IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/chinre/v12y2019i1d10.1007_s12187-018-9540-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeting, Universalism and Child Poverty in Hong Kong

Author

Listed:
  • Maggie Ka-Wai Lau

    (Lingnan University)

  • Kee-Lee Chou

    (The Education University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Concerns about the long-term effects of child poverty on individuals and society have been increasing. Urgent action needs to be taken to combat child poverty, but what is the best strategy likely to be? The relative effectiveness of means-tested versus universal schemes for poverty alleviation strategies has long been debated. Key differences include screening costs, targeting errors, incentive gaps and issues of financial sustainability. This article explores and compares the extent to which the Hong Kong SAR Government’s current means-tested Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) scheme and alternative simulated means-tested and universal schemes could alleviate child poverty and income inequality. Core data for the study was taken from cross-sectional household survey data in Hong Kong. The study found that means-tested schemes with flat rates had higher adequacy in terms of the amount of benefits reaching poor households, than those with sliding scales. Targeting schemes had relatively higher exclusion errors compared to schemes with universal benefits. Evidence was found that that universal benefit schemes with flat rates had substantially greater impacts on all child poverty and income inequality indicators compared to the current CSSA and simulated means-tested schemes with flat rate benefits. The study is timely and presents a new and important opportunity to assess the extent to which a simulated policy change from means-tested to universal benefit could more effectively combat child poverty and reduce income inequality as well as achieve financial sustainability. The article concludes that more effective policy initiatives and approaches to child poverty and income inequality could be gained by varying dimensions, including: type of programmes (means-tested versus universal basis); benefit levels; and delivery methods (flat rate versus sliding scales). The projected expenditures of 42 cash transfer benefit schemes and four selected means-tested and universal programmes with the lowest and highest average costs can form the basis for future discussion on policy options to promote social and economic improvement for all groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Maggie Ka-Wai Lau & Kee-Lee Chou, 2019. "Targeting, Universalism and Child Poverty in Hong Kong," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 12(1), pages 255-275, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:chinre:v:12:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s12187-018-9540-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s12187-018-9540-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12187-018-9540-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12187-018-9540-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kapteyn, Arie & Aguila, Emma & Tassot, Caroline, 2012. "Targeting Cash Transfer Programs for an Older Population," Working Papers 950, RAND Corporation.
    2. Christopher Heady & Theodore Mitrakos & Panos Tsakloglou, 2001. "The distributional impact of social transfers in the European Union: evidence from the ECHP," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 547-565., December.
    3. Kee-Lee Chou & Kelvin Cheung & Maggie Lau & Tony Sin, 2014. "Trends in Child Poverty in Hong Kong Immigrant Families," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 811-825, July.
    4. Marx, Ive & Salanauskaite, Lina & Verbist, Gerlinde, 2013. "The Paradox of Redistribution Revisited: And That It May Rest in Peace?," IZA Discussion Papers 7414, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. World Bank, 2017. "World Development Indicators 2017," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 26447.
    6. Barr, Nicholas, 2004. "Economics of the Welfare State," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199264971.
    7. UNICEF Office of Research - Innocenti, 2016. "Fairness for Children. A league table of inequality in child well-being in rich countries," Papers inreca830, Innocenti Report Card.
    8. Kee-Lee Chou, 2013. "Familial Effect on Child Poverty in Hong Kong Immigrant Families," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 183-195, August.
    9. Eric V. Edmonds, 2005. "Targeting child benefits in a transition economy," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 13(1), pages 187-210, January.
    10. repec:bla:econom:v:57:y:1990:i:225:p:119-29 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Tsakloglou, Panos & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Matsaganis, Manos & Levy, Horacio & Coromaldi, Manuela & Farinha Rodrigues, Carlos & Toso, Stefano & Mercader-Prats, M., 2004. "Child poverty and family transfers in Southern Europe," EUROMOD Working Papers EM2/04, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    12. Joakim Palme & Walter Korpi, 1998. "The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries," LIS Working papers 174, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    13. Sutherland, Holly & Immervoll, Herwig & de Vos, Klaas, 2000. "Child poverty and child benefits in the European Union," EUROMOD Working Papers EM1/00, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    14. Kenneth Nelson, 2004. "Mechanisms of Poverty Alleviation," LIS Working papers 372, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    15. Besley, Timothy & Kanbur, Ravi, 1990. "The principles of targeting," Policy Research Working Paper Series 385, The World Bank.
    16. Ive Marx & Lina Salanauskaite & Gerlinde Verbist, 2013. "The paradox of redistribution revisited: and that it may rest in peace?," LIS Working papers 593, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    17. Pickett, Kate E. & Wilkinson, Richard G., 2015. "Income inequality and health: A causal review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 316-326.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Vinod Khiatani & Minnie Heep Ching She & Wing Hong Chui, 2021. "Child Poverty in an Affluent City: Trends and Risk Factors in Hong Kong Between 2011 and 2016," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 14(6), pages 2325-2346, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marx, Ive & Nolan, Brian & Olivera, Javier, 2014. "The Welfare State and Anti-Poverty Policy in Rich Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 8154, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Bodenstein, Thilo & Kemmerling, Achim, 2015. "A Paradox of Redistribution in International Aid? The Determinants of Poverty-Oriented Development Assistance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 359-369.
    3. Silvia Avram & Eva Militaru, 2016. "Interactions Between Policy Effects, Population Characteristics and the Tax-Benefit System: An Illustration Using Child Poverty and Child Related Policies in Romania and the Czech Republic," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1365-1385, September.
    4. Wim Van Lancker & Natascha Van Mechelen, 2014. "Universalism under siege? Exploring the association between targeting, child benefits and child poverty across 26 countries," Working Papers 1401, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    5. Brady, David & Bostic, Amie, 2015. "Paradoxes of Social Policy: Welfare Transfers, Relative Poverty, and Redistribution Preferences," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 80(2), pages 268-298.
    6. Elvire Guillaud & Matthew Olckers & Michaël Zemmour, 2020. "Four Levers of Redistribution: The Impact of Tax and Transfer Systems on Inequality Reduction," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(2), pages 444-466, June.
    7. Bea Cantillon & Natascha Van Mechelen, 2013. "Poverty reduction and social security: Cracks in a policy paradigm," Working Papers 1304, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    8. Ben Spies-Butcher & Ben Phillips & Troy Henderson, 2020. "Between universalism and targeting: Exploring policy pathways for an Australian Basic Income," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(4), pages 502-523, December.
    9. Mónica Patricia Ospina, 2014. "El efecto del gasto social en la distribución del ingreso: un análisis para economías latinoamericanas," Revista Ciencias Estratégicas, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, December.
    10. Chrysa Leventi & Olga Rastrigina & Holly Sutherland, 2016. "The importance of income-tested benefits in good times and bad: lessons from EU countries," ImPRovE Working Papers 16/01, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    11. De Donder, Philippe & Peluso, Eugenio, 2014. "Politically Sustainable Probabilistic Minority Targeting," TSE Working Papers 14-509, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    12. Orsetta Causa & Mikkel Hermansen, 2017. "Income redistribution through taxes and transfers across OECD countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1453, OECD Publishing.
    13. Naoki Akaeda, 2023. "Does Social Policy Crowd Out or Crowd In Social Trust? The Perspectives of Transfer Share, Low-Income Targeting, and Universalism," LIS Working papers 870, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    14. Pim Verbunt & Anne-Catherine Guio, 2019. "Explaining Differences Within and Between Countries in the Risk of Income Poverty and Severe Material Deprivation: Comparing Single and Multilevel Analyses," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 827-868, July.
    15. Katherine Baird, 2015. "Who Did Safety Nets Catch During the Great Recession and How? A Comparison of Eleven OECD Countries," LIS Working papers 620, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    16. Lin Yang, 2018. "The relationship between poverty and inequality: Resource constraint mechanisms," CASE Papers /212, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    17. Louis Chauvel & Eyal Bar-Haim, 2016. "Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) and Varieties of Distributions (VoD): How Welfare Regimes Affect the Pre- and Post-Transfer Shapes of Inequalities?," LIS Working papers 677, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    18. Mihaylova Svilena & Bratoeva-Manoleva Silviya, 2017. "Social Transfers and Income Inequality in Bulgaria," South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 38-49, April.
    19. Massimo Baldini & Giovanni Gallo & Costanza Torricelli, 2020. "The scars of scarcity in the short run: an empirical investigation across Europe," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 37(3), pages 1033-1069, October.
    20. Lin Yang, 2018. "The net effect of housing-related costs and advantages on the relationship between inequality and poverty," CASE Papers /211, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:chinre:v:12:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s12187-018-9540-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.