UNICEF

UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre
Report Card 9
The children
left behind
A league table of inequality in child
well-being in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 9 was written by Peter Adamson.
Part 1 of the Report draws on the analysis carried out by

Dominic Richardson, Candace Currie, Dorothy Currie, Chris Roberts
and Leonardo Menchini, and presented in the Innocenti Working Paper
2010-19 (available on the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (IRC)
website: www.unicef-irc.org).
Report Card 9 benefited greatly from research support by the Organisation

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and by the Health
Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) International Coordinating
Centre. The OECD provided the statistical and distributional analysis
of child well-being indicators for material well-being and educational
outcomes. HBSC provided the statistical results for the analysis of
inequality in children’s health. Neither partner is responsible for the
interpretation of the results or for other findings in this report. The project
was coordinated by the UNICEF IRC.
The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre would like to acknowledge

the generous support for Report Card 9 provided by the Andorran,
Australian, Belgian, German, Swiss and United Kingdom National
Committees for UNICEF.
Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced using
the following reference:
UNICEF (2010), ‘The Children Left Behind: A league table of inequality

in child well-being in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 9,
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.
The Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare the

performance of economically advanced countries in securing the rights
of their children.
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 helps to identify and research current and future areas of
UNICEF’s work. Its prime objectives are to improve international
understanding of issues relating to children’s rights and to help facilitate
the full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child in all countries.
The Centre’s publications are contributions to a global debate on child

rights issues and include a wide range of opinions. The views expressed
are those of the author and researchers and do not necessarily reflect the
policies or views of UNICEF.
© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), November 2010
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

Piazza SS. Annunziata, 12
50122 Florence, Italy
Tel: (+39) 055 2033 0
Fax: (+39) 055 2033 220
[email protected]
www.unicef-irc.org
I nnocenti R eport C ard 9 1
UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre
Whether in health, in education, or in material well-being, some

children will always fall behind the average. The critical question
is – how far behind? Is there a point beyond which falling behind
is not inevitable but policy susceptible, not unavoidable but
unacceptable, not inequality but inequity?
There are no widely agreed theoretical answers to these

questions. Report Card 9 seeks to stimulate debate on the issue
by introducing a common measure of ‘bottom-end inequality’.
This permits each country’s performance to be assessed according
to the standard of what the best-performing countries have been
able to achieve. Such a standard may not represent the best that
may be aspired to in theory, but in practice it suggests a level
below which ‘falling behind’ is manifestly not inevitable.
The Report Card series is premised on the belief that the true
measure of a nation’s standing is how well it attends to its children
– their health and safety, their material security, their education
and socialization, and their sense of being loved, valued, and
included in the families and societies into which they are born.
Its common theme is that protecting children during their vital,
vulnerable years of growth is both the mark of a civilized society
and the means of building a better future.
This ninth report in the series builds on previous issues by

focusing specifically on those children in all OECD countries
who are at risk of being left behind – of being neither included
nor protected – by the wealthy societies in which they live.
2 I nnocenti R eport C ard 9
T he c h i l dren l ef t b e h i nd
A league table of inequality in child well-being
in the world’s rich countries
Fig. 1a A league table of inequality in child well-being Fig. 1b The overall record
The table summarizes the findings of Report Card 9, ranking 24 OECD countries by their Figure 1b ranks each country by its overall
performance in each of three dimensions of inequality in child well-being. inequality record. Three points have been
awarded for a better than average
performance, 2 points for a performance
at or close to the OECD average, and
1 point for a below average performance
inequality lower than inequality close to inequality higher than (see note for definitions). Countries in
OECD average OECD average OECD average alphabetical order within groups.
Material well-being rank Education well-being rank Health well-being rank Higher score = greater equality
Switzerland 1 Finland 1 Netherlands 1 Denmark
8
Iceland 2 Ireland 2 Norway 2 Finland
Netherlands 3 Canada 3 Portugal 3 Netherlands
Denmark 4 Denmark 4 Germany 4 Switzerland
France 5 Poland 5 Switzerland 5 Iceland
7
Finland 6 Hungary 6 Belgium 6 Ireland
Austria 7 Sweden 7 Ireland 7 Norway
Norway 8 Netherlands 8 Denmark 8 Sweden
Sweden 9 Spain 9 Canada 9 Austria
Germany 10 Iceland 10 Czech Republic 10 Canada
6
Czech Republic 11 Norway 11 United Kingdom 11 France
Luxembourg 12 Switzerland 12 Slovakia 12 Germany
Ireland 13 United Kingdom 13 Austria 13 Poland
Spain 14 Portugal 14 Sweden 14 Portugal
Belgium 15 Slovakia 15 France 15 Belgium
Portugal 16 Luxembourg 16 Finland 16 Czech Republic
Canada 17 Czech Republic 17 Iceland 17 Hungary
Greece
United Kingdom
18
19
Greece
United States
18
19
Poland
Luxembourg
18
19
5 Luxembourg
Slovakia
Italy 20 Germany 20 Greece 20 Spain
Poland 21 Italy 21 Spain 21 United Kingdom
Hungary 22 Austria 22 United States 22 Greece
United States
Slovakia
23
24
France
Belgium
23
24
Italy
Hungary
23
24
3 Italy
United States
Figs. 1a and 1b are limited to the 24 OECD countries with available data for all three -0.5 to +0.5 standard deviations from the OECD average. ‘inequality lower than
dimensions of inequality in child well-being. OECD average’ is defined as having a standard deviation score greater than +0.5
Note: To compare the inequality performance of the featured countries in each from the OECD unweighted average. ‘inequality higher than OECD average’ is
dimension of child well-being, inequality scores for the individual indicators used defined as having a standard score of less than -0.5 from the OECD unweighted
are first converted to standard scores (i.e. inequality is measured in standard average.
deviations from the OECD unweighted average). The standardized scores are then Source: See page 30 (Data for Report Card 9: the surveys) for data sources used in
averaged to arrive at an inequality score for each dimension. For purposes of Figs. the measurement of inequality in the different dimensions of children’s well-being.
1a and 1b, ‘inequality close to average’ is defined as a score within the range of
Part 1
Introduction OECD countries today.i On the one the distance between the top and the
hand it is argued that, after a certain bottom but between the median and
This Report Card presents a first
level of economic development has the bottom. The median level of child
overview of inequalities in child
been achieved, greater equality “would well-being – whether in material goods,
well-being for 24 of the world’s
increase the well-being and quality of life educational outcomes, or level of health
richest countries.
for all”.ii On the other, it is maintained – represents what is considered normal
that inequality is a justifiable reflection in a given society and falling behind
Three dimensions of inequality are
of differences in ability and effort and that median by more than a certain
examined: material well-being,
provides incentives for further progress degree carries a risk of social exclusion.
education, and health. In each case
in all fields of human endeavour.
and for each country, the question
Today, ‘bottom-end inequality’ is no
asked is ‘how far behind are children
This is an important debate. But it is longer a concern only of the political
being allowed to fall?’
not one that affects the premise of left. In the United Kingdom, for
this report. example, a Conservative Prime Minister
Figure 1a summarizes the results.
has argued that “We should focus on
Within the limitations of the available
The idea that inequality is justified closing the gap between the bottom and the
data, it represents an overview of as a reflection of differences in merit middle not because that is the easy thing to
how well the world’s developed cannot reasonably be applied to do, but because focusing on those who do not
nations are living up to the ideal of children. Few would deny that have the chance of a good life is the most
‘no child left behind’. children’s early circumstances are important thing to do.”
beyond their own control. Or that
Figure 1b presents the same data from those early circumstances have a That ‘gap between the bottom and the
a different perspective, showing each profound effect on their present lives middle’ is the focus of Report Card 9.
nation’s performance in relation to the and future prospects. Or that growing
average for the nations of the OECD up in poverty incurs a substantially Measuring inequality
as a whole. higher risk of lower standards of It should be said from the outset
health, of reduced cognitive that the data deployed for measuring
Both charts show that a small group development, of underachievement at inequality, although the latest available,
of countries – Denmark, Finland, the school, of lower skills and aspirations, are derived from surveys conducted
Netherlands, and Switzerland – are and eventually of lower adult earnings, before the 2008 economic crisis
leading the way in promoting equality so helping to perpetuate disadvantage (Box 2). Nor are the data
in children’s well-being. Greece, Italy from one generation to the next. comprehensive. There is, for example,
and the United States, on the other very little statistical information
hand, are allowing children to fall None of this is the fault of the child. available on the critical early years
furthest behind. of childhood.
Second, the question being asked here
Why inequality matters – ‘how far behind are children being It is also important to recognize that
The increase in inequality over the last allowed to fall?’ – requires a measure not well-being has many dimensions and
three decades – its economic causes, its of overall inequality but of inequality its measurement should also be
social costs, its possible remedies – is at the bottom end of the distribution. multidimensional to the extent that
the subject of considerable debate in In other words, the metric used is not the data allow. “Each dimension of
quality-of-life requires appropriate measures always be a bottom 10% in any what other nations at similar levels
of inequality with each of these measures country and that 50% of children will of economic development have already
being significant in itself and none claiming always fall below the national median. achieved. It therefore provides a realistic
absolute priority over the others,” says the In this sense, a degree of falling behind measure of the scope for improvement.
Commission on the Measurement of is obviously inevitable. The critical
Economic Performance and Social question is – how far behind? Is there a
Progress established in 2008 by the point beyond which falling behind is
President of France.* not inevitable but policy susceptible,
not unavoidable but unacceptable, not
Figure 1a therefore compares 24 inequality but inequity?
OECD countries according to their
performance in limiting bottom-end There are no widely agreed theoretical
inequality in three dimensions of answers to these questions. But
children’s well-being. Its rankings international comparison can help
confirm the Commission’s view that to establish practical answers by
no one indicator can stand as an measuring ‘falling behind’ according
adequate proxy for the others. to the standard of what the best-
performing OECD countries have
Measuring the gap already achieved. This benchmark may
Depending on the available data, two not represent the very best that can be
different methods are proposed for aspired to, but it does establish a level
estimating ‘how far behind’ children below which bottom-end inequality is
are being allowed to fall. manifestly not inevitable.
The first compares the position of the If, for example, the gap in educational
child at the 10th percentile (i.e. the achievement between students at the
child at a lower point than 90% of 10th and 50th percentiles is
children in the society) with the child significantly wider in France or
at the 50th percentile (the median Belgium than in Finland or Ireland
position). The degree of inequality is (Figure 3d) then it seems clear that
measured by the gap between the two, the children at the 10th percentile in
expressed as a percentage of the French and Belgian schools are falling
median position. further behind the median than is
necessary. The difference between the
The second method (employed when best performing countries and the rest
survey data are not suitable for analysis of the OECD nations can therefore
by percentiles) compares the level of be read as a minimum measure of the
well-being of the child at the median extent to which ‘falling behind’ is
with the average level of all those who policy-susceptible – the extent to
fall below the median. which it is not unavoidable but unjust.
Different geographical and historical International comparison therefore sets

circumstances may help to explain each nation’s performance not against
different degrees of inequality. And it an abstract concept of equality but
is of course a truism that there will against the practical benchmark of
* The Commission is chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi.
M ater i a l i ne q u a l i t y
The first of the three dimensions of Norway, with the Nordic countries and Basic educational resources
inequality in children’s well-being the Netherlands taking six of the top The second measure used to compare
considered here is inequality in eight places in the table. At the other inequality in material well-being is
children’s material well-being. extreme, Italy, Canada Spain, Portugal ‘access to basic educational resources’.
and Greece are seen to have the highest Again, the same question is asked –
Child poverty is about more than levels of child income inequality. Data ‘how far behind are the least advantaged
poverty of income. It is also about on household disposable income are not children being allowed to fall?’
poverty of opportunity and expectation, available for the United States.*
of cultural and educational resources, * Using gross (pre-tax) household income, the income available to the child at the 10th percentile in the
of housing and neighbourhoods, of United States is approximately 70% below the income available to a child at the median.
parental care and time, of local services

and community resources. But from Fig. 2a Inequality in material well-being: income
the child’s point of view, these different The chart shows inequality at the bottom-end of the distribution in disposable income
available to children in 27 OECD countries. Calculations are based on the incomes of
dimensions of poverty are rarely
households with children aged 0 to 17 (after adding benefits, deducting taxes, and making
separate. Family circumstance, an adjustment for the economies of scale available to larger families). For each country,
employment and income, health and the measure of bottom-end inequality used is the gap between the income of the child at
education systems, and the local the 50th percentile (the median level) and the income of the child at the 10th percentile
(i.e. the child who is poorer than 90% of children).
environment all play interacting roles
in determining well-being. The bar chart shows how far the children at the 10th percentile are falling behind
(expressed as a percentage of median income in households with children).
No internationally comparable data 39.4 Norway

are currently available to capture this 39.7 Denmark
40.0 Austria
complexity. But rather than relying
40.2 Iceland
on income data alone, inequality in 41.2 Sweden
children’s material well-being is 41.5 Netherlands
measured here by three indicators 41.6 France (2007)
41.9 Finland
for which suitable data are available – 43.7 Czech Republic
household incomes, access to basic educational 44.3 Switzerland (2007)
resources, and housing living space. 44.6 Hungary
46.4 Luxembourg
Household income 47.4 Ireland

48.1 Germany
Calculations of income inequality 48.9 Slovakia
for children are based on the disposable 50.1 United Kingdom
50.6 Belgium
incomes of households with children
51.2 Poland
aged 0 to 17 (after adding benefits, 54.1 Italy
deducting taxes, and making an 55.7 Canada (2005)
adjustment for the economies of scale 56.0 Spain
56.2 Portugal
available to larger families). To measure
56.6 Greece
inequality at the bottom-end of the 46.9 OECD average
distribution, the income of the child
Other OECD countries
at the 50th percentile (the median) 51.0 Australia
is compared with the income of the 59.4 Republic of Korea (2007)
child at the 10th percentile (i.e. poorer 60.8 Chile (2006)
61.5 Mexico
than 90% of children). ‘How far behind
are the poorest children being allowed to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
fall?’ is then measured by the gap Gap between the child at the 10th percentile and the child at the 50th percentile (as % of 50th percentile)
between the two. Notes: ‘Other OECD countries’ are listed separately because data limitations prevent their inclusion in the
overview tables for each dimension of child well-being. The OECD average is an unweighted average for the
23 countries included in the main league table.
As Figure 2a shows, household income Sources: EU SILC 2008. Data for France are from EU SILC 2007. See page 30 (Data for Report Card 9: the surveys)
for more detailed notes on country data including sources for Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, the Republic of
inequality for children is lowest in Korea, and Switzerland.
Figure 2b attempts an answer by The resulting scores – registered on inequality – on the gap between the
drawing on survey data from the a scale of 0 to 8 – do not lend median score (column 2) and the
Programme of International Student themselves to analysis by percentile. average score below the median
Assessment (PISA). Inequality is therefore measured by the (column 3). Column 4 shows the
gap between the score of the child at difference between the two and the
In the 2006 PISA survey (see page 30), the median and the average score of all chart represents the inequality gap as
a representative sample of 15-year-old children who fall below the median. a percentage of the median.
students in OECD countries was asked The results are presented in Figure 2b.
which of the following were available Northern European countries again
in their own homes: The availability of computers and dominate the top of the table. The
internet access depends to some extent lowest placed Nordic country, Norway,
 a desk on the level of economic development posts an equality score close to the
 a quiet place to study in each country; even poor children average for the OECD as a whole.
 a computer for school work in very wealthy countries, for example, At the foot of the table, the United
 educational software may have access to most or all of the Kingdom, Greece, and Slovakia show
 an internet connection items on the ‘home educational the highest levels of inequality in
 a calculator resources’ list. The median score access to basic educational resources.
 a dictionary therefore differs from country to
 school textbooks. country. But the focus here is on
Fig. 2b Inequality in material well-being: educational resources

15-year-olds students in each country were asked which of the following were available at home: a desk, a quiet place to study,
a computer for school work, educational software, an internet connection, a calculator, a dictionary, school textbooks.
Inequality was measured by comparing each country’s median score (column 2) with the average score of those below
the median (column 3). Column 4 shows the difference between the two as an absolute number of ‘missing’ educational items.
The bar chart on the right shows the inequality gap (as a percentage of the median for each country).
Average Average
Educational items Gap between the child at the 10th percentile and the
Median below the absolute
(range 0-8) child at the 50th percentile (as % of 50th percentile)
median gap
Denmark 7 6.4 0.6 7.9 Denmark
Switzerland 7 6.4 0.6 8.1 Switzerland
Netherlands 7 6.4 0.6 8.8 Netherlands
Luxembourg 7 6.3 0.7 9.5 Luxembourg
Austria 7 6.2 0.8 10.9 Austria
Finland 7 6.2 0.8 11.3 Finland
Canada 7 6.2 0.8 11.3 Canada
Sweden 7 6.2 0.8 12.0 Sweden
Italy 7 6.1 0.9 13.3 Italy
Czech Republic 7 6.0 1.0 13.9 Czech Republic
Iceland 8 6.9 1.1 14.0 Iceland
France 7 6.0 1.0 14.3 France
Spain 7 6.0 1.0 14.9 Spain
Portugal 7 5.9 1.1 16.1 Portugal
Ireland 7 5.9 1.1 16.2 Ireland
Norway 8 6.7 1.3 16.3 Norway
Poland 7 5.7 1.3 18.1 Poland
Germany 8 6.5 1.5 18.5 Germany
United States 7 5.7 1.3 19.2 United States
Belgium 8 6.4 1.6 19.9 Belgium
Hungary 7 5.6 1.4 20.7 Hungary
United Kingdom 8 6.3 1.7 21.0 United Kingdom
Greece 6 4.6 1.4 22.6 Greece
Slovakia 7 5.2 1.8 25.9 Slovakia
OECD average 7.2 6.1 1.1 15.2 OECD average
Other OECD countries Other OECD countries

Republic of Korea 7 6.0 1.0 14.2 Republic of Korea
Australia 8 6.5 1.5 18.9 Australia
Japan 6 4.8 1.2 19.9 Japan
Chile 5 3.9 1.1 21.9 Chile
Turkey 5 3.9 1.1 22.0 Turkey
New Zealand 8 6.2 1.8 22.1 New Zealand
Mexico 5 3.9 1.1 22.5 Mexico
Notes: ‘Other OECD countries’ are listed separately because data limitations
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
prevent their inclusion in the overview tables for each dimension of child well-
being. The OECD average is an unweighted average for the 24 countries included
in the main league table.
Source: PISA 2006 (see page 30).
Living space living space score at the median and access to educational resources, and
the average score of children below living space. For each country, and
The third measure of material well-
the median. By this measure, for each indicator, the inequality
being is ‘living space’ – defined as the
Denmark, Switzerland and the scores have been set on a common
number of rooms per person in
Netherlands can be seen to have the scale in which 100 represents the
households with children aged 0 to 17
lowest levels of inequality in children’s OECD average and 10 represents
(not counting corridors, kitchens, and
living space (along with Australia, one standard deviation (a commonly
bathrooms). Although only an
which is among the countries used measure of how spread out the
approximate measure of housing
excluded from the main tables items being measured are in relation
conditions, space in the home is a
because data are not available for all to the average for the group as a
constant and important factor in
three dimensions of child well-being). whole). The individual indicator
young people’s lives. In the OECD
At the bottom of the table, inequality scores are then averaged to provide
countries as a whole, one child in
is highest in the United States, Italy the overview of inequality in
three is estimated to be living in
and Hungary. children’s material well-being
overcrowded conditions.iii
presented in Figure 2d.
Material inequality:
Figure 2c draws again on survey data
an overview Switzerland has the least inequality,
to estimate inequality in living space.
As with educational resources, the Figures 2d and 2e combine the three closely followed by Iceland and the
measure used is the gap between the measures used – household income, Netherlands.
Fig. 2c Inequality in material well-being: housing living space

Housing living space is defined as the number of rooms per person in households with children (not counting corridors, kitchens, and
bathrooms). Inequality is measured by the gap between the score at the median (column 2) and the average score of all children below the
median (column 3). Column 4 shows the difference between the two. The bar chart on the right shows the inequality gap (as a percentage
of the median).
Average Average
Living space – Gap between the average below the median
Rooms per person and the median (as % of median)
median gap
Iceland 1.00 0.91 0.09 8.8 Iceland
Germany 1.00 0.91 0.09 8.9 Germany
Switzerland (2007) 1.00 0.91 0.09 9.1 Switzerland (2007)
Greece 0.80 0.69 0.11 14.0 Greece
Spain 1.25 1.08 0.18 14.5 Spain
France (2007) 1.00 0.85 0.15 14.5 France (2007)
Netherlands 1.25 1.03 0.23 17.6 Netherlands
Ireland 1.25 1.03 0.23 17.7 Ireland
Norway 1.20 0.97 0.23 18.8 Norway
Belgium 1.20 0.97 0.23 19.0 Belgium
Finland 1.20 0.97 0.23 19.3 Finland
Portugal 1.00 0.80 0.20 19.6 Portugal
Czech Republic 0.80 0.62 0.18 22.2 Czech Republic
Austria 1.00 0.77 0.23 22.9 Austria
Denmark 1.20 0.92 0.28 23.0 Denmark
Sweden 1.20 0.91 0.29 24.4 Sweden
United Kingdom 1.20 0.91 0.29 24.4 United Kingdom
Slovakia 0.75 0.56 0.19 24.9 Slovakia
Luxembourg 1.25 0.93 0.33 26.2 Luxembourg
Canada (2006) 1.50 1.10 0.41 27.5 Canada (2006)
Poland 0.67 0.47 0.19 28.6 Poland
United States (2007) 1.25 0.89 0.36 29.3 United States (2007)
Italy 1.00 0.68 0.32 31.8 Italy
Hungary 0.75 0.50 0.25 33.4 Hungary

Australia 1.00 0.88 0.12 11.8 Australia
Chile (2006) 0.75 0.55 0.20 26.5 Chile (2006)
Mexico 0.50 0.28 0.23 45.3 Mexico
Notes: ‘Other OECD countries’ are listed separately because data limitations 0 10 20 30 40 50
in the main league table.
Sources: EU SILC 2008. Data for France are from EU-SILC 2007. See page 30 (Data
for Report Card 9: the surveys) for more detailed notes on individual country data
including sources for Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, the Republic of Korea,
Switzerland and the United States.
A second summary table (Figure 2e) Spain, Canada, Portugal and Greece available for the purposes of
shows the individual contributions of lose ranking places by virtue of higher international comparison. Rather than
the three indicators, allowing countries than average levels of household recording material well-being solely
to see their strengths and weaknesses. income inequality. by the percentage of children in
Countries such as Germany, Belgium, households below a given income
the United Kingdom, Greece and These three measures of bottom-end threshold, they attempt a more
Slovakia, for example, are let down by inequality in children’s material well- rounded measure of how far behind
higher than average inequality in being are neither ideal nor the least advantaged children are being
access to basic educational resources. comprehensive. But they are the best allowed to fall.
Fig. 2d Inequality in material well-being: an overview Fig. 2e Inequality in material well-being: a breakdown
Figure 2d combines the three measures of inequality in children’s Figure 2e presents the same information as Fig 2d but shows the
material well-being (income, educational items, living space) into individual contributions of the three inequality indicators used. For
an overview for the 24 OECD countries with available data. For each indicator, the length of the bar represents each country’s
each country, the inequality scores of the three indicators of distance above or below the OECD 24 average (again measured in
material inequality have been standardized, combined and placed standard deviations above or below that average). This allows
on a common scale in which 100 represents the OECD unweighted countries to see individual strengths and weaknesses.
average and 10 is equal to one standard deviation.*
Switzerland income Switzerland
Iceland educational items Iceland
Netherlands living space Netherlands
Denmark Denmark
France France
Finland Finland
Austria Austria
Norway Norway
Sweden Sweden
Germany Germany
Czech Republic Czech Republic
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Ireland Ireland
Spain Spain
Belgium Belgium
Portugal Portugal
Canada Canada
Greece Greece
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Italy Italy
Poland Poland
Hungary Hungary
United States United States**
Slovakia Slovakia
85 90 95 100 105 110 115 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
inequality higher than inequality close to inequality lower than inequality higher than inequality lower than
OECD-24 average OECD-24 average OECD-24 average OECD-24 average OECD-24 average
* A standard deviation is a measure of the spread of the distribution around ** No data are available on household disposable income for the United States.
its average. Sources: See individual Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c.
Sources: See individual Figs. 2a, 2b, 2c. See also Figure 2e for the standardized
inequality measure used for the three individual indicators of inequality in
children’s material well-being.
E d u cat i ona l i ne q u a l i t y
The second dimension of inequality compare proficiency in reading, maths score on each indicator has been set
considered here is inequality in young and science. on a common scale in which 100
people’s educational achievements. represents the unweighted OECD
As with income, the inequality measure average and 10 represents one standard
The data are drawn from the used is the gap between test scores at deviation above or below that average.
Programme of International Student the 10th and 50th percentiles. Figures This allows each country’s
Assessment (PISA) which regularly 3a, 3b and 3c present the results. performance to be measured in
tests a nationally representative sample relation to both the average and the
of 15-year-old students* in more than Figure 3d combines the three measures degree of variability for the OECD
40 countries. The aim is to test and into an overview. Again, each country’s as a whole.
*The survey samples only 15-year-olds who are attending school. It may therefore not fully represent marginalized groups in some OECD countries.
Fig. 3a Inequality in reading literacy

Using PISA scores for ‘reading literacy’ of 15-year-old students, Figure 3a measures educational inequality in each country by comparing
the score of the student at the 50th percentile (the median) with the score of the student at the 10th percentile (i.e. lower than 90% of all
scores). The bar chart shows the gap between the two (expressed as a percentage of the median).
50th 10th Absolute gap

Gap between the child at the 10th percentile and the child
Reading literacy percentile percentile (50th percentile –
at the 50th percentile (as % of 50th percentile)
(median) score score 10th percentile)
Finland 550 441 109 19.9 Finland
Denmark 499 378 121 24.2 Denmark
Ireland 522 395 127 24.2 Ireland
Canada 534 402 132 24.8 Canada
Switzerland 506 373 133 26.1 Switzerland
Sweden 513 378 135 26.2 Sweden
Netherlands 515 379 136 26.5 Netherlands
Spain 468 343 125 26.6 Spain
Hungary 490 359 131 26.8 Hungary
Poland 513 374 139 27.0 Poland
Iceland 491 356 135 27.6 Iceland
United Kingdom 501 359 142 28.4 United Kingdom
Portugal 479 339 140 29.2 Portugal
Luxembourg 487 344 143 29.3 Luxembourg
Norway 492 346 146 29.7 Norway
Austria 499 348 151 30.3 Austria
France 499 346 153 30.7 France
Slovakia 473 326 147 31.0 Slovakia
Germany 508 350 158 31.1 Germany
Czech Republic 489 335 154 31.4 Czech Republic
Greece 469 321 148 31.5 Greece
Italy 478 325 153 32.1 Italy
Belgium 515 347 168 32.5 Belgium
OECD average 500 359 141 28.1 OECD average
Republic of Korea 563 440 123 21.8 Republic of Korea
Australia 519 388 131 25.1 Australia
Turkey 450 330 120 26.8 Turkey
New Zealand 528 381 146 27.9 New Zealand
Japan 505 361 144 28.6 Japan
Chile 443 310 133 30.0 Chile
Mexico 415 285 130 31.3 Mexico
Notes: ‘Other OECD countries’ are listed separately because data limitations
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
in the main league table. Reading literacy data for the USA are missing.
1 0 I nnocenti R eport C ard 9
Fig. 3b Inequality in maths literacy

Using PISA scores for ‘maths literacy’ of 15-year-old students, Figure 3b measures educational inequality in each country by comparing
scores). The bar chart shows the gap between the two (expressed as percentage of median).

Gap between the child at the 10th percentile and the
Maths literacy percentile percentile (50th percentile
child at the 50th percentile (as % of 50th percentile)
(median) score score – 10th percentile)
Spain 482 366 116 24.1 Spain
United States 472 358 114 24.2 United States
Italy 462 341 121 26.1 Italy
Japan 526 404 122 23.2 Japan
Chile 408 302 106 25.9 Chile
Notes: ‘Other OECD countries’ are listed separately because data limitations 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
prevent their inclusion in the overview tables for each dimension of child well-being.
The OECD average is an unweighted average for the 24 countries included in the
main league table. Source: PISA 2006 (see page 30).
Fig. 3c Inequality in science literacy

Using PISA scores for ‘science literacy’ of 15-year-old students, Figure 3c measures educational inequality in each country by comparing
scores). The bar chart shows the gap between the two as a percentage of the median.

Gap between the child at the 10th percentile and the
Science literacy percentile percentile (50th percentile
child at the 50th percentile (as % of 50th percentile)
(median) score score – 10th percentile)
Spain 491 370 121 24.7 Spain
Italy 477 351 126 26.3 Italy
United States 488 349 139 28.4 United States
Chile 434 323 111 25.6 Chile
Japan 539 396 142 26.4 Japan
main league table. Source: PISA 2006 (see page 30).
I nnocenti R eport C ard 9 1 1
Figure 3e breaks down this overview of opportunity in education means time, limit the extent to which less
in order to show how bottom-end that differences in educational able students fall behind. Figure 3d, for
inequality in the three different kinds outcomes are now mostly a reflection example, shows that lower-achieving
of literacy contributes to each of the distribution of natural abilities. students in Finland, Ireland and
country’s overall inequality score. As Figures. 3a, 3b and 3c show, Canada are far less likely to fall a
different OECD countries have very long way behind their peers than are
No trade off different patterns of bottom-end students in Austria, France or Belgium.
Such measurements serve to inform inequality in educational outcomes;
two commonly contested issues. and it is reasonable to assume that this The pattern of bottom-end inequality
is the result not of differences in the in educational outcomes therefore
First, they undermine the argument distribution of natural abilities but of reflects more than the lottery of birth
that steady progress towards equality differences in policies which, over and circumstance. It may reflect
Fig. 3d Educational inequality: an overview Fig. 3e Educational inequality: a breakdown

Figure 3d combines the three measures of inequality in children’s Figure 3e presents the same information as Figure 3d but shows
educational outcomes (in reading, maths and science literacy) into the individual contributions of the three inequality indicators used.
an overview for 24 OECD countries. For each country, the scores For each indicator, the length of the bar represents each country’s
on the three indicators have been standardized, averaged, and distance above or below the OECD 24 average (again measured in
placed on a common scale in which 100 represents the OECD standard deviations above or below that average). This allows
unweighted average and 10 is equal to one standard deviation.* countries to see individual strengths and weaknesses.
Finland Finland
reading
Ireland Ireland
maths
Canada Canada
sciences
Denmark Denmark
Poland Poland
Hungary Hungary
Sweden Sweden
Netherlands Netherlands
Spain Spain
Iceland Iceland
Norway Norway
Switzerland Switzerland
Portugal Portugal
Slovakia Slovakia
Greece Greece
United States United States**
Germany Germany
Italy Italy
Austria Austria
France France
Belgium Belgium
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
inequality higher inequality close inequality lower inequality higher than inequality lower than
than average to average than average OECD-24 average OECD-24 average
* A standard deviation is a measure of the spread of the distribution around its

** Reading literacy data for the United States are missing.
average.
Sources: See individual Figs. 3a, 3b, and 3c.
Sources: See Figs. 3a, 3b, and 3c. See also Fig 3e for the standardized inequality
measure used for the three individual indicators of inequality in educational
well-being.
differences in national efforts to Second, international comparisons of also the two countries with the highest
reduce socio-economic disadvantage. inequality in educational outcomes also median levels of educational achievement.
Or it may reflect efforts to weaken inform the issue of whether a trade-off A child born in either of these countries
the link between socio-economic must be made between investing in therefore has both a lower chance of
disadvantage and school low-achieving students and maximizing falling a long way behind his or her peers
achievement (children whose the potential of those in the higher and a higher chance of scoring above the
mothers did not complete secondary reaches of the ability range. Figure 3f(i) average reading literacy mark for the
school, for example, are at suggests an answer to this question by OECD as a whole.
substantially greater risk of having showing that there is no relationship
low reading literacy scores, but that between greater inequality and better Figure 3f(ii) shows that the point holds
risk is two or three times greater in performance at the median. In fact the when we look at performance of the
some countries than in others.)iv most unequal countries tend towards highest-achieving students. Again, the
It is likely, also, that different degrees slightly lower scores at the 50th countries with better results at the 90th
of inequality reflect different percentile. The two countries with the percentile of achievement tend to be
degrees of policy concern, over time, lowest bottom-end inequality in reading the countries with the lowest levels of
for those at risk of falling behind. literacy, Finland and South Korea, are bottom-end inequality.
Fig. 3f(i) Bottom-end inequality and median achievement

The chart compares inequality in reading literacy with median level scores for reading literacy in 30 OECD countries.
580
560
540
520
Median score
500
480
460
440
420
400
15 20 25 30 35
% gap between 50th and 10th percentiles
Notes: Blue vertical and horizontal lines indicate unweighted OECD average (30 countries). Trend line obtained by linear regression. Data for the United States are missing.
For country abbreviations see page 33.
Fig. 3f(ii) Bottom-end inequality and top-end achievement

The chart compares inequality in reading literacy with scores at the 90th percentile of achievement in 30 OECD countries.
680
660
640
90th percentile score
620
600
580
560
540
520
500
15 20 25 30 35
% gap between 50th and 10th percentiles
Notes: Blue vertical and horizontal lines indicate unweighted OECD average (30 countries). Trend line obtained by linear regression. Data for the United States are missing.
For country abbreviations see page 33.
Hea l t h i ne q u a l i t y
The third and last dimension of child behaviours of schoolchildren at ages  feeling bad tempered
well-being in which the data permit 11, 13 and 15 in 41 countries of  feeling nervous
cross national measurement of Europe and North America.  having difficulty getting to sleep
inequality is health.  feeling dizzy.
Again, three indicators are used: Self-reported health The answers were transferred onto
children’s self-reported health Among many other questions, a scale ranging from 0 (frequent
complaints; healthy eating; and participants in the HBSC survey were occurrences of all seven complaints)
frequency of vigorous physical activity. asked how often in the previous six to 28 (no health complaints).
All three are well-established markers months they had experienced the
for children’s current and future health. following problems: Figure 4a uses these scores to estimate
The data are derived from the 2005- the degree of inequality in children’s
2006 round of Health Behaviour in  headache self-reported health. As before, the
School-aged Children, a World Health  stomach ache measure used is the gap between each
Organization collaborative study  feeling low country’s median score (column 2) and
which regularly surveys the health  feeling irritable the average score of all children below
Fig. 4a Health inequality: self-reported health complaints

The 2005-2006 HBSC survey (see page 30) asked 11, 13 and 15-year-old students how often in the previous six months they had
experienced the following problems: headache, stomach ache, feeling low, feeling irritable, feeling bad tempered, feeling nervous,
having difficulty getting to sleep, feeling dizzy. The answers were transferred onto a scale ranging from 0 (frequent occurrences of
all seven complaints) to 28 (no health complaints).
Inequality was then measured by comparing each country’s median score (column 2) with the average score of those below the
median (column 3). Column 4 shows the difference between the two. The bar chart on the right shows the inequality gap (as a
percentage of the median).
Average Average
Health complaints Gap between the average below the median
(range 0-28) and the median (as % of median)
median gap
Norway 23.0 18.1 4.9 21.5 Norway
Switzerland 22.0 17.0 5.0 22.9 Switzerland
France 21.0 16.1 4.9 23.3 France
Canada 22.0 16.7 5.3 24.3 Canada
Spain 23.0 17.4 5.6 24.3 Spain
Sweden 22.0 16.4 5.6 25.5 Sweden
Poland 22.0 16.3 5.7 25.8 Poland
Italy 19.0 14.0 5.0 26.3 Italy
Greece 22.0 16.1 5.9 27.0 Greece
United States 22.0 15.8 6.2 28.0 United States

Turkey 18.0 13.0 5.0 27.8 Turkey
main league table. Source: HBSC 2005-2006 (see page 30).
the median (column 3). The inequality – are also the countries with the Regular exercise in adolescence
gap is presented both as an absolute lowest levels of health inequality. also brings short and long-term health
difference between the two scores benefits and is positively associated
(column 4) and as a bar chart showing Healthy eating and with cognitive development,
the bottom-end inequality gap as a vigorous physical activity emotional well-being, and even
percentage of each country’s median. The second and third indicators academic achievement.vii For children
available for the measurement of and adolescents, the World Health
Self-reporting has limitations as an bottom-end inequalities in children’s Organization recommends
indicator of health status. Cultural health are based on HBSC survey 60 minutes of ‘moderate to vigorous’
differences, for example, may play a part data under the headings of ‘healthy physical exercise every dayviii
in explaining differences between each eating’ and ‘vigorous physical activity’. (a recommendation that is not widely
country’s average score (although self- followed; taking an unweighted
reporting by children has been shown Healthy eating is basic to a child’s average of the 41 countries included
to be a good predictor of adult health normal growth and development and in the HBSC study, only 12%
outcomesv). But the focus here is not to long-term health. Unhealthy of 15-year-old girls and 20% of
on averages but on the inequalities eating, by contrast, is associated with 15-year-old boys report taking an
revealed by comparing each country’s a wide range of immediate and hour of moderate to vigorous
median score with the average score long-term health problems including physical activity every dayix).
below the median. obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardio-
vascular disease.vi A key component In both cases, HBSC survey data
Again it is noticeable that the countries of healthy eating is the inclusion of have been translated into scores for
with the highest median levels of health fruit and vegetables in a child’s ‘healthy eating’ (on a scale of 0 to 14)
– the Netherlands, Austria, and Portugal daily diet. and ‘frequency of vigorous physical
Fig. 4b Health inequality: healthy eating

The 2005-2006 HBSC survey asked 11, 13 and 15-year-old students how often they ate fruit and vegetables. The answers were converted
into a ‘healthy eating’ score on a scale of 0 (no fruit or vegetable consumption) to 14 (daily consumption of both fruit and vegetables).
Average Average
Healthy eating Gap between the average below the median
median gap
Canada 10.0 6.3 3.7 36.6 Canada
Poland 8.5 5.3 3.2 37.1 Poland
France 8.5 5.3 3.2 37.8 France
Sweden 8.5 5.2 3.3 39.0 Sweden
Norway 8.5 5.1 3.4 40.3 Norway
Greece 8.5 4.9 3.6 42.5 Greece
Spain 8.0 4.3 3.7 45.8 Spain
Italy 8.5 4.6 3.9 45.9 Italy

Turkey 8.5 5.3 3.2 38.1 Turkey
main league table. Source: HBSC 2005-2006 (see page 30).
activity’ (on a scale of 0 to 11). Health: an overview closer to the top of the table if it
Following the pattern already were not for high levels of inequality
Figure 4d combines the three measures
established, Figs. 4b and 4c measure in ‘healthy eating’.
of bottom-end inequality in children’s
inequality by the gap between the
health onto a standardized common
median score of each country and the Statistics and children
scale. As the bar chart shows, the
average score for all children below This attempt at an international
Netherlands heads the table by a
the median. The bar charts again comparison of inequality in different
distance (with the lowest inequality in
show each country’s inequality gap as dimensions of children’s well-being
all three indicators). The United States,
a percentage of the national median. is a work in progress. But its clear
Italy and Hungary show the highest
levels of bottom-end inequality in overall message is that children are
For ‘healthy eating,’ the lowest level falling significantly further behind
children’s health.
of inequality is to be found in the in some countries than in others.
Netherlands, Belgium and Canada In particular, Denmark, Finland, the
Figure 4e breaks down this overall
and the highest in Iceland, Finland Netherlands, and Switzerland are
performance by showing the
and Hungary. leading the way in limiting how far
contributions of the three individual
indicators. It allows countries like behind the least advantaged children
For ‘vigorous physical activity’, the are allowed to fall.
France and Poland, for example, to see
Netherlands again has least inequality,
that their position in the bottom half
closely followed by Switzerland and Before discussing some of the
of the table is brought about by high
Norway. The highest levels of bottom- implications of these overall
levels of inequality in ‘vigorous
end inequality are to be found in findings, two other concerns
physical activity’. Ireland and Finland,
France, Italy and Spain. should be acknowledged.
on the other hand, would both be
Fig. 4c Health inequality: vigorous physical activity

The 2005-2006 HBSC survey asked 11, 13 and 15-year-old students about their exercise habits outside school hours, converting
the answers into a score for ‘frequency of vigorous physical activity’ on a scale of 0 (no vigorous physical activity) to 11 (frequent
vigorous physical activity).
Average Average
Vigorous physical activity Gap between the average below the median
median gap
Norway 7.0 5.3 1.7 24.7 Norway
Canada 8.0 5.3 2.7 33.2 Canada
Greece 7.0 4.6 2.4 33.8 Greece
Sweden 7.0 4.5 2.5 35.5 Sweden
Poland 6.0 3.5 2.5 41.0 Poland
Italy 7.0 4.1 2.9 41.9 Italy
Spain 6.0 3.5 2.5 42.0 Spain
France 7.0 3.9 3.1 43.6 France
Turkey 6.0 2.7 3.3 54.6 Turkey
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Notes: Data for Portugal are missing. ‘Other OECD countries’ are listed separately
because data limitations prevent their inclusion in the overview tables for each
dimension of child well-being. The OECD average is an unweighted average for
the 23 countries included in the main league table. Source: HBSC 2005-2006 (see page 30).
First, in measuring different Second, the perennial danger of all people, each with a name and a face,
dimensions of children’s well-being it statistics is that in offering an overview each with needs and rights, each with
is necessary to separate outcomes that they can seem very distant from the a personality and a potential, each
are rarely separated in children’s lives. realities they seek to capture. And in with a capacity to benefit from and
Multiple disadvantage is the norm – presenting these data, UNICEF’s plea contribute to the societies into which
with each dimension intimately linked is that the children themselves should they are born, and each with a keen
and often mutually reinforcing at the as far as possible be seen not as awareness of the norms of the societies
level of the individual child’s life. statistics but as individual young in which they live.
Fig. 4d Health inequality: an overview Fig. 4e Health inequality: a breakdown

Figure 4d combines the three measures of inequality in children’s Figure 4e presents the same information as Figure 4d but shows
health well-being (self-reported health complaints, healthy eating, the individual contributions of the three inequality indicators used.
and vigorous physical activity) into an overview for the 24 OECD For each indicator, the length of the bar represents each country's
countries with available data. For each country, the inequality distance above or below the OECD 24 average (again measured in
scores for the three indicators of health well-being have been standard deviations above or below that average). This allows
standardized, averaged and placed on a common scale in which countries to see individual strengths and weaknesses.
100 represents the OECD average and 10 is equal to one
standard deviation.*
Netherlands Netherlands
vigorous physical activity
Norway Norway
healthy eating
Portugal Portugal**
health complaints
Germany Germany
Switzerland Switzerland
Belgium Belgium
Ireland Ireland
Denmark Denmark
Canada Canada
Slovakia Slovakia
Austria Austria
Sweden Sweden
France France
Finland Finland
Iceland Iceland
Poland Poland
Greece Greece
Spain Spain
United States United States
Italy Italy
Hungary Hungary
85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
inequality higher than inequality close to inequality lower than inequality higher than inequality lower than
OECD-24 average OECD-24 average OECD-24 average OECD-24 average OECD-24 average
* A standard deviation is a measure of the spread of the distribution around ** Data on vigorous physical activity for Portugal are missing.
its average. Sources: See individual Figs. 4a, 4b, and 4c.
Sources: See individual Figs. 4a, 4b, and 4c. See also Fig 4e for the standardized
inequality measure used for the three individual indicators of inequality in child
well-being.
Part 2
A case has been made that national socio-economic status of the individual made to boost the performance of
averages are an insufficient guide to student. This finding strongly suggests low socio-economic status schools
national performance in meeting that pupils from lower socio-economic (for example by increasing the
children’s needs. Equity measures, backgrounds benefit from attending resources available to them and
and in particular measures of bottom schools in which a wide range of allowing them to offer extra incentives
end inequality, are also needed. (The home backgrounds are represented. to more able teachers). Second,
UNICEF global report on Progress Conversely, ‘falling behind’ is admission policies can be designed to
for Children 2010 makes a similar case significantly more likely when students avoid the concentration of pupils from
for the inclusion of equity measures from homes of low socio-economic disadvantaged backgrounds in low
in monitoring the Millennium status attend schools in which the socio-economic status schools. This
Development Goals). average socio-economic status is might be achieved, for example, by
also low.xi admitting children in ability bands
Secondly, it has been argued that without regard to socio-economic
‘falling behind’ has many mutually The reasons for this ‘school background. Policies designed to
reinforcing dimensions and can not composition effect’ are many. Schools monitor and balance the socio-
be adequately represented by any with low socio-economic profiles may economic profile of pupil intake
single indicator. Policies to prevent find themselves struggling against lower may also be important. As a 2006
children from falling behind must expectations on behalf of both staff and report commissioned by UNESCO
therefore address the different students; the ethos and disciplinary has pointed out:
dimensions of disadvantage climate may be less conducive to
individually as well as collectively. learning; pupil-teacher relations may Countries with high levels of segregation
be less positive; parental involvement along socio-economic lines tend to have
Such policies are largely a matter for and support may be weaker; and the lower overall performance and greater
national research and debate. But an task of attracting and retaining the disparities in performance between
international perspective can perhaps most able teachers may be more students from high and low socio-economic
offer some insights into this under- difficult. All of these are formidable backgrounds …
researched area. barriers to learning.
In countries with high levels of socio-
Equity in education In many OECD countries there are economic segregation, policies that aimed
For the purposes of reducing bottom- significant numbers of schools in which to reduce socio-economic segregation through
end inequality in children’s educational the average socio-economic profile is compensatory reforms would likely bring
achievement, for example, it is clear below the 20th percentile of the socio- considerable gains in raising and leveling
that school admissions policies can economic distribution for the OECD the learning bar.xiii
make a difference. as a whole.xii In such cases, the school
composition effect is enlisted against In practice, a combination of both
In all OECD countries where studies rather than in favour of those who are approaches will be necessary in
have been conducted,x the average already most at risk of educational countries with high bottom end
socio-economic level of students in underachievement. The likely result is inequality in educational outcomes
a particular school has been found an increase in bottom-end inequality. (shown in Figure 3d where the
to have an effect on educational bottom five countries are Belgium,
achievement that is over and above Two obvious approaches may counter France, Austria, Italy and Germany).
the effects associated with the this effect. First, the attempt can be
Resistance to such policies is common the United Kingdom – and what can health is not fixed. Being of low socio-
and is often based, at least in part, on be done about them – has this to say: economic status clearly carries a greater
fears that overall educational outcomes degree of risk in some countries than
might be adversely affected. But the Inequalities in heath arise because of in others. In most OECD countries,
international comparisons set out in inequalities in society – in the conditions in for example, children born to parents
Figs. 3f(i) and 3f(ii) suggest that lower which people are born, grow, live, work, and with low levels of education or into
bottom-end inequality need not imply age. So close is the link between particular homes with low socio-economic status
any lowering of standards for high- social and economic features of society and are more likely to die in the first twelve
achieving students. As the report for the distribution of health among the months of life. Yet the steepness of this
UNESCO already cited concluded: population, that the magnitude of health ‘social gradient’ in infant mortality
inequalities is a good marker of progress rates varies considerably from country
Successful schools tend to be those that towards creating a fairer society. Taking to county.xxii
bolster the performance of those from less action to reduce inequalities in health does
advantaged backgrounds. Similarly, countries not require a separate health agenda, but Some countries, therefore, are clearly
that have the highest levels of performance action across the whole of society.xvi doing a better job than others either
tend to be those that are successful in not in reducing socio-economic inequalities
only raising the learning bar but also The significance of the social gradient or in mitigating their impact on
leveling it.xiv in health has been demonstrated by children’s health and development. And
a steady flow of research findings in again it is the case that the countries
Equity in health many OECD countries over recent with the highest median levels of health
Higher than average inequality in years.xvii Taking the three indicators of – the Netherlands, Austria, and Portugal
children’s health may also need to inequality in children’s health used in – also have the lowest levels of health
be addressed by specific health sector Part 1 of this report, for example, the inequality (Figure 4a). Conversely, the
policies. Depending on context, such detailed HBSC data clearly show that countries whose children have the
policies might include: the targeting children of more affluent families take lowest average levels of self-reported
of resources and outreach programmes more regular exercise, have healthier health all tend to have higher-than-
on those most at risk; the setting of eating habits, and report fewer health average levels of health inequality.
specific disparity reduction targets problems.xviii Socio-economic status,
for key health indicators such as it is worth reminding ourselves, is The importance of income
obesity, exercise, healthy eating and neither the choice nor the Socio-economic status is therefore the
infant and child mortality rates; and responsibility of the child. indispensable framework for policy
increasing the reach and refinement of analysis of bottom-end inequality for
prevention policies designed to reduce Among other studies, particularly children. For just as inequalities in
the impact of the health behaviours striking is the finding in Canada that heath reflect not only the effect of
that contribute most to bottom-end exposure to poverty in childhood health services but also ‘the conditions
inequality in health outcomes (such as doubles the risk of death by age 55.xix in which people are born, grow, live, work,
obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, and Similarly in the United States, socio- and age’, so inequalities in educational
smoking). economic status in childhood has been outcomes at age 15, for example, reveal
shown to be a powerful predictor of not only what happens in schools
But there are also clear dangers in a cardio-vascular disease in later life.xx but also the educational resources,
sectoral approach to reducing bottom- In Europe, the 2006 report Health stimulation and encouragement that
end inequalities in children’s health. Inequalities: Europe in Profile concludes surrounds a child from the earliest
that, across the board, the poor have weeks and months of life.
It is tempting to target the bottom end shorter lives and more years of ill
of the distribution with policies aimed health. “Socio-economic inequalities in Policies designed to address specific
at specific changes in lifestyles such as health,” says the report’s author, Johan inequalities in health or education are
promoting exercise and healthy eating Mackenbach of Rotterdam University’s therefore likely to have limited impact
or reducing smoking or obesity levels. Medical Centre, “are unacceptable, and if they confine themselves to the health
But necessary as such programmes represent one of Europe’s greatest challenges and education sectors alone. The most
are,* they cannot address the fact that for public health.”xxi potent fact about children who fall
inequality in health outcomes, as in significantly behind their peers is that,
educational outcomes, is principally Yet it is clear from the data presented by and large, they are the children of
driven by socio-economic status.xv here and elsewhere that the relationship families at the bottom end of the
A 2010 review of health inequalities in between socio-economic status and socio-economic scale.
* In England, for example, smoking accounts for approximately half the difference in average life expectancy between the lowest and highest income groups.
(Michael Marmot (chair) 2010, Fair Societies, Healthy Lives, Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post 2010, p 10.)
Box 1 Child poverty: a relative measure
Most OECD countries have adopted national poverty This is not to say that the idea is new. More than 200
lines based on a percentage of the nation’s median years ago the founding father of modern economics
income. The European Union, for example, draws the argued that poverty was a relative concept:
poverty line at 60% of the median. The OECD uses
By necessaries I understand, not only the commodities
50% of the median.1
which are indispensably necessary for the support of
In some countries, the idea of relative poverty is still life, but whatever the custom of the country renders
a matter of dispute. Poverty, it is argued, should be it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest
measured by absolute rather than relative standards. order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is,
In the United States, for example, the official poverty strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. … But in the
line is based on a multiple of the income required to present times, through the greater part of Europe, a
ensure an adequate diet. creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear
in public without a linen shirt ... Custom, in the same
But it could be argued that all definitions of poverty –
manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life
other than the minimum required for sheer physical
in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex
survival – are in fact relative definitions. Absolute
would be ashamed to appear in public without them.
poverty in the not-too-distant past, for example, meant
… Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not
that life was ‘nasty, brutish and short’. Absolute poverty
only those things which nature, but those things which
in the United States today means not being able to
the established rules of decency have rendered
afford a standard of living – including standards of
necessary to the lowest rank of people.
nutrition, water supply, sanitation, health care and
transport – far in advance of the standards enjoyed by Adam Smith, “An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes
most of the world’s population for most of its history. of the Wealth of Nations”, Book 5, Chapter 2, 1776.
In this sense, even absolute definitions of poverty are

really relative definitions that eventually have to be
updated to take account of changing standards of what
is acceptable to the society as a whole. The question
then becomes whether the definition should be updated
infrequently in an ad hoc way or whether it should be
updated regularly and systematically – for example by
tying it to the national median income.
1 In discussing child poverty rates, part 2 of this report follows
In recent times, defining income poverty in relative the method recommended by the OECD, drawing the poverty line
terms has become widely established, especially in the at 50% of national median household income. Household income
European Union. In the United Kingdom, for example, is taken to mean ‘disposable household income’, i.e. after taxes
and public transfers. This is then ‘equivalized’ to take into account
The Economist magazine notes that “A decade ago, the the economies of scale available to different sizes of households
prospect of the Conservatives accepting the idea of (using the square root of household size). The poverty line is
relative poverty – rather than an absolute measure of therefore defined as ‘half of the median national disposable
equivalized income’; the child poverty rate is then calculated on
want, such as a basket of goods that every household the same basis but taking into account only households with
should be able to afford – would have been fanciful. children aged 0-17.
Nowadays, it is a reality.”2 2 ‘Still with us’, The Economist, 1 July 2010.
Action to prevent children from falling inequality in incomes will not solve Relative income poverty therefore
behind in different dimensions of well- all other problems, but it will make occupies a primus inter pares position
being must therefore eventually come their solution easier. Climbing the among the indicators of ‘falling
face to face with the question of the socio-economic ladder is more feasible behind’. But monitoring of income
socio-economic gradient. if the rungs are closer together. poverty that can exert such leverage
over the trajectories of children’s lives
Income poverty Reviewing many studies that show is not simply a matter of calculating
Socio-economic status is about more a strong and consistent association what proportion of a nation’s children
than income. A family’s past savings between relative income poverty and is growing up in households whose
and future prospects, housing and ‘falling behind’, Susan Mayer makes income falls below a given threshold.
neighbourhoods, levels of parental the point unflinchingly: The depth, duration and timing of that
education and expectation, and status poverty in relation to the different
in relation to the mainstream or Parental income is positively correlated stages of a child’s development may
established ethnic or linguistic with virtually every dimension of child also be critical. A 2007 Canadian
community – all of these enter into well-being that social scientists measure, review of research into this issue
the socio-economic equation. Yet and this is true in every country for which refines the point:
of the available measures, the most we have data. The children of rich parents
important single guide to, and are healthier, better behaved, happier and Studies that measure family income over
predictor of, a family’s socio-economic better educated during their childhood and extended periods of time and include
status remains its level of household wealthier when they have grown up than changes in income and the depth of income
income. Reducing bottom-end are children from poor families.xxiii inequality in their models and analysis
Box 2 First call: children and recession
The time lag between the gathering of data through the crisis struck.2 Migrant workers and those on short-term
sample surveys in different countries and the publishing contracts are particularly vulnerable.
of that data in internationally comparable form is
There may be worse to come. According to a report by
approximately 3 years. Most of the data in this report
the European Union Social Protection Committee “The full
therefore apply to the years 2006 to 2008.
impact of the crisis on labour markets and public finances
Normally, such a delay is no more than frustrating. has yet to be faced.”3
Socio-economic data of a kind used here tend to reflect
In other words, the snapshot of inequality in children’s
long-term trends rather than year on year changes.
well-being presented in these pages is a snapshot taken
But much has changed in the world since 2008. Economic in good times.
recession has affected millions in the OECD countries.
No overall statistics are yet available to chart the impact
The response of governments, whether by cuts in
of recession on the children of the poorest families. But a
spending or increases in taxation, is affecting many
partial glimpse may be offered by the changing demands
millions more. Across the European Union, for example,
on charities and government special assistance
unemployment is predicted to surpass the 10% mark by
programmes. The International Federation of Red Cross and
the time this report is published. This means that
Red Crescent Societies, for example, is reporting increasing
approximately 5 million more people will be unemployed
numbers of people seeking help “with the basic necessities
than before the crisis began. As joblessness is a principal
of life – including some who would never normally think of
driver of poverty, it is likely that the material well-being of
seeking help from a charitable body.”4 In the United States,
children has deteriorated in some countries since 2008.
the number of people receiving SNAP benefits (under the
In the European Union, youth unemployment, in particular, Supplementary Nutritional Assistance Program) has risen
has risen from a pre-crisis level of under 15% to more by almost a quarter since the crisis began (from 29.5 million
than 20% today.1 Many households have seen their to 36.5 million people a month in the year to August 2009).
incomes fall and are facing difficulties with debt Approximately half of all SNAP beneficiaries are children.5
repayments. In the United States, as many as half of all It is also worrying that the Eurochild report is beginning to
workers have taken a cut in pay or hours or suffered at show increases in demands on child protection services
least temporary unemployment in the two half years since in a number of European countries.6
have found that income emerges as the variable Mitigating markets The lighter bars show the relative child
most strongly associated with child development poverty rates that would theoretically
National action to prevent families
outcomes, particularly in cognitive development, prevail if household incomes were
from falling into poverty has a long
behaviour and educational attainment … determined by market forces alone. The
history in the OECD countries. All
darker bars show actual child poverty
governments, of whatever political
… the younger the child the larger the effect rates after government intervention.
complexion, use a range of tax and
on his or her development of changes in family For each OECD country, the difference
transfer policies – including child
income.xxiv between the two bars stands as a broad
benefit packages, unemployment pay,
measure of government commitment
To give one further example, the decade earned income tax credits, and and effectiveness in reducing the
of the 1990s saw sustained economic national and local services – to try proportion of children growing up
growth in the United States leading to to put a floor under poverty. below the national poverty line.
a significant reduction in the number
of American children living below the Figure 5a presents a comparative Two features stand out. First, the
poverty line. The national child poverty overview of the extent to which chart shows that without government
rate captured this achievement. But it they are succeeding. intervention all of the 21 OECD
did not capture the fact that the children countries would have child poverty
who remained below the poverty line The chart compares the child poverty rates of 10% or more (Iceland, with
fell even further behind.xxv It is therefore rates of 21 OECD countries before a rate of 9.6%, being the only
essential to ask not only ‘how many?’ and after taxes have been deducted and exception). The majority would have
but ‘how far?’. social assistance payments made. child poverty rates of between 10%
In its work with children in the developing world, UNICEF countries – and diverse government responses to it – will
has long experience of what happens to the vulnerable shed light on how the interaction between labor market
when economies turn down. Through the second half of characteristics and public policies either protect or fail to
the 1980s and the early 1990s, for example, many of the protect children from shocks to the market system.”7
world’s poorest nations entered a period of economic
adjustment which included cuts in government spending
on basic services and subsidies on which the poor were
most dependent.
Throughout that period, UNICEF urged special action to

prevent the heaviest burden from falling on those least 1 Council of the European Union (2009) ‘Second assessment by
able to bear it. the Social Protection Committee and the European Commission on
the social impact of the economic crisis and on policy responses’,
That same argument now needs to be made to some of Council of the European Union, Brussels, 24 November 2009.
the world’s richest economies. 2 The Economist, 4 July 2010.

3 Council of the European Union (2010) ‘Draft joint report on
In hard times, the poorest children should be the first Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2010’ Council of the European
to be protected, not the last to be considered. A child Union, Brussels, 15 February 2010.
has only one chance to develop normally in mind and 4 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
(2009) The Economic Crisis and its Humanitarian Impact on Europe,
body. And it is a primary responsibility of governments International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
to protect that chance – in good times and in bad. Geneva.
5 Isaacs, J. B. (2009) The Effects of the Recession on Child Poverty:
In practice, this means that protecting children during the Poverty statistics for 2008 and growth in need for 2009, First Focus,
critical early years of their growth should be given a ‘first Brookings Institution, Washington D. C.
call’ on societies’ resources. 6 Eurochild (2009) ‘Impact of Economic and Financial Crisis on
Children and Young People’, Eurochild Report, update 9 October 2009.
The economic crisis of 2008 and its continuing aftermath 7 Gornick, J. C., and M. Jäntti (2010) ’Child Poverty in Upper-Income
will test government commitments to this principle of ‘first Countries: Lessons from the Luxembourg Income Study’ in S.
call’. As Janet Gornick and Markus Jäntti have written, Kamerman, S. Phipps and A. Ben-Arieh (eds.) From Child Welfare
to Child Well-Being: An international perspective on knowledge in
“The current recession, which is affecting all industrialized the service of policy making, Springer, New York.
and 15%, and three countries – ‘pre-intervention’ child poverty, Nonetheless, the chart reveals an
Hungary, Ireland and the United such as Ireland and Hungary, reduce important truth about the causes of
Kingdom – would have rates of more child poverty rates by approximately child poverty and its possible solutions:
than 25%. No comparable data are two thirds. differences in child poverty rates
available for the United States. between developed countries are a
Figure 5a is theoretical in that it does product not only of differences in
Second, the chart shows that, while not allow for the changes in work government benefits and social
efforts by all governments achieve and income patterns that would likely protection policies but of very
substantial reductions in child poverty, occur in the absence of government significant differences in the
some are achieving much more than benefits. Neither does it reflect distribution of earned incomes.
others. Government action in the government interventions designed
Nordic countries and the Netherlands, to affect incomes from employment – This strongly indicates that policies
for example, reduces child poverty by such as minimum wage and equal pay aimed at limiting poverty in all its forms
about half or more. Several countries legislation or subsidized employment must also confront the changes in the
with very high levels of creation and training schemes. wider world that are tending to bring
about widening economic inequality in
a large majority of OECD countries.xxvi
Fig. 5a Markets, governments, and child poverty rates
Forces of change
Figure 5a compares the child poverty rates of 21 OECD countries before and after taxes
and benefits. The lighter bars show the notional child poverty rates if household incomes In brief, the increase in inequality
were determined by market forces alone. The darker bars show actual child poverty rates over recent decades has been driven by
after governments have intervened via taxes and benefits.
three main forces. The first is long-term
social and demographic change (for
child poverty rate after taxes and child poverty before taxes
transfers (disposable income) and transfers example the aging of populations or
5.2
the rise in the number of single adult
Finland
15.2 households). The second is the
5.4
Netherlands changing distribution of income and
10.7
5.7 employment opportunities brought
Sweden
12.0 about by technological innovation, by
5.8
Norway the globalization of markets, by the
12.1
5.8 migration of manufacturing to countries
Denmark
10.7
6.7 with rising skills and low labour costs,
Iceland
9.6 and the increasing premium on
6.8
17.9
France high-end abilities and qualifications
7.2
Austria (so pushing up incomes at the top of
17.6
8.8 the distribution). The third force is the
Czech Republic
16.4 range of government policies and
10.0
28.3
Hungary expenditures, including child benefit
10.0
Belgium
packages that are specifically designed
16.9
10.6
to protect those at risk of disadvantage.
Switzerland
14.1
10.7
17.9
Slovakia These are the shifting tectonic plates
10.7 beneath that underlie the landscape of
Germany
18.6
child well-being; and it is the complex
11.0
Luxembourg interplay between them that ultimately
19.9
11.0 determines how many children fall
Ireland
34.0
13.5 behind and by how far.
Poland
19.6
14.6
26.4
United Kingdom In this context, it becomes clear that
15.5
Italy the slow but steady rise of bottom-end
16.6
17.2 inequality in most OECD countries
Spain
18.5 over the last three decades has not been
18.7
21.2
Portugal brought about by governments doing
less or spending less. Most governments
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
are today spending a larger proportion
Child poverty rate (% of children living in poor households)
of GDP* on family benefits and social
Note: For the methodology used for the calculation of the poverty rates see Box 1.
protection than they were two decades
Sources: Data on income are from EU-SILC 2008 and refer to 2007. Data for France are from the EU-SILC 2007
survey and refer to 2006. Data for Switzerland are from the 2007 Swiss Household Panel and refer to 2006. ago (up by about a third, on average, in
the 21 OECD countries for which employment no longer guarantees a far behind or not depends, in the first
comparable data are available). xxvii life lived above the poverty line. instance, on whether that child is part
This suggests that child poverty rates of a well-functioning family with an
have risen, or failed to fall, because In many countries, this concern is adequate income from employment.
increasing government efforts have directing attention to the question of
been rowing upstream against powerful the minimum wage. In Australia, for But putting government efforts in
currents in the wider economy. example, an independent report to the this wider context does not mean
Fair Pay Commission proposes that that those efforts are not a critical
In most cases, those efforts have not “an increase to the minimum wage is one determinant of how many children fall
been sufficient in scope and scale to method of increasing family income and behind and by how far. “If governments
prevent child poverty rates from reducing child poverty.”xxx Similarly, a stop trying to offset the inequalities by
growing. Even in periods of sustained 2007 study in Japan also proposes that either spending less on social protection or
economic growth such as the 1990s, “to improve the economic well-being of by making taxes and benefits less targeted
the benefits have tended to accrue households with young children the first to the poor,” says the 2008 OECD
to the already advantaged, leaving task is to ensure a minimum wage that report cited above, “then the growth in
those at the bottom end of the socio- maintains a reasonable living standard.”xxxi inequality would be much more rapid.”xxxiv
economic scale even further behind. In the United Kingdom, the 2010
The 2008 report Growing Up in North report of the National Equity Panel An overview of the impact of
America, for example, tells a story that argues that “the minimum wage is a government efforts has already been
has been repeated in one degree or powerful tool in reducing labour market set out (Figure 5a). Across the OECD
another in many of the world’s inequality.” xxxii Most forcefully of all, as a whole, the effect of those efforts
developed economies. a report by the U.S. National Research is to reduce child poverty rates by more
Council on Integrating the Science of than 40% (unweighted average).**
Inequality of market and disposable income Early Childhood Development makes the
has been increasing in Canada, Mexico, following recommendation: Figure 5b shows that effect in absolute
and the United States since the 1980s. terms for four of the most populous
In particular, markets have disproportionately Congress should assess the nation’s tax, countries of the European Union.
benefited families at the top of the income wage, and income support policies with More than a million children are being
ladder – though families in every income regard to their adequacy in ensuring that no lifted above the national poverty line
group have been working longer and harder. child supported by the equivalent of a full- in France, Germany and the United
The scale of government intervention via time working adult lives in poverty …xxxiii Kingdom while Italy is making much
public income transfers was not enough to less of an impact. In percentage terms,
offset the growing gap in market incomes.xxviii Social protection France cuts child poverty by more
The previous section has stressed an than 60%, Germany and the United
Not by benefits alone obvious truth that is easy to lose sight Kingdom by more than 40%, and Italy
of: whether a child falls unnecessarily by less than 7%.
Government policies to restrain
bottom-end inequality are therefore
unlikely to be successful if they are
limited to social protection Fig. 5b Child poverty and public spending on families
expenditures alone. “The only sustainable The chart shows the absolute number of children living below national poverty lines
way to reduce inequality,” says the OECD before and after government intervention via taxes and benefits.
report Growing Unequal (2008), “is to before government intervention after government intervention
stop the underlying widening of wages and
3500
income from capital. In particular, we have to
Number of poor children (in thousands)
make sure that people are capable of being in 3000

employment and earning wages that keep
2500
them and their families out of poverty.”xxix
2000
In particular, reducing bottom-end
1500
inequality in all its dimensions will
depend on getting to grips with one of 1000
the most disturbing aspects of changed
economic times – the fact that full-time 500
0
* Even in OECD countries where social expenditure France Germany Italy United Kingdom
has stagnated, falling child populations mean that
expenditure per child may have continued to increase. Sources: Elaboration of data on income poverty derived from EU-SILC 2008 (referring to 2007) for Germany, Italy
** Unweighted average for the 21 OECD countries and United Kingdom, and from EU-SILC 2007 (referring to 2006) and data on child population derived from the
with available data. United Nations Population Division.
Box 3 The just society: a measure
The statistics presented in this Report Card can also be achieved even from ‘the original position’ and that
be read as a first attempt to measure nations by the lack of unanimity would bring the Rawlsian thesis
standards of a ‘just society’ as defined by the American crashing down. Uniting some of these criticisms,
political philosopher John Rawls (1921 – 2002). Michael Sandel has objected that decisions about the
rules governing communities that have their own
Rawls proposed that the just society would be one in
traditions and histories cannot be made by reasoning
which the rules were drawn up for the benefit of society
from a rootless and historically abstract position.
as a whole. To achieve this, he argued, the starting point
should be ‘the original position’. By this he meant a kind But the idea that the rules of society should reflect
of celestial ante-room in which all those waiting to be the interests of all, and not just its dominant members,
born would draw up the rules without knowing what is widely accepted in theory, even if the methods by
position in society they themselves would occupy. which it might be achieved remain controversial.
From behind this ‘veil of ignorance’, the rule-makers
If we assume that the end, if not the means,
would not know whether they would be born rich or
commands a measure of agreement, then one way of
poor, male or female, with above or below average
measuring progress towards the aim of a just society
talents, fit or disabled, part of an ethnic minority or part
would be to measure the degree of disadvantage
of a privileged elite.
suffered by its most disadvantaged members. That is
Because we would not know about our own status, what this Report Card attempts to do.
he argued, we would not be able to press for rules that
Clearly, more comprehensive data would be required
would benefit only ourselves. Rules drawn up on this
to measure degrees of disadvantage ‘in the round’,
basis, therefore, would reflect an equal concern for all
especially if, as Amartya Sen suggests, disadvantage
classes and groups.
should be defined as “those who are least able to
The ‘veil of ignorance’ is therefore designed to tame realise their potential and develop and exercise their
the power of vested interests. And ‘the original position’ capabilities.”
is the exact opposite of the interest group model that is
Nonetheless, the data presented in these pages
so influential in today’s politics. In essence, it is similar
represent a contribution to that process. In three
to the method of sharing a cake fairly between two
different dimensions of well-being – material goods,
people by inviting one person to make the cut and the
educational level, and health – they show how far
other to take first choice.
behind the median level the least advantaged are
Rawls has his critics among the hundreds who have being allowed to fall. And the fact that different
written books in response to his ideas. Libertarians countries show very different patterns indicates that
have objected that basic human rights such as property some countries are making more progress than others
rights and the right to self-ownership leave no room for towards ‘the just society’.
a Rawlsian concept of the ‘just society’. Ronald Dworkin
has argued that hypothetical agreements about rules
drawn up from ‘the original position’ are not real
agreements and therefore could not find the necessary
acceptance and authority. Amartya Sen finds the same
weakness, adding that unanimity would be unlikely to
As further evidence for the importance from the starting or ‘market’ rate of ‘market’ rate of child poverty. Figure 6a
of government policies and child poverty (see Figure 5a). As the should therefore be read in conjunction
expenditures, Figure 6a compares the trend line shows, there is a significant with Figure 6b which compares overall
level of public spending on family correlation between the two. government spending on protecting
benefits (in cash and tax allowances) families (including cash benefits, tax
with the reduction in child poverty This comparison obviously favours allowances, and spending on services for
rates achieved (in percentage points countries with a high starting or families) with overall child poverty rates.
Fig. 6a Reduction in child poverty rates by government family spending in cash benefits and tax allowances
The scatter plot compares the percentage point reduction in child poverty rates achieved by each country with the amount of
public spending on family benefits in cash and tax breaks directed towards families (as a % of GDP).
The percentage point reduction in child poverty rates is calculated by subtracting the actual rate (after all taxes and transfers)
from the starting or ‘market’ poverty rate that would theoretically prevail in the absence of government spending on families.
This measure of poverty reduction clearly favours countries with a high starting or market rate of child poverty. The chart should therefore
be read in conjunction with Figure 6b, comparing government spending on families with the overall level of child poverty; this shows that
achieving a low child poverty rate of close to 5% depends on both a low ‘market rate’ of child poverty in conjunction with a high level of
government effort and expenditure to reduce that rate still further.
Size of the reduction in child poverty rates due to taxes and
25
transfers (percentage points of poverty reduction)
20
15
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Public spending on family benefits in cash and tax breaks (as % of GDP)
Notes: Public spending data include only spending on family benefits and tax breaks. Differently from those presented in Figure 6a, they do not include expenditure
on family services. Trend line obtained by linear regression. For country abbreviations see page 33.
Sources: Data for public spending are for 2007 (preliminary data from the OECD Family Database). For data on poverty see sources in Figure 2a.
Fig. 6b Child poverty rates and public spending on families

The scatter plot compares each country’s child poverty rate with the % of GDP spent by governments on family cash benefits,
tax allowances, and family services (see note).
Child poverty rate (% of children living in poor households)
20
15
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Public spending on family (as % of GDP)
Notes: Public spending data include only public support that is exclusively for families (e.g. child payments and allowances, parental leave benefits and childcare support).
Spending in other social policy areas such as health and housing also assists families, but not exclusively, and is therefore not included here. Blue vertical and horizontal lines
indicate unweighted OECD average (24 countries). Trend line obtained by linear regression. For country abbreviations see page 33.
Sources: Data for public spending are for 2007 (preliminary data from the OECD Family Database). For data on poverty see sources in Figure 2a.
In sum, the message is that the OECD  low birthweight inequality prepares a bill which is
countries that are achieving the lowest  parental stress and lack of quickly presented to taxpayers in the
child poverty rates, at around 5% to 6%, parental time (Box 5) form of increased strain on health
are the countries that start from a  chronic stress for the child, and hospital services, on remedial
position of low ‘market’ poverty and possibly linked to long-term schooling, on welfare and social
then cut this rate by approximately 50% health problems and reduced protection programmes, and on the
through government intervention to memory capacityxxxvi police and the courts. In addition, there
protect those still at risk.  food insecurity and inadequate is a significant cost to business and to
nutrition economies as a whole in the lower skill
The national and international economic  poorer health outcomes, including levels and reduced productivity that are
forces that tend to generate widening obesity, diabetes, chronic asthma, the inevitable result of a large number
gaps are still with us (though there is anaemia, and cardio-vascular disease of children failing to develop to their
some evidence that inequality rose  more frequent visits to hospitals potential. Finally, there is a cost that
more quickly in the decade from 1985 and emergency wards must be paid by all in the threat that
to 1995 than in the decade from 1995  impaired cognitive development bottom-end inequality poses to social
to 2005xxxv). Reducing bottom-end  lower educational achievement cohesion and the quality of life in
inequality – to the extent that it involves  lower rates of return on advanced industrial economies. “Wide
reducing the steepness of the socio- investments in education inequality,” says the 2010 report of the
economic gradient in health, education  reduced linguistic ability United Kingdom’s National Equity
and other dimensions of child well-  lower skills and aspirations Panel “is eroding the bonds of common
being – will therefore require renewed  lower productivity and adult citizenship and recognition of human
government efforts to ‘row upstream’ earnings dignity across economic divides.”xxxvii
in the years immediately ahead.  unemployment and welfare
dependence The scale of such costs, though almost
Stepping up efforts to protect those most  behavioural difficulties impossible to calculate, is clearly
at risk from falling behind is even more  involvement with the police significant. For the European Union
necessary at a time when governments and courts as a whole, it has been estimated
are seeking to cut public expenditure  teenage pregnancy (2007) that health inequalities alone
(Box 2). But it is also more difficult.  alcohol and drug dependence. account for 15% of social security
And if efforts to prevent children from costs and 20% of health care costs.xxxviii
falling avoidably behind the norms of Many individual families – faced with In Canada, the overall cost of child
their societies are to be reinvigorated in disadvantages of income, education, poverty has been estimated (2008) at
changed economic times, then a strong health and housing – overcome the between $4.6 and $5.9 billion a year
case must be made. odds and bring up children who do for the Province of Ontario alone.xxxix
not fall into any of the above In the United Kingdom, estimates by
Risks and consequences categories. But this cannot change Donald Hirsch, in a report (2006) for
That case is strong in principle. For the fact that children who fall behind the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, put
a child to suffer avoidable setbacks in early in their lives, or who spend a the direct costs of “services to remedy the
the vital, vulnerable years of growth in significant part of their early years in consequences of childhood deprivation such
body and brain is a breach of the most poverty, are likely to find themselves at as poor health, low educational attainment,
basic tenet of the Convention on the a marked and measurable disadvantage. crime and anti-social behaviour” at
Rights of the Child – that every child It bears repeating that none of this is approximately $18 billion a year.xl
has a right to develop to his or her the fault of the child. And a society
full potential. It is also a clear that aspires to fairness cannot be In sum, the costs of allowing children
contradiction of the principle of unconcerned that accidents of birth to fall too far behind – costs to the
equality of opportunity to which all should so heavily circumscribe the principle of fairness and costs to
OECD countries aspire. opportunities of life. social, civic and economic life – are
enormous. And it is against the full
But the case is also strong in practice. The costs weight of these costs and consequences
Allowing children to fall unnecessarily The practical case for a renewed effort that the economic arguments for and
far behind brings in its wake a long list to prevent children from unnecessarily against a renewed effort to protect
of practical costs and consequences. falling behind is further strengthened those most at risk should be set.
Causality is always difficult to establish, by the economic penalties involved.
but many hundreds of studies in many The heaviest costs are paid by the Early intervention
different OECD countries have shown individual child. But the long list of Finally, if the effort to reduce bottom-
what the costs of falling too far behind problems cited above also translates end inequality in children’s well-being
may be. They include the greater into significant costs for society as a is to make further progress, then it is
likelihood of: whole. Unnecessary bottom-end not just the level of government efforts
that must be increased but their disadvantage in the early phases of life summarized by the Nobel laureate
effectiveness. can begin to shape the neurobiology and University of Chicago economist
of the developing child and initiate James Heckman:
Cost-effectiveness in policy is again a process that, once begun, has a
largely a matter for national analysis tendency to become self-reinforcing. Investing in disadvantaged young children
and debate. But there is one lesson to is a rare public policy initiative that
emerge from OECD-wide experience In particular, it is in cognitive promotes fairness and social justice and at
that no country can afford to ignore. development that the disadvantaged the same time promotes productivity in the
child is likely to pay the heaviest price. economy and in society at large. Early
Children who fall behind begin to By the age of two, cognitive ‘falling interventions targeted toward disadvantaged
do so in the very earliest stages of their behind’ can be measured. By the age children have much higher returns than
lives. And in that simple statement we of four, much of the potential damage later interventions such as reduced pupil-
come face to face with one of the may have been done.xli, xlii, xliii teacher ratios, public job training, convict
most important and least-acted-on rehabilitation programs, tuition subsidies,
research findings of our times. The central practical message for or expenditure on police ...xliv
efforts to reduce bottom-end
During pregnancy and the first few inequality in child well-being could Child care
weeks and months of life, critical stages therefore not be clearer: the earlier the Within the developed world, trends
in the child’s mental and physical intervention, the greater the leverage. in the way in which young children
development follow each other in are being brought up may now offer
rapid succession. Each stage serves as a Overall, the case both in principle and a unique opportunity to put this
foundation for the next. Any faltering practice for intensifying the effort to message into practice. Today’s
in early childhood therefore puts at prevent children from falling behind – generation of children is becoming the
risk subsequent stages of growth and and for acting as early as possible in first in which a majority are spending
development. In other words, the child’s life – has been well a significant part of early childhood in
some form of out-of-home care (the
subject of Report Card 8 xlv). In theory,
this offers a large scale opportunity to
take early action against the different
Box 4 Monitoring: the need to know dimensions of disadvantage that
threaten to become established in the
lives of very young children. Public
demand for high-quality child care
already exists, and OECD governments
are already responding by investing in
free or subsidized early childhood
The statistics presented in this report are not built on a comprehensive services on an increasing scale.
consideration of what constitutes child well-being but on the more
mundane foundations of data availability. In particular, an acknowledged At the heart of this opportunity is the
weakness is that almost all of the available data concern older children idea that high quality early childhood
and adolescents who are attending school; there is a glaring lack of education and care can help to reduce
comparable information on the critical years of early childhood. bottom-end inequality because it is the
disadvantaged child who stands to gain
Responding to this inadequacy of data may not seem to have much of
a claim to priority in difficult economic circumstances. But a renewed
the most. “Although early childhood
commitment to reducing bottom-end inequalities in child well-being will education and care benefits all children”,
nonetheless require a renewed commitment to selective monitoring. concludes an OECD-wide child care
review by Canadian researchers
If limited resources are to be used effectively, then governments need Cleveland and Krashinsky, “much of the
to know not only how many children are falling behind. They need to
evidence suggests that the largest benefits
know by how much, in what ways, and for what reasons. They need to
flow to children from the most
know who and where they are. And they need to know how policy is
disadvantaged families …”xlvi
affecting and interacting with wider trends in the social and economic
life of the nation.
In practice, there is a danger that the
Finally, they need to have the relevant data at their disposal not once child care transition will contribute to
every five or ten years but on a timescale that permits timely response a widening rather than a narrowing
to protect those at risk. Monitoring requires resources. But it is the of bottom-end inequality. It is more
indispensable hand rail of cost-effective policy. educated parents and higher-income
homes that tend to be most aware of,
and more capable of affording, child argued, attempting to compensate for dimensions of children’s well-being
care of the right quality. And it is the disadvantage after the event is more (using the best performing countries as
poorer and less educated homes where difficult, more costly, and less likely a minimum standard for what can be
the pressures for the earliest possible to be successful. Children need to be achieved). In drawing attention to the
return to work are felt most acutely supported and protected from depth of disparities revealed, and in
and where resources for high quality avoidable ‘falling behind’ at all stages summarizing what is known about the
child care are least likely to be of their development, but the point consequences, it has argued that ‘falling
available. Without specific policies to of greatest leverage is the point at behind’ is a critical issue not only for
address this issue – and to ensure the which the process begins. millions of individual children today
availability and affordability of high- but for the economic and social future
quality early childhood services for all Conclusion of their nations tomorrow.
children – this opportunity will This report began with the argument
therefore be lost; ‘double disadvantage’ that children deserve the best possible In making this case, therefore, principle
will become the norm, and the child start, that early experience can cast a and practice argue as one. For if the
care transition will likely become a long shadow, and that children are effort to prevent the unnecessary
new and powerful driver of still greater not to be held responsible for the falling behind of children in the
inequality in children’s well-being. circumstances into which they are different dimensions of their lives is
born. In this sense the metric used – not made, then a fundamental
The costs of taking advantage of this the degree of bottom-end inequality unfairness will continue to shame our
chance to reduce inequalities in in child well-being – is a measure of pretensions to equality of opportunity
children’s well-being on a significant the progress being made towards a – and our societies will continue to
scale are obviously substantial. The fairer society. pay the price. 
costs of not taking the opportunity
will undoubtedly be even higher. Bringing in data from the majority
No one who has worked with of OECD countries, the report has
disadvantaged or at-risk children attempted to show which of them are
can be in any doubt that, as James allowing children to fall behind by
Heckman and many others have more than is necessary in three
Box 5 Poor: in parental time
Inequality in household incomes or educational poor households and contributes to the complex
achievement is relatively easy to measure compared process by which inequality begets inequality.
to inequality in other important dimensions of child
If all families are included, rather than just low-income
well-being – such as poverty of opportunity and
families, then American parents spend more time with
expectation, or of adult support and encouragement.
their children than parents in most other countries for
One of the most critical of these unmeasured which data are available. The OECD report Doing
dimensions is parental time. Better for Children draws on data from 15 developed
countries to show that – across the board – parents in
Clearly, the quantity and quality of the time that
the United States and Norway spend the most time
parents spend interacting with their children will be
with their children (and parents in France the least).
affected by many factors in addition to parents’
individual characteristics. One of those factors is Some data are also available to show how investment
household income. of time in parenting is divided between men and
women. Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, and the
It might be assumed that higher-income parents work
United States have the most equal division of
longer hours and have less time for child care. And it is
parenting time, Austria and France the least.3
true that some low income jobs, and most obviously
part time jobs, leave parents with more non-income- Single-mother households are particularly vulnerable
earning time. But the majority of low-income parents to the income-time crunch. But here too there are
are in full-time employment, and there is no evidence inequalities between countries. Single mothers in the
to suggest that they work fewer hours. United States and Canada, for example, are more
short of time than single-mothers in Sweden or the
Nor should it be overlooked that higher income families
United Kingdom.4
can more easily afford to pay others to do regular,
time-consuming non-earning jobs – for example Investments made by the state clearly change the
cleaning, cooking (including eating out), washing, context of this question. A country that invests in
ironing, shopping, car cleaning, gardening, and high-quality pre-school care, for example, may reduce
household maintenance. parent-child time without necessarily undermining the
process of interaction and stimulation necessary for a
‘Poverty of parental time’ may be particularly acute
child‘s development. And concerns that government
in the United States. According to a 2010 study,1 low-
services may crowd out parental time do not appear
income American parents work longer hours than
to be supported by the available evidence. Parents in
their equivalents in six other OECD countries studied –
Norway, which invests heavily in pre-school education
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Spain, and the
and out-of-school care, spend a similar amount of time
United Kingdom. The study also shows that an
with their children as parents in the United States,
American mother or father at the bottom of the income
where government investment is considerably less.5
distribution scale will, on average, not only work longer
hours but also have a lower relative standard of living
than parents in the equivalent income position in the
other six countries. This is especially true for
households headed by single mothers.
1 Burtless, G., J. Gornick, P. Fraser and T. M. Smeeding (2010),
The amount of parental time available for child care ‘Income Distribution, Weekly Hours of Work, and Time for Child
Rearing: The US experience in a cross-national context’,
therefore appears to be more limited in low-income
Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper 489 (revised version),
American families. And the further one goes down Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg.
the income scale, the more acute the problem 2 Burtless, G., J. Gornick, P. Fraser and T. M. Smeeding (2010)
becomes. “The gap in parental time availability between op. cit.
United States on the one hand, and Canada and our 3 OECD (2009), Doing Better for Children, OECD, Paris
European country studies, on the other,” says the study, 4 Burton, P., and S. Phipps (2009), ‘Families, Time and Money in
Canada, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United
“is particularly large in the case of children in the lower
States’, Luxembourg Income Study, Working Paper 523,
parts of the income distribution.” 2 Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg.
5 Guryan, J., E. Hurst and M. Schettini Kearney (2008), ‘Parental
In this way, lack of parental time adds to and interacts
Education and Parental Time with Children’, NBER Working Paper
with the long list of disadvantages facing children in No. 13993, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Data for Report Card 9: the surveys
Three main survey sources have been drawn upon

for Report Card 9.
OECD Programme for International Student Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC)
Assessment (PISA)
Data from HBSC are used for the analysis of inequality
The 2006 PISA administered reading, maths and science in children’s health.
tests to representative samples of between 4,500 and
10,000 15-year-old students in each of 57 countries HBSC is a collaborative undertaking by researchers
including all of the countries featured in Report Card 9. and academic institutions linked to the World Health
The tests attempt to assess how well “education Organization. Its participants form a network of
systems are preparing their students to become life-long multidisciplinary researchers collaborating to develop
learners and to play constructive roles as citizens in the conceptual underpinnings of the study, identify
society.” The tests are compiled by an international research questions and compile the four-yearly survey,
expert group (including employers). Basic information is and work on analysis and dissemination.
also collected on study practices, family resources and The 2005/2006 HBSC survey questioned a
structures, and school environments. representative sample of approximately 1,500 students
In Report Card 9, data from PISA are used for the at each of three ages (11, 13 and 15) in a total of 41
analysis of inequality in reading, mathematics and countries. The study aims to increase understanding
science literacy scores and in home access to of young people‘s health behaviours and well-being
educational resources. during the key developmental stage of adolescence.
PISA results may not apply to the total population of the HBSC data is available for all 24 countries in the
relevant age group in Chile, Luxembourg, Portugal and ranking tables used in Report Card 9. This includes all
Turkey where school enrollment rates for 15 and 16 European OECD members plus the United States,
year-olds are below 90%. The survey does not include Canada and Turkey.
children who, for whatever reason, are not in school. Data on ‘vigorous physical activity’ were not available
Because of errors in implementing the 2006 PISA for Portugal.
survey, no data on ‘reading literacy’ are available for Detailed information on HBSC can be found at:
the United States. www.hbsc.org and in Currie C. et al (2008) ‘Inequalities
More detailed information on the OECD 2006 PISA in Young People’s Health: HBSC International Report
survey can be found at: www.oecd.org/pisa and in from the 2005/2006 Survey’, Health Policy for Children
OECD (2007) PISA 2006: Science Competencies for and Adolescents, No. 5, WHO Europe and Child and
Tomorrow’s World, OECD, Paris. Adolescent Health Research Unit, Edinburgh.
European Union – Statistics on Income and Living Supplementary Sources

Conditions (EU-SILC). Income and living space data for other OECD countries
Data from EU-SILC are used for the analysis of household have been drawn from:
income and children’s living space. Analysis focuses on
Australia
households with children under the age of 18.
Household Income and Living Dynamics in Australia
EU-SILC surveys are conducted annually and cover a (HILDA), 2008.
representative sample of the entire population in 22 of the
Canada
countries included in Report Card 9. The primary purpose
of the surveys is to monitor the indicators (the so-called For income: Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics
Laeken Indicators) by which the EU has agreed to measure (SLID), 2005. This survey is nationally representative
its progress towards reducing social exclusion. They with the exception of residents in the Yukon, the
include data on income and a limited set of non-monetary Northwest Territories and Nunavut, as well as residents
indicators of well-being. In most cases, data on income of institutions and persons living on Indian reserves.
refer to the calendar year preceding the survey. (These exclusions amount to less than 3 per cent of
Canada’s population).
For all the European Union OECD members, plus Iceland
and Norway, Report Card 9 uses EU-SILC data for 2008 For housing living space: Survey of Household Spending
(income data refer to 2007), except data for France which (SHS), 2006. (The 2006 survey did not include data from
are from the 2007 survey (income data refer to 2006). the Northwest Territories).
Chile
National Socio-economic Characterization Survey
(CASEN), 2006.
Republic of Korea
For income: Korean Labour and Income Panel Study
(KLIPS), 2007. The sample is representative only of
Korean households in urban areas (excluding Jeju Island).
Mexico
National Survey of Household Incomes and Expenditures
(ENIGH), 2008.
Switzerland
Swiss Household Panel (SHP), 2007.
United States
For housing living space: Panel Study on Income
Dynamics (PSID), 2007.
A methodological note
Innocenti Report Card 9 focuses on inequality at the The inequality measures

bottom-end of the distribution in different child well-being Inequality at the bottom-end of the distribution is
indicators. assessed using two different measures according to
Country inclusion in the report the nature of the indicator. In all cases, the inequality
is measured in relation to the median (representing the
The criterion for the inclusion of countries is OECD
minimum value recorded by the better performing half
membership in March 2010. Of the 31 OECD member
of the child population).
countries at that date, only 24 had sufficient data to be
included in the final comparison (Figs. 1a and 1b). The For disposable income and for education achievements,
criterion for inclusion was the availability of suitable and inequality is measured by the gap between the child at
comparable data for at least 2 out of the 3 indicators used the median position and the child at the 10th percentile
to measure inequality in each dimension of child well-being. (representing an income or performance lower than
Indicators and dimensions 90% of children).
The report assesses how far the most disadvantaged The limited variability of the survey values for the
children are allowed to fall below national norms in each other five indicators means that the bottom-end of
individual country (represented by the median value). the distribution cannot be adequately represented by
the score of the 10th percentile. In this case, inequality
Only indicators which return a range of values are suitable
has been measured by the gap between the median
for this kind of analysis. Nine such indicators have been
position and the average for all children below
identified as also having available and comparable data for
the median.
a large majority of the OECD countries.
In both cases, the gap measures relative inequality
The selected indicators are:
and is expressed as a percentage of the median.
Material well-being
Between-country comparisons
 disposable household income
In Figs. 2a-2c, 3a-3c and 4a-4c, countries are ranked in
 possession of educational items
order of progress towards greater bottom-end equality
 housing living space (i.e. the countries at the top of the table have the
Educational well-being smallest inequality gaps).
 reading literacy Given the nature of the data, especially when derived
 maths literacy from sample surveys, small differences between
countries in inequality results may be not statistically
 science literacy
significant. Country rankings (both for single indicators
Health well-being and for aggregated overviews) should be read with this
 self-reported health complaints limitation in mind.
 healthy eating More detailed statistics, including the confidence

 vigorous physical activity. interval of the results, are available in the background
paper to Report Card 9 by Currie, C., D. Currie, L.
Data for disposable income, and for housing living
Menchini, D. Richardson and C. Roberts (2010).
space, refer to children aged 0-17.
The OECD average reported in the Figures refer to
Data for educational possessions, and for all three
only the countries with enough data to be included in
indicators of educational well-being, refer to
the overall comparison (Figs. 1a and 1b). In all cases,
15 year-old students.
the average is unweighted (i.e. it does not take into
Data for the three indicators included under ‘health account the size of the relevant child population in
well-being’ refer to students aged 11, 13 and 15. each country).
Country abbreviations
Comparison by dimension Australia AU

To aggregate the indicators used into an overview of
Austria AT
bottom-end inequality in each dimension of child well-
being, the inequality gaps for each indicator have been Belgium BE
standardized with reference to the OECD unweighted
Canada CA
average and variability between countries. In each case,
the degree of inequality is then expressed as the number Chile CL
of standard deviations from the OECD unweighted
Czech Republic CZ
average. The standard deviation is a commonly-used
measure of how spread out the items being measured are Denmark DK
in relation to the average for the group as a whole. These
standardized inequality results for the different indicators Finland FI
are reported in Figures 2f, 3f and 4f. In these charts the France FR
length of the bar to the right of the vertical (representing
the unweighted OECD average) implies a positive value Germany DE
(i.e. lower bottom-end inequality compared to the OECD Greece GR
average). To the left of the vertical, the length of the bar is
associated with a negative value (i.e. higher bottom-end Hungary HU
inequality compared to the OECD average).
Iceland IS
To obtain the overview of inequality, for all three
Ireland IE
dimensions of well-being, the standardized inequality
results for each indicator have been averaged. It is this Italy IT
average that is shown in Figures 2d, 3d and 4d, with
Japan JP
countries ranked in order of decreasing equality. To
facilitate the reading of these summary charts, the Korea KR
standardized inequality data have been rescaled to set the
Luxembourg LU
OECD average at 100 and one standard deviation at 10.
The overall league tables of inequality in child well-being Mexico MX

(Figs. 1a and 1b) are derived from these dimension level Netherlands NL
results. A dimension score of between 95 and 105 (i.e.
between –0.5 standard deviation and +0.5 standard New Zealand NZ
deviation around the OECD average) qualifies as ‘close Norway NO
to the OECD average’. Countries with dimension scores
lower than 95 are regarded as having significantly greater Poland PL
inequality than the OECD average. Those with a dimension Portugal PT
score higher than 105 are classified as having significantly
less inequality than the OECD average. Slovakia SK
In all bar charts and rankings the countries at the top are Spain ES
those with less bottom-end inequality.
Sweden SE
Switzerland CH
Turkey TR
United Kingdom UK
United States US
R E F E R E N C E S
i xii xxiv
OECD (2008) Growing Unequal? Income Douglas Willms, J. (2006) op. cit., p. 68. Smythe, S. (2007) ‘Child and Youth
distribution and poverty in OECD Development and Income Inequality: A
xiii
countries, OECD, Paris. Douglas Willms, J. (2006) op. cit., p. 68. review of selected literature’, First Call,
British Columbia Child and Youth Advocacy
ii xiv
Wilkinson, R. and K. Pickett (2009) The Douglas Willms, J., (2006) op. cit., p. 67. Coalition (funded by the Government of
Spirit Level, Allen Lane, Penguin Books, Canada Social Development Partnerships
xv
London, p. 33. World Health Organization (2008), Program), Vancouver.
Closing the Gap in One Generation, WHO,
iii xxv
OECD (2009) Doing Better for Children, Geneva. Scott, K. (principal author) (2008)
OECD, Paris. Growing Up in North America: The
xvi
Marmot, M. (chair) (2010), Fair Societies, economic well-being of children in
iv
UNICEF (2002) ‘A League Table of Healthy Lives, Strategic Review of Health Canada, the United States, and Mexico,
Educational Disadvantage in Rich Inequalities in England post 2010, The Children in North America project
Nations’, Innocenti Report Card No. 4, Marmot Review, Executive Summary, p. 10. (Canadian Council on Social Development,
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Red por
xvii
Florence. Siegrist J., and M. Marmot (eds.) (2006) los Derechos de la Infancia en Mexico,
Social Inequalities in Health: New United States – Population Reference
v
Currie, C. et al.. (2008) ‘Inequalities in evidence and policy implications, Oxford Bureau), The Annie E. Casey Foundation,
Young People’s Health, Health Behaviour University Press, Oxford. Baltimore, p. 15.
in School-Aged Children, International
xviii xxvi
Report from the 2005/2006 Survey’, Currie, C. et al (2008), op. cit., p. 4, 65, 91. OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 27.
Health Policy for Children and
xix xxvii
Adolescents, No. 5, WHO Europe and Larson, C., (2007), ‘Poverty during OECD, Social Expenditure Database,
Child and Adolescent Health Research Pregnancy: Its effects on child health www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure
Unit, Edinburg, p. 59. outcomes’, Paediatric Child Health, (consulted September 2010).
Vol. 12, No. 8.
vi xxviii
Currie, C., D. Currie, L. Menchini, D. Scott, K. (2008) op. cit. p. 15.
xx
Richardson and C. Roberts (2010) Cohen, S., D. Janicki-Deverts, E. Chen
xxix
‘Comparing Inequality in the Well-Being and K. Matthews (2010), ‘Childhood OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 16.
of Children in Economically Advanced Socioeconomic Status and Adult Health’,
xxx
Countries: a methodology’, Innocenti The Biology of Disadvantage, Annals of the Commission for Children and Young
Working Paper, 2010-19, UNICEF Innocenti New York Academy of Sciences, 1186 People and Child Guardian, State of
Research Centre, Florence. (2010), New York Academy of Sciences, Queensland Australia (2006), Document on
New York, p. 37. Minimum Wage and Child Poverty
vii
Currie, C., D. Currie, L. Menchini, D. Submitted to the Australian Fair Pay
xxi
Richardson and C. Roberts (2010) op. cit. Mackenbach, J. (2006) Health Commission on the Federal Minimum
Inequalities: Europe in profile, University Wage, July 2006, mimeo. (The Australian
viii
World Health Organization (2010), Medical Centre, Rotterdam. Fair Pay Commission is now named Fair
Global Recommendations on Physical Work Australia).
xxii
Activity for Health, WHO, Geneva, p. 7. Mathews, M.S. and M. F. Macdorman
xxxi
(2010) ‘Infant Mortality Statistics from the Shirahase, S. (2007) ‘Cross National
ix
Currie, C. et al. (2008) op. cit., p.106-107. 2006 Period Linked Birth/Infant Data Set’, in Comparison of Economic Inequality among
National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol 58, Households with Children’, Luxembourg
x
Douglas Willms, J. (2006), Learning No. 17, National Center for Health Income Study Working Paper No. 461,
Divides: Ten policy questions about the Statistics, Hyattsville, MD. Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg.
performance and equity of schools and
xxiii xxxii
schooling systems, UNESCO Institute for Mayer, S. (2002) ‘Parental Income and Hills, J., (chair) (2010) An Anatomy of
Statistics, Montreal, p. 68. Children’s Outcomes’, Ministry of Social Economic Inequality in the UK, Report of
Development, Wellington, NZ. Cited in J. the National Equality Panel, Government
xi
Hutmacher, W., D. Cochrane and N. Micklewright (2003) ‘Child Poverty in Equalities Office and Centre for Analysis of
Bottani (eds.) (2001) In Pursuit of Equity in English-Speaking Countries’, Innocenti Social Exclusion of the London School of
Education: Using international indicators Working Paper, No. 94, UNICEF Innocenti Economics and Political Science, London,
to compare equity policies, Kluwer Research Centre, Florence. p. 34, 35.
Academic Publishers, Dordecht, p. 135.
xxxiii xliii
Shonkoff, J. P. and D. A. Phillips (eds.) Johnson, R., and R. Schoeni (2007)
(2000) From Neurons to Neighborhoods: ‘The Influence of Early-Life Events on
The science of early childhood Human Capital, Health Status, and Labor
development, Committee on Integrating Market Outcomes over the Life Course’,
the Science of Early Childhood Working Paper Series, Institute for
Development, National Research Council Research on Labor and Employment,
and Institute of Medicine, Washington, UC Berkeley.
D. C., p. 396.
xliv
Heckman, J. J. (2006) ‘Skill Formation
xxxiv
OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 16. and the Economics of Investing in
Disadvantaged Children’, Science,
xxxv
OECD (2008) op. cit. p. 27. Vol. 312, No. 5782.
xxxvi xlv
Evans, G. and M. A. Schamberg UNICEF (2008) ‘The Child Care
(2009) ‘Childhood Poverty, Chronic Stress, Transition: A league table of early
and Adult Working Memory’, Proceedings childhood education and care in
of the National Academy of Sciences of economically advanced countries’,
the United States, Vol. 106, No. 16. Innocenti Report Card No. 8, UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.
xxxvii
Hills, J., (chair) (2010) op. cit.
xlvi
Cleveland, G. and M. Krashinsky
xxxvii
Mackenbach, J. P., W. J. Meerding (2003) ‘Financing ECEC Services in OECD
and A. E. Kunst (2007) Economic Countries’, ECEC Thematic Workshops
Implications of Socio-economic and Documents, OECD, Paris.
Inequalities in Health in the European
Union, European Commission,
Luxembourg.
xxxix
Laurie, N. (2008) The Cost of Poverty:
An analysis of the economic cost of
poverty in Ontario, Ontario Association of
Food Banks, Ontario.
xl
Blanden, J., and S. Gibbons (2006)
The Persistence of Poverty across
Generations: A review from two British
cohorts, Joseph Rowntree Foundation,
The Policy Press, Bristol.
xli
Feinstein, L. (2003) ‘Inequality in the
Early Cognitive Development of British
Children in the 1970 Cohort’, Economica,
Vol. 70, No. 1.
xlii
Duncan, G., K. Telle, K. Ziol-Guest and
A. Kalil (2009), Long-run Impacts of Early
Childhood Poverty: Comparative evidence
from Norwegian registry data and the U.S.
PSID, paper prepared for conference The
long-run impact of early life events,
National Poverty Center, University of
Michigan, March 12-13 2009, Michigan.
A cknow l edgements
The Report Card 9 project was UNICEF advisors Administrative and technical support at
coordinated by the UNICEF Innocenti the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
Gordon Alexander
Research Centre and assisted by an was provided by Cinzia Iusco Bruschi.
(Director a.i., UNICEF IRC)
international panel of advisors and
reviewers (see below). Research was David A. Parker
completed at the end of August 2010. (former Deputy Director, UNICEF IRC)
The full text and a background paper to Chris De Neubourg
this report can be downloaded from the (Chief, Social and Economic Policy Unit,
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre UNICEF IRC)
website at www.unicef-irc.org.
James Elder
(Chief, Communication Unit, UNICEF IRC)
Research and data analysis
Mehr Khan Williams
Peter Adamson
(Special Adviser to the UNICEF Deputy
(independent consultant to UNICEF IRC)
Executive Director)
Dominic Richardson (OECD)
Jens Matthes
Dorothy Currie and Candace Currie (HBSC (Chief, Child Rights Advocacy and
International Coordinating Centre, and Education, UNICEF PFP, Geneva)
Child and Adolescent Health Research
Leonardo Menchini
Unit at the University of Edinburgh)
(Programme Specialist, UNICEF IRC)
Chris Roberts
(Social Research Division, Welsh External advisors and reviewers
Assembly Government)
Jonathan Bradshaw
Leonardo Menchini (UNICEF IRC) (University of York)
Giorgina Brown
Support in data preparation
(ISTAT, National Institute of Statistics,
Willem Adema, Nabil Ali, Anna D‘Addio, Italy)
Maciej Jakubowski and Maxime Ladaique
Ferran Casas
(OECD)
(University of Girona)
Luca Tiberti (UNICEF IRC)
Hugh Frazer
(National University of Ireland, Maynooth)
Support on individual
data sources Albert Motivans
(UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal)
Sami Bibi
(Université Laval, Québec), who kindly Stefano Rosignoli
provided the statistical results on (IRPET, Tuscan Regional Institute for
disposable income and living space Economic Planning, Florence)
for Canada.
Peter Gordon Saunders
Ursina Kuhn (Social Policy Research Centre, University
(FORS, Swiss Centre of Expertise in the of New South Wales, Sydney)
Social Sciences), who kindly provided
Erio Ziglio
the constructed variables on income
(World Health Organization, European
from the Swiss Household Panel.
Office for Investment for Health and
Development, Venice)
Design and layout: MCC Design, UK

(www.mccdesign.com)
Previous issues in this series:
Innocenti Report Card 1
A league table of child poverty in rich nations

A league table of child deaths by injury in rich nations

A league table of teenage births in rich nations

A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations

A league table of child maltreatment deaths in rich nations

Child poverty in rich countries 2005

Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child
well-being in rich countries

The child care transition: A league table of early childhood
education and care in economically advanced countries
Graphics: mccdesign.com
Printed by: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Innocenti Report Card 9, 2010
The children left behind
A league table of inequality in child
well-being in the world’s rich countries
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

Piazza SS. Annunziata, 12
50122 Florence, Italy
Tel: (+39) 055 20 330
Fax: (+39) 055 2033 220
[email protected]
www.unicef-irc.org
ISSN 1605-7317
© The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
November 2010
USD 20.00
ISBN 978-88-89129-99-9
Sales No. E.10.XX.7

IRC stock number 621U

UNICEF - Wykluczone Dzieci

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNICEF - Wykluczone Dzieci

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNICEF - Wykluczone Dzieci

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innocenti Research Centre

Part 1 of the Report draws on the analysis carried out by

Report Card 9 benefited greatly from research support by the Organisation

The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre would like to acknowledge

UNICEF (2010), ‘The Children Left Behind: A league table of inequality

The Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare the

The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in Florence, Italy, was

The Centre’s publications are contributions to a global debate on child

© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), November 2010

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

Whether in health, in education, or in material well-being, some

There are no widely agreed theoretical answers to these

This ninth report in the series builds on previous issues by

Switzerland 1 Finland 1 Netherlands 1 Denmark

Different geographical and historical International comparison therefore sets

parental care and time, of local services

No internationally comparable data 39.4 Norway

Household income 47.4 Ireland

Fig. 2b Inequality in material well-being: educational resources

Other OECD countries Other OECD countries

Fig. 2c Inequality in material well-being: housing living space

Other OECD countries Other OECD countries

Switzerland income Switzerland

Iceland educational items Iceland

Netherlands living space Netherlands

Czech Republic Czech Republic

United Kingdom United Kingdom

United States United States**

Fig. 3a Inequality in reading literacy

50th 10th Absolute gap

Fig. 3b Inequality in maths literacy

50th 10th Absolute gap

Fig. 3c Inequality in science literacy

50th 10th Absolute gap

Fig. 3d Educational inequality: an overview Fig. 3e Educational inequality: a breakdown

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Czech Republic Czech Republic

United States United States**

* A standard deviation is a measure of the spread of the distribution around its

Fig. 3f(i) Bottom-end inequality and median achievement

Fig. 3f(ii) Bottom-end inequality and top-end achievement

Fig. 4a Health inequality: self-reported health complaints

Other OECD countries Other OECD countries

Fig. 4b Health inequality: healthy eating

Other OECD countries Other OECD countries

Fig. 4c Health inequality: vigorous physical activity

Fig. 4d Health inequality: an overview Fig. 4e Health inequality: a breakdown

Czech Republic Czech Republic

United Kingdom United Kingdom

United States United States

Box 1 Child poverty: a relative measure

In this sense, even absolute definitions of poverty are

Box 2 First call: children and recession

Throughout that period, UNICEF urged special action to

the world’s richest economies. 2 The Economist, 4 July 2010.

make sure that people are capable of being in 3000

Box 3 The just society: a measure

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0