in order to achieve poverty reduction. Two of the SEE countries are drawing up national actionplans to combat poverty and social exclusion as part of their European Union accession processes.The MDGs, as well as the Poverty Reduction Strategies and national action plans, represent potential mechanisms for targeting policy towards poverty reduction in general, but for them to be effective in reducing poverty among children there is a need for children to become more visible in thestrategies, both in the analysis of poverty and the policy priorities which have been formulated, andin the monitoring indicators chosen to evaluate impact.The Innocenti Social Monitor 2006 explores the extent to which the human rights principles of universality, accountability and monitoring progress in the realization of children’s rights have beenduly taken into account in the region and whether States’ policies and actions have been guided bythe best interests of the child and the child’s right to protection from discrimination. When poverty isseen as an issue of disparities between those who have and those who have not – or between theideal of universality of human rights and the reality of gross inequity – then it is also an issuedemanding a firm policy response. The right to an adequate standard of living implies that theenjoyment by all children of adequate nourishment, health care, housing and quality of educationmust be seen as an entitlement and as a policy priority, and not merely as a desirable goal.This study provides practical examples of ways in which children can be given distinct attentionin the analysis of poverty and in policy priorities, while also stressing that data collection has tobe improved and made more accessible in order to allow the impact of policies on children to beeffectively assessed.4An OverviewInnocenti Social Monitor 2006
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 5CHILD INCOME POVERTY:DISADVANTAGE IS BECOMINGCONCENTRATED IN SPECIFIC GROUPSIn the period 1998–2003, the number of children (aged 0–15) living in households with a percapita consumption level lower than PPP 2.15 a day decreased from 32 to 18 million. While thisis a positive development, one in four children in the region is still living in extreme absolutepoverty. And while the numbers living in income poverty have declined since 1998, figure 1shows that children throughout the region have a higher probability of being poor than adults:the share of the child population living in households below the poverty threshold of PPP 2.15per day is greater than the proportion of the adult population living below this threshold. In mostof the CIS countries households containing children have experienced a smaller decline inincome poverty than households without children. Some countries experienced no or only a veryslight reduction in child poverty, for example Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan (see figure 2).Moreover, as illustrated below, some of the decline in the absolute numbers of children living inpoverty is explained by the dramatic decline in the child population in the area: while the overall population in the region increased by circa 1 million in the 1998–2003 period, the child population decreased by circa 11 million (figure 3). Children have not benefited from economicrecovery to the same extent as other groups of the population, and, within the child population,not all children have benefited.Figure 1All persons andchildren livingunder thePPP 2.15poverty line,2002–2003(per cent)80747670All niaKazakhstanRomaniaRussia4Bulgaria4 ro4 56 721Data refer to all persons and children aged 0–15 living in households where current household consumption is less than PPP 2.15 per person per day. Data are calculated from Household Budget Surveys and Living Standards Measurement Surveys. Thewelfare aggregate used is current household consumption expenditure, including the imputed value of food produced for selfconsumption, and excluding rent, health expenditure, and expenditure on consumer durables. Per capita consumption iscalculated by dividing total household consumption by the number of persons living in the household. For further details seeInnocenti Social Monitor 2006.Source: World Bank (2005), Growth, Poverty and Inequality: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. World Bank,Washington, DC. Appendix B, tables 2 and 4.Innocenti Social Monitor 2006An Overview5
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Figure 2Children livingunder thePPP 2.15poverty line,1990s–2003(per cent)Page ariaBelarusFYR ils provided in note to figure 1.Source: World Bank (2005), Growth, Poverty and Inequality: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. World Bank,Washington, DC. Appendix B, table 4.120.0Figure 3Trends in totalchild population(0–17)in 2.815.7 13.512.15.75.44.80.0(30%) (28%) (26%) (28%)(25%)(22%) (27%) (24%) (21%) (35%) (33%) (30%) (44%) (43%) (40%)Central AsiaTotal SEE/CISSEEWestern CISCaucasusPercentages in brackets are the share of children in the total population.Source: TransMONEE Database.As figures 1 and 2 show, levels of child poverty vary significantly across the SEE/CIS. Theregion can be divided into three main subgroups, with low, middle and high levels of childincome poverty. The subregions of Central Asia and the Caucasus, together with Moldova, havemore than half of their child populations living in income poverty: a level up to 10 times higherthan in some SEE countries. Countries with the lowest national per capita income, and the highest child shares in their total populations, as well as higher dependency ratios (with the excep-6An OverviewInnocenti Social Monitor 2006
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 7tion of Moldova) tend to have higher child income poverty rates (see figure 1). Although Russiabelongs to the group of countries with low-middle child poverty rates, it is home to a very largeshare of the region’s poor children: the child poverty rate is 13 per cent, but the number of children under 15 who are poor is 3.3 million, corresponding to about 20 per cent of the total number of poor children in the SEE/CIS region.Within-country trends have tended to mirror those identified for the region as a whole: thoseareas with larger shares of children in their populations, which began the transition period withhigher child income poverty rates, have tended to gain less than other areas. Child poverty ratesare invariably lowest in the largest cities. In Russia, for example, child income poverty ratesrange from less than 2 per cent in St Petersburg to over 50 per cent in the Republic of Tuva inthe far east of the country. Such large differences, also evident in several other countries, suggestan enormous gap among regions and among districts, not only in living standards, but also inchildren’s life chances. Another example is provided by Kyrgyzstan, where the overall rate ofchild income poverty declined between 1998 and 2002, but declined least in those regions withthe highest share of children in their populations.Children in large households throughout the region have a higher risk of living in poverty, andhave benefited less from the economic recovery since 1998. Table 1 shows that the relativeimprovements in poverty levels for households with three or more children have tended to besmaller than for those with no or fewer children. The difference is particularly stark in thosecountries with smaller child populations, and fewer children living in large families. In everycountry, even those with comparatively low rates of child income poverty, children in large families are disadvantaged.Table 1Relativechanges inpoverty byhouseholdcomposition,1998–2003(per cent)Number of children in the riod of referenceNo children1 or 2 children3 or more ��15.6–3.020.3–14.8–3.2–15.2–11.1Data refer to persons living in households with a per capita consumption of less than PPP 2.15 per day. The tablepresents the change in poverty rates in the period of reference as a percentage of the initial value.Source: World Bank (2005), Growth, Poverty and Inequality: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. World Bank,Washington, DC. Appendix B, table 4.Children in rural areas have higher poverty rates than in urban areas (see table 2), and there isalso evidence that disparities between child income poverty rates in rural and urban areas havebeen growing. This partly reflects the greater concentration of large households with three ormore children in rural areas, but it also reflects economic disadvantage due to the unfinishednature of agricultural reforms in most countries of the region, and the lack of infrastructure.Although subsistence agriculture was a coping mechanism for many families in the first years oftransition, employment in agriculture is usually associated with low productivity and low wageemployment. However, there is also evidence that not all urban areas have benefited equally, andin some countries there are growing differentials between economic opportunities and livingInnocenti Social Monitor 2006An Overview7
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 8standards in the capital cities and main urban conglomerates, and the more remote small towns.This is the case, for example, in Moldova and Tajikistan (see table 2). Economic growth in manycountries is not yet grounded in a broad based revival of all economic sectors.In countries with smaller shares of children in their overall population, for example Bulgaria andRussia, younger children (under six years old) have a higher risk of income poverty than otherage groups (see figure 4). This is partly explained by the fact that mothers withdraw from thelabour market to care for young infants, and the poverty rate for children increases when onlyone parent is employed.Across the region non-nuclear families have a higher poverty risk. The evidence for incompletefamilies is less consistent. They are often associated with a higher poverty risk for children, butwith some exceptions, for example Moldova, where children living with one parent have lowerpoverty rates (see table 3). This can be partly explained by the effect of remittances receivedfrom parents who have migrated abroad in order to find employment.Table 2Povertyamongchildren byplace ofresidence(urban/rural),2003 (percent)Albania (2002)Bulgaria (2001)Moldova (2003)Russia (2003)Tajikistan (2003)Child poverty ratesCapitalOtherRuralcityurban areas areasPoverty rates among childrenin households with 3 childrenCapitalOtherRuralcityurban areas 40.145.973.744.273.9Poverty rates refer to the percentage of children aged 0–17 years living in households where current householdconsumption is less than PPP 2.15 per person per day. The distinction between urban and rural areas is based on nationalcriteria.– indicates that results are not presented due to the very small number of cases in the survey sample.Source: Albanian Living Standards Measurement Survey 2002; Bulgarian Integrated Household Survey 2001; MoldovaHousehold Budget Survey 2003; Russia NOBUS Survey 2003; Tajikistan Living Standards Survey 2003.Figure 4Children livingin poverty,by age,2002–2003(per cent)900–6 years82 81 807–14 years15–17 years8074697066635958605454 5253 5349504028 27253019 1720141110860Armenia (2003) Bulgaria ldova(2003)Russia(2003)Tajikistan(2003)Data refer to the percentage of children, in each age group, living in households where current household consumption is lessthan PPP 2.15 per person per day.Source: World Bank – Europe and Central Asia (for Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan) and Albanian Living StandardsMeasurement Survey 2002; Moldova Household Budget Survey 2003; Russia NOBUS Survey 2003;Tajikistan Living StandardsSurvey 2003.8An OverviewInnocenti Social Monitor 2006
OVERVIEW-GB27-09-2006 19:33Page 9Table 3Child povertyby familystructure,Russia andMoldova, 2003 RussiaChildren distribution(per cent of
The Innocenti Social Monitor 2006 explores the extent to which the human rights principles of uni- . In the period 1998–2003, the number of children (aged 0–15) living in households with a per . UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre www.unicef-irc.org .
Family and Parenting Support: Policy and Provision in a Global Context UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti Piazza SS. Annunziata, 12 50122 Florence, Italy Tel: ( 39) 055 20 330 Fax: ( 39) 055 2033 220 florence@unicef.org www.unicef-irc.org ISBN 978 8865 220 29 0 Innocenti Insight.
Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced using the following reference: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (2012), ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report
Kidane (UNICEF Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa), Rinko Kinoshita (UNICEF Nicaragua), Guillaume Kobehi-Toutou (UNICEF Côte d’Ivoire), George Laryea-Adjei (UNICEF South Africa), Jean Lieby (UNICEF Senegal), Daniela Luciani (UNICEF Senegal), Birgithe Lund-Henriksen (UNICEF Tanzania),
Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced using the following reference: UNICEF Office of Research (2013). ‘Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A comparative overview’, Innocenti Report Card 11, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. The Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare the performance of economically advanced countries in securing the rights of .
Chris Roberts, and presented in the Innocenti Working Paper 2010-19 (available on the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) website: www.unicef-irc.org). For Report Card 9 the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) International Coordinating Centre provided the statistical results for the analysis of inequality in children's health.
ENCRYPTION, PRIVACY AND CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM HARM Daniel Kardefelt-Winthera, Emma Dayb, Gabrielle Bermana, Sabine K. Wittingc, and Anjan Bosed (a) UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti (b) UNICEF, East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (c) UNICEF Zimbabwe (d) UNICEF, Programme Division, Child Protection
UNICEF. The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in Florence, Italy, was established in 1988 to strengthen the research capability of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and to support its advocacy for children worldwide. The Centre (formally known as the International Child Development Centre) generates research into current and
Anatomy is the study of the structure of living things. b. Physiology is the science of the functioning of living organisms and their component parts. SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2 i. Factors that determine divisions in anatomy are: a. Degree of structural detail under consideration 5. HEM 604 BASIC ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY OF HUMAN BODY b. Specific processes c. Medical application ii. The analysis .
