Umeå University's logo

The central aim of the present paper is to analyse the degree to which welfare problems accumulate over time and to what extent such an accumulation is related to class position and household formation. We utilize longitudinal data from the Swedish Survey of Living Conditions, following a panel that was first interviewed in 1979 and, thereafter, re-interviewed three times (1986–87, 1994–95 and 2002–03). We use structural equation modelling to extract latent deprivation indexes based on seven manifest indicators. Thereafter, the indexes are used as input values in a latent growth curve (LGC) model when estimating an intercept variable and a slope variable. We finally estimate two structural models. In the first model, the relation over time between class position, class mobility and deprivation are estimated, and the second model deals with the relationship between household types, change of household type and deprivation. Several interesting results can be reported. We find a strong relationship between the deprivation indexes over time. The LGC model can also confirm a positive relationship between deprivation intercept and deprivation slope. That is, individuals who score high on the deprivation index from the beginning are increasingly prone to accumulate additional welfare problems over time. The analysis also reveals a clear class gradient as well as effects of class mobility. In addition, it is shown that deprivation affects class mobility, meaning that we can confirm selection effects. Also household constellation and changes of household type are closely connected to deprivation and changes in deprivation over time. The analysis reveals selection effects even in this case.

This article investigates whether, and to what degree, poverty is linked to other types of welfare problems and, in larger perspective, whether the situation can be understood in terms of social exclusion. Two different measures of poverty – income poverty and deprivation poverty – and 17 indicators of welfare problems were used in the analysis. It was shown that income poverty was rather weakly related to other types of welfare problems, i.e. the most commonly used measure of poverty seems to discriminate a section of the population that does not suffer from the kinds of problems we usually assume that poverty causes. Deprivation poverty, identifying those who most often had to forgo consumption of goods and services, did correlate strongly with other types of welfare problems. Hence, people living under poor conditions do suffer from welfare problems even though this section of the population is not always captured by income poverty measures. The final analysis showed that the types of welfare problems that were most likely to cluster were deprivation poverty, economic precariousness, unemployment, psychological strain and health problems. Whether these types of accumulated welfare problems, from a theoretical perspective, can be seen as indicators of social exclusion is more doubtful.