Feb 13, 2013 - The Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) in Ireland is a household survey covering a broad range
An Phríomh-Oifig Staidrimh Central Statistics Office
13 February 2013
Figure 1 Poverty and deprivation rates by year Rate %
2009
2010
Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC)
30
2011 & revised 2010 results
25
The Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) in Ireland is a household survey covering a broad range of issues in relation to income and living conditions. It is the official source of data on household and individual income and also provides a number of key national poverty indicators, such as the at risk of poverty rate, the consistent poverty rate and rates of enforced deprivation. This report presents the results for 2011, revised results for 2010 and comparable data for previous years.
2011
20
15
Table A Summary of main results 10
5
0 At risk of poverty rate
Deprivation rate
Consistent poverty rate
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
€
€
€
€
€
€
€
Income
Equivalised disposable income (per individual) 19,768 21,229 23,610 24,380 23,326 22,138 21,440 At risk of poverty threshold (60% of median income)
10,057 10,566 11,890 12,455 12,064 11,155 10,889
Poverty & deprivation rates At risk of poverty rate
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
18.5
17.0
16.5
14.4
14.1
14.7
16.0
Deprivation rate1
14.8
14.0
11.8
13.8
17.1
22.6
24.5
7.0
6.6
5.1
4.2
5.5
6.3
6.9
Consistent poverty rate Published by the Central Statistics Office, Ireland. Ardee Road Dublin 6 Ireland
Skehard Road Cork Ireland LoCall: 1890 313 414 (ROI) 0870 876 0256 (UK/NI)
Tel: +353 1 498 4000 Fax: +353 1 498 4229
Tel: +353 21 453 5000 Fax: +353 21 453 5492
1
Experienced two or more types of enforced deprivation
Summary of main findings l
l
Both offices may be contacted through any of these telephone numbers. l CSO on the Web: www.cso.ie and go to People and Society: Health and Social Conditions
l
Director General: Pádraig Dalton
l
In 2011 average annual equivalised disposable income was €21,440. This represented a decline of just over 3% on the 2010 value of €22,138. See table A. The Gini coefficient in 2011 was 31.1%, not a statistically significant change on the 2010 value (31.6%). The Quintile Share Ratio remained at 4.9 in 2011. See table B. In 2011, the at risk of poverty rate increased to 16.0% from 14.7% in 2010. See table A and figure 1. Almost one quarter (24.5%) of the population experienced two or more types of enforced deprivation in 2011 up from 22.6% in 2010. See table A and figure 1. The consistent poverty rate was 6.9% in 2011, not a statistically significant change on the 2010 figure of 6.3%. See table A and figure 1.
Enquiries: Income statistics General queries
Direct Dial (021) 453 5487 Email:
[email protected] Information Section, ext 5021
[email protected]
ã Central Statistics Office The contents of this release may be quoted provided the source is given clearly and accurately. Reproduction for own or internal use is permitted. Print ISSN 1649-6388 On-line ISSN 2009-5937
The results previously published for 2010 have been amended following extensive investigation of anomalies in the data. The main effects of the amendment have been a change in the at risk of poverty threshold and in the at risk of poverty rate (15.8% to 14.7%). There was no significant change in the deprivation and consistent poverty rates. Indicators of income inequality decreased e.g. the Gini coefficient went from 33.9% to 31.6%. Earlier years have not been affected. The changes in the main indicators are shown in table B1 in the background notes. For more information contact Pamela Lafferty on 021 453 5268, Marion McCann at 021 453 5611 or Anne McGrath on 021 453 5487.
Income Equivalised Income In 2011 average annual equivalised disposable income was €21,440. This represented a decline of just over 3% on the 2010 value of €22,138 and continued a downward trend from a peak of €24,380 in 2008. See table A. An analysis by socio-demographic characteristics showed that individuals with a highest level of educational attainment of third level degree or higher continued to have the highest average income of the categories analysed in 2011, at €33,244. Those living in accommodation that was rented at below the market rate or rent free had the lowest average income of the categories analysed in 2011, at €13,831. This group also had the lowest average income in 2010. See table 1. Composition of income Figure 2 Composition of average weekly equivalised gross income by year
€ 700
Social transfers Direct Income
600 500 400 300 200 100 0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
In 2011, average weekly equivalised gross income was €522.87 down from €534.66 in 2010 and €551.39 in 2009. See table 2 and figure 2 An analysis of the composition of gross income by year showed that average weekly equivalised direct income in 2011, at €381.21, was close to the 2004 value of €379.40. Average weekly equivalised social transfers increased from €81.51 in 2004 to €141.65 in 2011, an increase of almost 74%. See figure 2. Figure 3 Composition of average weekly equivalised gross income by year € 500 450 400 350 300 250
Disposable income Tax and social insurance
200 150 100 50 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0 2011
A breakdown of gross income by disposable income, tax and social insurance payments showed a decline in disposable income in 2011 (€410.88) from a peak of €467.24 in 2008. The average value in 2011 was close to that of €406.84 in 2006. See figure 3. 2
At risk of poverty threshold In 2011 the at risk of poverty threshold was €10,889. This represented a decline of over 2% on the 2010 value of €11,155 and continued a downward trend in the threshold from a peak of €12,455 in 2008. See table 3b. Equality of Income Table B Indicators of income equality by year All individuals
Indicators of income equality1 Gini coefficient (%) Income distribution (Income quintile share ratio) 1
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
31.8 5.0
32.4 5.1
32.4 5.0
31.7 4.9
30.7 4.6
29.3 4.3
31.6 4.9
31.1 4.9
See Background Notes
In 2011 the Gini coefficient was 31.1% not a statistically significant change on the value in 2010 (31.6%). The 2010 value reversed a downward trend in the data evident between 2005 and 2009. A Gini coefficient of 0.0% would correspond to perfect income equality while higher Gini coefficients indicate a more unequal distribution. See table B and figure 4. The quintile share ratio remained at 4.9 in 2011 indicating that those in the highest income quintile continued to have an average equivalised income of 4.9 times that of those in the lowest income quintile. See table B and figure 4.
Figure 4 Indicators of income equality by year
Rate %
Ratio 10
35
9
30
8 7
25
6
20
5 4
15
3
10
2
5
1 0
0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Gini coefficient Income quintile share ratio
Poverty At risk of poverty In 2011, the at risk of poverty rate increased to 16.0% from 14.7% in 2010. An analysis by socio-demographic characteristics showed that those most at risk of poverty in 2011 were people living in accommodation that was rented at below the market rate or was rent free (36.4%) and those living in households where there was no one at work (33.2%). See table 1.
3
Figure 5 At risk of poverty rate by sex, age group and year
% 20
2011
18
2010
16 2009
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0-17
18-64
65+
Male
Female Sex
Age Group
Between 2010 and 2011 the groups that showed a statistically significant change in their at risk of poverty rate were: (See table 1 and figure 5) l Males (14.3% in 2010 to 16.3% in 2011). l Those aged 18-64 (14.2% in 2010 to 15.9% in 2011). l Students (22.7% in 2010 to 31.4% in 2011). l Those with highest level of educational attainment of higher secondary (14.4% in 2010 to 18.9% in 2011). l Persons living in households where no one was at work (29.8% in 2010 to 33.2% in 2011). l Those living in accommodation that was rented at below the market rate or rent free (26.1% in 2010 to 36.4% in 2011). l Individuals living in urban areas (12.5% in 2010 to 14.2% in 2011). l Those living in the Border, Midland, West (BMW) region (13.8% in 2010 to 20.4% in 2011). l Persons living in households where three or more people were at work (1.8% in 2010 to 0.0% in 2011). Impact of social transfers on the at risk of poverty rate In 2011, if all social transfers were excluded from income, the at risk of poverty rate would be 50.7%, indicating a steady increase from 39.8% in 2004. This increase over time demonstrates the increasing dependence of individuals on social transfers to remain above the at risk of poverty threshold. See table 4 and figure 6.
4
Deprivation In 2011, almost one quarter (24.5%) of the population experienced two or more types of enforced deprivation. This compares with 22.6% in 2010 and an eight year low of 11.8% in 2007. See table 4. An analysis by socio-demographic characteristics showed that those living in households with one adult and one or more children had the highest deprivation rate in 2011 at 56.0%. Those living in accommodation that was rented at below the market rate or rent free (52.0%) and those describing their Principal Economic Status as unemployed (42.4%) also had high levels of deprivation in 2011. See Table 1. Deprivation by poverty status The deprivation rate for those at risk of poverty was 43.1% in 2011, not a significant change from 42.9% in 2010. The deprivation rate for those NOT at risk of poverty was 21.0% in 2011, a statistically significant increase from 19.1% in 2010. See table 4 and figure 7. Figure 7 Deprivation rates by poverty status and year Rate % 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Deprivation rate Deprivation rate for individuals at risk of poverty Deprivation rate for individuals NOT at risk of poverty
Types of deprivation At an overall level in 2011, the types of deprivation most commonly experienced were an inability to: See table 6. l replace worn out furniture (21.7%). l afford a morning/afternoon/evening out (21.1%). l have family/friends over for a meal/drink (14.8%). l afford heating at some stage in the last year (12.2%, up from 10.5% in 2010). Between 2010 and 2011 the groups that showed a statistically significant change in their deprivation rate were: See table 1. l Females (23.5% in 2010 to 26.0% in 2011). l Those aged 18-64 (21.6% in 2010 to 23.7 in 2011). l Individuals who were unemployed (38.3% in 2010 to 42.4% in 2011). l Those with highest level of educational attainment of third level non-degree (12.0% in 2010 to 18.2% in 2011). l Individuals with highest level of educational attainment of third level degree or above (6.9% in 2010 to 11.2% in 2011). l Persons living in households where one person was at work (22.4% in 2010 to 27.5% in 2011). l Those living in accommodation that was owner-occupied (14.8% in 2010 to 17.3% in 2011). l Individuals living in urban areas (22.9% in 2010 to 26.2% in 2011). l Persons living in the Southern and Eastern region (20.9% in 2010 to 23.7% in 2011).
5
Consistent Poverty The consistent poverty rate in 2011 was 6.9%, not a statistically significant change on the 2010 figure of 6.3%. See table 1. An individual is considered to be in consistent poverty if they are both at risk of poverty and experiencing deprivation. The at risk of poverty rate increased from 14.7% in 2010 to 16.0% in 2011 and the deprivation rate in 2011 was 24.5% up from 22.6% in 2010. Despite a statistically significant increase in both indicators there was no statistically significant change in the consistent poverty rate between 2010 and 2011. This was due to the fact that the increase in the deprivation rate was largely among those NOT at risk of poverty. See table 4 and figure 8
Figure 8 Key indicators of poverty and deprivation by year % 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Deprivation rate (2+ items) At risk of poverty rate Consistent poverty rate
An analysis by key socio-demographic variables showed that those living in accommodation that was rented at below the market rate or rent free (21.5%), the unemployed (16.5%) and those living in lone parent households (16.4%) had the highest consistent poverty rates in 2011. Between 2010 and 2011 the groups that showed a statistically significant change in their consistent poverty rate were: See table 1 and figure 9. l Those living in accommodation rented at the market rate (10.6% in 2010 to 6.8% in 2011). l Persons living in accommodation rented at below the market rate or rent free (17.3% in 2010 to 21.5% in 2011). l Individuals living in the Border, Midlands, West (BMW) region (6.1% to 8.4%).
Figure 9 Consistent poverty rate by tenure status and year
% 25
2011 2010
20
2009
15
10
5
0 Owner-occupied
Rented at the market rate
6
Rented at below the market rate or rent free
TABLES
Table 1 Income1 and poverty rates by demographic characteristics and year
Average annual household disposable income 2009
State Sex2 Male Female Age group2 0-17 18-64 65+ Principal Economic Status (aged 16 years and over)2 At work Unemployed Student Home duties Retired Not at work due to illness or disability Highest education level attained (aged 16 years and over)2 Primary or below Lower secondary Higher secondary Post leaving cert Third level non degree Third level degree or above Household composition 1 adult aged 65+ 1 adult aged
