Child Poverty in Perspective: Well Being of Children in Rich Countries

[Flatlander]

According to this article, a report was recently issued by UNICEF regarding the well being of children in wealthy nations. The findings aren't flattering, particularly for the US and Britain.

BERLIN — British and U.S. children are the worst off in the industrialized world, according to a UN report Wednesday that ranked the well-being of youngsters in 21 wealthy countries.

Here is the full report in pdf. format.

I'd encourage everyone with children to read this report, and ask yourself if the findings specific to your nation are reflective of your family circumstances.

However, for the purposes of discussion, I ask: How can our governments act to facilitate improvements where we are clearly lacking? What are other countries doing better than ours to provide a higher level of well being for their children?

 

[CoryKS]

However, for the purposes of discussion, I ask: How can our governments act to facilitate improvements where we are clearly lacking? What are other countries doing better than ours to provide a higher level of well being for their children?

One thing the government could do is to issue every citizen a copy of How to Lie With Statistics so that people won't panic every time a think tank with an agenda issues a report.

They tried this sort of apples and oranges comparison with the US vs Cuba a couple of years ago to show how much lower Cuba's infant mortality rate was. Here's the money shot:

How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.

In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.

 

[Kacey]

I think Cory makes a valid point; nonetheless, I see some of the differences as cultural. Societal attitudes toward child rearing, the importance of marriage and family (which significantly impacts the single-parenting rate, and often varies within a country - especially larger countries with more culturally diverse populations), the perceived value of children within the society, the immigration rate, the literacy rate, among many other attitudes, which impact how a society allocates its resources, can significantly impact all of the areas described.

I work in a middle school with a large immigrant population, and regardless of how one interprets the study cited, I have also heard from many of these students how much better off they feel they are here than they were where they lived previously. Is there room for improvement? Always - even for those countries ranked at the top of the list - but we must always remember that "poverty" and "well-being" are relative terms.

 

[jetboatdeath]

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.
​

Hmm…. I think the word Nation’s should be changed to parents.
Personally I don’t like thinking of my children as property of the Nation.

And it seems to me that the above listed items can be provided with very little money at all.

 

[Flatlander]

One thing the government could do is to issue every citizen a copy of How to Lie With Statistics so that people won't panic every time a think tank with an agenda issues a report.

They tried this sort of apples and oranges comparison with the US vs Cuba a couple of years ago to show how much lower Cuba's infant mortality rate was. Here's the money shot:

Great counter! UNICEF has an agenda, and an unreferenced internet posting with an argument predicated on the following:

Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do and does not register births under 1000g.

Did you even read the report?

 

[Flatlander]

but we must always remember that "poverty" and "well-being" are relative terms.

So are "freedom", "liberty", and "justice for all".....

This doesn't address the fact that there are wealthy nations that are underperforming non-wealthy nations in providing nurturing environments for their children. Our educational standards are low, too many teen parents, too many broken homes, not enough time spent 'parenting' our children.

So, does anyone have anything positive to add, or are we all just going to deny the value of the report because we didn't score so well?

 

[jetboatdeath]

I agree with everything you said “Our educational standards are low, too many teen parents, too many broken homes, not enough time spent 'parenting' our children.” But I don’t agree that this is a problem for the government. With the exception of education but, that’s another post.

 

[Kacey]

So are "freedom", "liberty", and "justice for all".....

This doesn't address the fact that there are wealthy nations that are underperforming non-wealthy nations in providing nurturing environments for their children. Our educational standards are low, too many teen parents, too many broken homes, not enough time spent 'parenting' our children.

As a teacher, I would like to point out that I don't make the standards - I teach to the standards set by the government, which, in theory, answers to the populace - and the other examples you cite are further examples of the societal attitudes to which I was referring.

So, does anyone have anything positive to add, or are we all just going to deny the value of the report because we didn't score so well?

I don't deny the value of the report; however, I would like to add a few things that could change some of the interpretation.

Many "first-world" countries track their students into college-bound, trade-school bound, and elementary education only, and thus, by secondary school, are only testing those students who were tracked (often by the age of 7 or 8) into secondary education - remembering that while it is fairly easy and common to drop students to an academically less rigorous track, it is much less common - and much harder - to move a student to an academically more rigorous track. This is why, statistically, the US, which tests the entire population, including those students who would not attend secondary school in many countries, performs lower on average than many other countries, but the best of our best still performs as well, or better than, the best of the best in other countries.

In addition, larger countries will, statistically, have a much wider range in many areas than smaller countries - educationally, economically, etc., - which will also affect the statistics. This wider range will affect the bottom more than the top, as the numbers grow.

I would also point out that, while the teen pregnancy rate in the US remains higher than in other countries, it has dropped significantly in recent years, as seen here: in 1980, the birthrate of teens aged 15-19 was 111.0/1000, while in 2002, it had dropped to 75.4/1000 - still too high, but much lower than it had been 22 years previously... but that drop is not evident in the statistics cited.

Based on these, and many other issues, I agree that the report raises some issues that are concerning, and which we, as a society need to address - but I also add an understanding of some of the sources of statistical variation, as well as changes over time, to my interpretation of the statistics cited.