Children in rich countries
Suffer the children?
Feb 14th 2007
From Economist.com
A UN report suggests British and American children are faring badly compared with those in other rich countries
EPA
JUDGING by the loud howls of concern this week, the lot of children in Britain and America is a rather terrible one. On Wednesday February 14th Unicef published a report comparing the well-being of young people in 21 rich countries, and concluded that British and American youths endure the worst quality of life of any. In contrast, North European children, especially the Nordics, apparently have a lovely time. Cue hand-wringing from a lot of worried Anglo-American parents.
In fact, as the authors of the UN report admit, such broad conclusions need to be kept in some perspective. Many of the data presented are hardly new or surprising: who did not already know that rates of teenage pregnancy are high in Britain, or that junk-food-guzzling kids are getting dangerously fat in America? Accurate comparisons of social and educational trends, between countries, are also notoriously tricky to make. Perhaps most important, the report could cast more light (though it does give some) on how child welfare is changing over time. Rates of infant mortality, child deaths caused by accidents or other scores of health and safety, for example, show that children in all these rich countries in fact enjoy an historically unparalleled quality of life.
That said, there is much in the report that is worth noting. The authors drew on 40 different indicators of child welfare, divided into six general categories, and ranked the countries accordingly. Anglo-Americans with many single-parent families, greater household-income inequality and worse social habits consistently scored badly on almost every measure. What is particularly instructive, however, are the clues to why this is the case.
Street children: Child poverty in Britain is nothing new, as this 19th century photo shows.
Take the material well-being of children. Evidently this matters a great deal, though sceptics might question whether household-income inequality, self-reported deprivation and counting how few books a child has in his house are necessarily the best measures of it. The report concludes that the most effective means of cutting child poverty is not boosting general levels of employment, nor trying to ensure that children live with two parents (many Swedish kids live with just one, and seem not to suffer as a result on this particular score), but making sure state benefits are high for children.
Countries like the Nordics that spend a lot of GDP (more than 10%) on social transfers consistently have low levels of child poverty. Piqued by being ranked bottom of the class, Britain’s government has been quick to point out that recent British spending has helped cut both absolute and relative child poverty there.
The table on the right shows that British and American children - but especially the British - are worst behaved and are more likely to take risks than their counterparts in other rich countries. But, in some way (even though many might disagree), this could be a good thing.
Where Britain and America really score badly, however, is in the categories of relationships and risky behaviour. British and American children apparently spend less time (and eat fewer meals) with their parents, compared with the other countries, and seem to be somewhat less happy with their friends and in school. Some of this is especially messy to assess and the report’s authors acknowledge “obvious problems of definition” when subjective measures and self-reporting are compared. Maybe British and American children are better at moaning than others. But many of the data seem reliable enough. There is statistical evidence (at least in Britain and America) that children in single-parent families are worse off in some ways, when school drop-out rates or eventual educational attainment are measured, for example. And family breakdown may be a contributing cause to the worryingly high rates of risky behaviour—younger sex, more drug taking, dreadful diets, and high levels of drinking, bullying and violence—in Britain and America.
The question, then, is what to do about any of this? It seems rather more likely that others are going to take up British and American cultural habits—more junk food, more single-parents—than the other way around. And while governments can spend more on cutting child poverty, whatever politicians promoting family values may say, they can do relatively little to encourage parents to stick together for the sake of their children, let alone to enforce a regular family meal or lots of bedtime stories.
economist.com
Suffer the children?
Feb 14th 2007
From Economist.com
A UN report suggests British and American children are faring badly compared with those in other rich countries
EPA
JUDGING by the loud howls of concern this week, the lot of children in Britain and America is a rather terrible one. On Wednesday February 14th Unicef published a report comparing the well-being of young people in 21 rich countries, and concluded that British and American youths endure the worst quality of life of any. In contrast, North European children, especially the Nordics, apparently have a lovely time. Cue hand-wringing from a lot of worried Anglo-American parents.
In fact, as the authors of the UN report admit, such broad conclusions need to be kept in some perspective. Many of the data presented are hardly new or surprising: who did not already know that rates of teenage pregnancy are high in Britain, or that junk-food-guzzling kids are getting dangerously fat in America? Accurate comparisons of social and educational trends, between countries, are also notoriously tricky to make. Perhaps most important, the report could cast more light (though it does give some) on how child welfare is changing over time. Rates of infant mortality, child deaths caused by accidents or other scores of health and safety, for example, show that children in all these rich countries in fact enjoy an historically unparalleled quality of life.
That said, there is much in the report that is worth noting. The authors drew on 40 different indicators of child welfare, divided into six general categories, and ranked the countries accordingly. Anglo-Americans with many single-parent families, greater household-income inequality and worse social habits consistently scored badly on almost every measure. What is particularly instructive, however, are the clues to why this is the case.
Street children: Child poverty in Britain is nothing new, as this 19th century photo shows.
Take the material well-being of children. Evidently this matters a great deal, though sceptics might question whether household-income inequality, self-reported deprivation and counting how few books a child has in his house are necessarily the best measures of it. The report concludes that the most effective means of cutting child poverty is not boosting general levels of employment, nor trying to ensure that children live with two parents (many Swedish kids live with just one, and seem not to suffer as a result on this particular score), but making sure state benefits are high for children.
Countries like the Nordics that spend a lot of GDP (more than 10%) on social transfers consistently have low levels of child poverty. Piqued by being ranked bottom of the class, Britain’s government has been quick to point out that recent British spending has helped cut both absolute and relative child poverty there.
The table on the right shows that British and American children - but especially the British - are worst behaved and are more likely to take risks than their counterparts in other rich countries. But, in some way (even though many might disagree), this could be a good thing.
Where Britain and America really score badly, however, is in the categories of relationships and risky behaviour. British and American children apparently spend less time (and eat fewer meals) with their parents, compared with the other countries, and seem to be somewhat less happy with their friends and in school. Some of this is especially messy to assess and the report’s authors acknowledge “obvious problems of definition” when subjective measures and self-reporting are compared. Maybe British and American children are better at moaning than others. But many of the data seem reliable enough. There is statistical evidence (at least in Britain and America) that children in single-parent families are worse off in some ways, when school drop-out rates or eventual educational attainment are measured, for example. And family breakdown may be a contributing cause to the worryingly high rates of risky behaviour—younger sex, more drug taking, dreadful diets, and high levels of drinking, bullying and violence—in Britain and America.
The question, then, is what to do about any of this? It seems rather more likely that others are going to take up British and American cultural habits—more junk food, more single-parents—than the other way around. And while governments can spend more on cutting child poverty, whatever politicians promoting family values may say, they can do relatively little to encourage parents to stick together for the sake of their children, let alone to enforce a regular family meal or lots of bedtime stories.
economist.com
Last edited:
