Welfare state and Poverty in Flanders #4 The Family pact

Poverty evolution in Flanders

4.     The Family pact

Family and poverty: there is a narrow mutual connection between both terms. Poverty makes humans vulnerable and can destroy families. Sometimes the poverty goes so far that they take away the revenue base of families and brings the social security in the jostling and imposes restraints to the future perspective of the children. The presence of children makes that the parents have to enter a battle despite the flaw at securities, in particular the territory of work, income, and housing. These securities are necessarily to get to their professional, familial and social obligations. For making stronger families, for who revenue base is a daily challenge, and to support the parents by the practice of their responsibilities we must make a priority of the fight against poverty.

The family is a place where as well inequalities arise as poverty is fought. Bad living conditions and pressure on the mind of the people living together are not beneficial for the development of the children. The occupation statute and the level of education of the parents are modifying factors for the formation of the children and their social economic background will influence their school performances.

Human population growth rate in percent, with ...

Human population growth rate in percent, with the variables of births, deaths, immigration and emigration

In 1997 4% of the children were born in an underprivileged family. In 2009 this doubled to 8,3% born in deprived families with a population increase in Flanders expected to be  7% by 2030. Especially the number of children between 0 and 2 year rises.  Expected for 2017, Flanders will count 25,000 toddlers more. That growth will appear especially in Antwerp and Ghent, precisely the 2 cities in which the child poverty is strongly present. In Antwerp, one values the population growth on 32 per cent, in Ghent on 27 per cent.[1] In 2009 11% of the children from 0 to 17 years were living in a household with an income below the poverty threshold. This corresponds to approximately to 140,000 children.[2]

In the last decades, childcare policies emerged in the midst of several parallel evolutions in industrialized nations. Increasing female labour market participation coincided with shifting gender inequalities and a change from the male breadwinner model to a generalization of dual earner ship, among more broad developments such as a shift to service employment.[3] Consequently, the (gendered) problem of accommodating responsibilities at work and at home became an important policy issue and European welfare states adapted to this ‘new social risk’ in mutual interaction with European strategies to further increase (female) employment rates. Childcare is a focal point in this strategy, as it is generally considered an efficient labour market instrument removing disincentives to labour market participation for mothers while at the same time contributing to gender equality and investment in young children.[4]

Of the 1000 closed marriages in 2009, 645 (or 64.5 per cent, which is two marriages on three) will end in a divorce after 49 marriages years, when the divorces circumstances of 2009 remain identical during that whole period. [5]

Belgian provinces

In 2009 there were pronounced 32,606 separations in Belgium, while 43,303 marriages took place and 67,561 contracts partnership contracts signed in that same year also. But there were also 20,308 cohabitation contracts dissolved.[6]

Two core normative demands maximised the chances that each child would be brought up by its own two married parents in a stable and safe home: birth within marriage and life-long monogamy. The statistical evidence on the proportion of children born out of wedlock and the number of children in families broken by divorce shows that, for centuries before the 1960s, the conduct of families did largely conform with family law and family mores, that is, with the main elements of the family as an institution. The rise in the proportion of children of unmarried parents and in the proportion of children whose parents no longer live together are phenomena of the recent past. As late as 1979 over 80 per cent of all children under 16 lived with their two married parents.[7]

Striking is it that continual violent parental quarrel is almost more awful for children than the separations self, and that separations children have an increased risk on various problems: behaviours problems and emotional problems as well on short as on long term, difficulties in social relations including the own relation and humans formation, risky customs and school problems. But children from intact humans with chronic, violent parental quarrels have also an increased risk on problems.[8] Violent chronic parental conflicts come in intact families however appears much less then between exes (respectively 1 per cent and 11 per cent)[9]. A good training and income from mothers before the separation, softens the negative trainings effects for separations children in mother families.[10]

Concerning the separation figures Belgium, with Poland and the Czech Republic is part of the European top and profiles the Netherlands as an European middle motor.

The new norms, morals and leaving Christianity behind brought also a way of life which brought the dual-income households in danger. Namely by the increase of divorces parents were forced to take care of the kids on their own, often still with a lot of debt to pay off for the mortgages. The exposition to the products of an entertainment industry fixated on casual sex, violence and obscenity brought with it more abuses, fights and problems between the partners, children and between the people living in the community. Squalid urban conditions, poverty, and other forms of social injustice brought with it more pressure on the families.

The loss of a married parent through death was as frequent in the past as is the loss of a parent through divorce today, but that ‘the divorce is the equivalent of death’ is a statistical error. For the child of losing a father through death is not at all the same as the father’s leaving the household through divorce. Also the impact on the family is different and often has other financial consequences.[11] Single parent households were most at-risk-of-poverty in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Large family households were most at-risk in Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Bulgaria. In Belgium the risk of poverty for children from large families was not so different to that for all households with dependent children according the 2007 Eurostat survey.
Slightly less than one in every ten children (9.4 %) in the EU‑27 lived in a jobless household in 2007, a similar share (9.3 %) to the proportion of adults of working age (those aged 18-59 years, excluding students) who lived in jobless households. Among the Member States, the proportion of children in jobless households was highest in the United Kingdom (16.7 %) and Hungary (13.9 %), where it was also considerably more than the corresponding proportion of working-age adults in jobless households.
One in every five (20 %) young adults aged between 16 and 24 was at-riskof- poverty within the EU‑27 in 2007, a higher proportion than across the whole population (17 %). The risk of poverty for young adults was highest in Denmark (28 %), where, as in other Nordic Member States, it was about twice the rate for the whole population. [12]

Poverty risk

Since 1999 is the number of divorces with minor children higher than the number of divorces without minor children.  With the increase of the number of pairs that live together as not-married, also the number non married pairs that go away from each other is raised. Naturally it goes here about a very heterogeneous group: young adults that live for a short time together till completed families that are together for a lot of years. In total it is about a rough estimate round approximately 60 thousand decohabitations where approximately 18 thousand children are involved.[13]
Since the law change of 1998 the jointly parental authority approximately remains by nine out of ten divorces maintained. In 2001 still 80 per cent of the separations children lived with their mother, more than 10 per cent with the father and that in approximately 4 per cent there was spoken of assistant-parenthood.[14] But recently this co-eldership gets more popular and goes even further then the 15% in 2005. Of the separations younger persons of 10 up to 16 year live 17 per cent in an assistant-parent situation. It appeared that it indeed more boys live in assistant-parent families than girls: boys 19 per cent and girls 15 per cent.  The percentage father families remains freely constant on ca. 10 per cent. [15]

Separation sees to for the children for a doubling of the internalizing problems as feelings of fear and depression, doubling of behaviour problems as aggressive and delinquent behaviour and drugs and alcohol use, lower school performances, problems in friendships relations, and a weaker tie with the parents, especially with the fathers. The consequence of separation is measurable till far in maturity. Mostly there when there is a lower level of education, lesser income, a larger risk on depressed feelings, a weaker relation with the parents (especially fathers) and a larger own separations risk. In various countries, comparable effects are found.  Also children from intact families where lots of quarrel can be found are vulnerable. Ongoing bitter parental rows are almost worse for children than divorce itself, and children of divorce are more likely to face various problems: behavioural problems, emotional problems, on the short term as well as on the long term, difficulties in social relations, their own relationships and family founding included, risky habits and problems at school.

Between 1988 and 1992, the relative poverty among households of working age increased from 2.4% to 4.1%. In 2009 6% of Flemish children, 7% of adult men and 9% of the adult
women lived in a household where nobody works. In 2009 11% of the children from 0 to 17 years were living in a household with an income below the poverty threshold. This corresponds to approximately 140,000 children. In 2009 the high risk of poverty went up 72% of people in a family with children where no adult had work.  [16]

At the end of 2010 in Flanders 50,909 files from of admissibility of collective debts regulation were registered. That number is the passing years increased each time with approximately 3,000 until 5,000 unities. The figures can be seen as an indication of the most extreme form of exuberant debts burden. 10.1 per cent of the Flemish population has an income under the poverty line. 18.6 per cent of the children lives in a household that has difficulties to meet the ends, 6 per cent of the children grows up in a family without income from paid work. General reductions in benefit dependency saw the proportion of vulnerable work-poor households (wholly dependent upon replacement incomes) grow from 3% to 5%. Consequently one has, for some time now, seen a remarkable increase among unemployment benefit recipients in the proportion of single-income families, i.e. single persons and heads for whom the benefit represents the only source of income. 25.4 per cent of the children live in a house which does not have a bath, toilet, central heating or warm and streaming water. Yes? And this is Europe!

The work-family conflict is most pressing for parents having very young children and for the one parent families. The proportion of lone parents in Flanders is concentrated in the lowest income quintile. 70% of non-working mothers in the lowest quintile who do not use public childcare provisions, report that they would prefer to be employed if they had the possibility to.[17] [18]

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single parent homes; and each year lots of children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. But women in general still face the main burden of care for the children, and without the possibility to externalize care duties (be it through informal or formal channels) they have a lot of difficulties to engage in paid employment. We also have to conclude that lots of employers do not want to take in account the time mothers, or fathers, have to spend with their children. Though a lot of work is made by the Flemish government to provide for childcare, there is still shortness and in the absence of decent care provisions, women often cut back on their working hours or quit the labour force to take care of their children, especially when they are of preschool age.[19] Childcare as an instrument of labour market activation should be able to reach those facing the greatest barriers to employment.

Childcare services for young children emerged in the mid nineteenth century but only matured and developed rapidly since 1970s. Childcare for children under 3 is a responsibility of the welfare department (a competence transferred to the Belgian regions since the 1980 state reform). In Flanders, responsibility for monitoring care for under threes is entrusted by decree to the public organization Child and Family (Kind en Gezin, K&G) which sets forward three aims: the reconciliation work and family; supporting the development of children; and social inclusion of vulnerable groups. In Belgium 0.8% of GDP was spent on childcare in 2007 which is not so bad at all[20], but you can wonder why the working parent has not to contribute more to the system, certainly when the highest demand for childcare expansion came from mothers already at work. Wim Van Lancker and Joris Ghysels rightly wondered if the social distribution of public childcare benefits first and foremost the higher income families [which report more working hours and are more often dual earner families, e.g. Cantillon et al. (2001) and infra], doubt can be cast on its effectiveness as a labour market instrument to increase women’s employment rates. Obviously, the labour market integration of mothers does not depend solely on childcare availability as other factors are also at play, especially for low-income families: the state of the labour market and the unemployment rate, the gendered distribution of household work, labour market policies (financial incentives, low-wage subsidies) etc. [21] [22]. However, taking into account that childcare may not be a sufficient condition, it certainly is a necessary condition to engage in paid work. Childcare as an instrument of labour market activation should thus be able to reach those facing the greatest barriers to employment.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, remaining poverty would drop quickly.[23]

Though we have to recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part, it has to start with the respect in the small family circle.

Life involves tensions between people and important values. This can mean difficult choices. Children should be made aware that adults are still confronted with several important values and do not always make the right choices. Getting to understand that everybody has continually to grow in a relationship and in the partnership a foundation can be laid to have a better ground to keep the family structure together. Forming the generation in such a way that they are concerned in the others around them and can put their egocentrism at the side it would help not to get an egoist community.

When those who created children would take up their responsibility to those children but also to the community in general, several difficult situations would be avoided and children would be less the plaything of the divorcing parents.

Although the elderly were at greater risk of poverty than the population of the EU‑27 as a whole, there was a notable difference between genders; elderly women were more at-risk-of-poverty than elderly men (22 % compared with 17 % in 2007). This gender inequality (22) was widest in the Baltic Member States, Slovenia and Bulgaria, but relatively narrow in Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands. Malta was the only Member State where elderly women were less at-risk-of-poverty than elderly men. [24]

Armen levend onder armoederisicodrempel 2011 - Those living under the poverty threshold

Armoede en rondkomingsmogelijkheden - Poverty level and managing possibilities

Huishoudinkomen onder armoederisicodrempel 2011 - 2011 Household Income below poverty threshold


[1] Vlaamse armoedemonitor; Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering, Maart 2011

[2] Vlaamse armoedemonitor, Diensten voor het Algemeen Regeringsbeleid; Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering; Jo Noppe, Verantwoordelijke uitgever Josée Lemaître; Maart 2011

[3] Bonoli G. (2005) The Politics of the New Social Policies: Providing Coverage against New Social Risks in Mature Welfare States. Policy and Politics 33: 431-449.

[4] Vandenbroucke F and Vleminckx K. (2011) Disappointing poverty trends: is the social investment state to blame? An exercise in soul-searching for policy-makers. CSB Working Paper 11/01. Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy.

[5] Calculation of the cyclical divorces figure – or simpler said the “divorces chance” – by the General Management Statistic and Economic Information (Algemene Directie Statistiek en Economische Informatie) > Twee op drie huwelijken eindigen in België met een echtscheiding

[7] Beautiful Theories, Brutal Facts: The Welfare State and Sexual Liberation

Norman Dennis; Welfare, Work and Poverty, Lessons from Recent Reforms in the USA and the UK, John Clark, Norman Dennis, Jay Hein, Richard Pryke, David Smith (Editor), Institute for the Study of Civil Society, London, First published April 2000

[8] Amato, 2001, 2006a, 2006b; Amato & Cheadle, 2008; Dronkers, 1999; Dykstra, 2000; Emery, 2006; Pong, Dronkers & Hampden-Thompson, 2003; Spruijt, Kormos, Burggraaf & Steenweg, 2002; Sun & Li, 2001; Vanassche, Sodermans & Matthijs, 2008; Grych &Fincham, 2001; Krishnakumar en Buehler, 2000; Spruijt, 2007a, VanderValk, 2004

[9] , Spruijt and VanderValk, in press; Adriaansz, M., & Spruijt, E. (2003). Onderzoek naar adviezen over de omgangsregeling door de Raad voor de

Kinderbescherming. EB, Tijdschrift voor Echtscheidingsrecht, 10, 131-136.

[10] Fischer, 2007

[11] In his BBC Reith lecture on the family (BBC April 1999), Giddens makes the remarkable counter claim that the economic development of the Third World depends on the replacement of its preindustrial traditional family, not by something like the Western European Christian family of the nineteenth century, but by the Western world’s current pursuit, as a primary goal and as the subject of constant media attention, of sex without consequences. For Giddens, there is on the one hand the current sexual and childrearing régimes of Western Europe and the enlightened parts of the United States. On the other hand there is the traditional family of reactionary fundamentalism. There is nothing in between. The essential classificatory criterion is the presence or absence of the oppression of women through the role-specific division of labour, overwhelmingly favourable to men, and unremittingly enforced by them through violence and the manipulation of religion, politics and public opinion. All other criteria are nugatory.

[12] Eurobarometer (number 202) conducted at the beginning of 2007

[13] Scheiden: motieven, verhuisgedrag en aard van de contacten. Bevolkingstrends 53, 39-47.

Voorburg/Heerlen, CBS.; De Graaf, 2005

[14] Ervaringen van kinderen met het ouderlijk gezin. Maandstatistiek van de Bevolking 49 (4),

12-15. CBS, Voorburg/Heerlen. ; De Graaf, 2001

[15]State-of-the-art 2009: Kinderen en echtscheiding, Ed Spruijt, Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen, Onderzoeksgroep Adolescentie

[16] Vlaamse armoedemonitor, Diensten voor het Algemeen Regeringsbeleid; Studiedienst van de Vlaamse Regering; Jo Noppe, Verantwoordelijke uitgever Josée Lemaître; Maart 2011

[17] Ghysels J and Van Lancker W. (2009) Het Matteüseffect onder de loep: over het ongelijke gebruik van kinderopvang in Vlaanderen CSB Berichten. Antwerpen: UA/Centrum voor Sociaal Beleid Herman Deleeck. + Ghysels J and Van Lancker W. (2010) The unequal benefits of family activation: an analysis of the social distribution of family policy among families with young children. CSB Working Paper 10/08. Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy. + Who reaps the benefits? The social distribution of public childcare in Sweden and Flanders Wim Van Lancker and Joris Ghysels Working Paper No. 11 / 06 April 2011

[18] I could find no figures about children living on their own after they had cast away their parents. Possible can one find a same number as in other countries, where disowning a parent or parent alienation would concern approximately 10 per cent of the separations.

[19] This so-called child effect has been observed in all countries and for all women, although not necessarily to the same extent. (Uunk W, Kalmijn M and Muffels RT. (2005) The Impact of young Children on Women’s Labour Supply. Acta Sociologica 48: 41-62.)

[20] In 2005, the federal and Flemish government spent about €130 million in direct subsidies on childcare for families with a youngest child under 3 in the Flemish region, and then you should add tax deductions for childcare, giving a government budget for public childcare of €190.906.297 million. But the bulk of government expenditures is allocated to the higher income families, despite the pro-poor design of the tariff system and the higher number of children among the lower income groups, because of the system of tax deduction and the right-skewed use pattern.

[21] Who reaps the benefits? The social distribution of public childcare in Sweden and Flanders Wim Van Lancker and Joris Ghysels Working Paper No. 11 / 06 April 2011

[22] Gornick JC, Meyers MK and Ross KE. (1998) Public policies and the employment of mothers: A cross national study. Social Science Quarterly 79: 35-54.

[24] Combating poverty and social exclusion: a statistical portrait of the European Union 2010; Eurostat

Een analyse van de Armoede in Vlaanderen door Marcus Ampe - Poverty in Flanders, an analysis by Marcus Ampe


  • Low pay linked to poverty rates (dispatch.com)
    Like in our region Ohio and other states in the USA poverty persists because there are too many jobs paid not enough. Despite full-time employment, many still rely on food stamps, subsidized child care or other types of government assistance to make ends meet.
    Wages have not gone up in Ohio, but costs have, and therefore it is necessary the system of indexing and also periquation as in Flanders has to be used to safeguard the citizens.
  • New Labour’s record on child poverty: Lessons must be learnt (leftfootforward.org)
    As Kate Bell and Jason Strelitz put the finger on the sore spot, certain improvements are not just an extra, but necessary advancements of a civilized country. Mike Brewer, James Browne, Robert Joyce and Luke Sibieta in”Child Poverty in the UK since 1998-99:Lessons from the Past Decade“, also agree that the performance of parents in the labour market is important too. But they remark: “Reducing income poverty amongst children to zero is infeasible for at least 3 reasons: incomes are volatile in the short run, so there will always be some people with very low incomes at any point in time, e.g. due to self-employment losses or transition between jobs (clearly this applies less to the persistent poverty target); survey data is always subject to misreporting and the Family Resources Survey underrecords benefit and tax credit receipt2008); and
    the take-up rate for means-tested benefits and tax credits will never be 100%.
    Earnings from employment are the single largest source of income for
    households in the UK and Flanders. Labour market trends are thus likely to be a significant determinant of the evolution of poverty amongst families with children. But as I shall point out in chapter 8 it is not only work that shall bring the solution against poverty, because when the employers do not respect the people working for them and do not pay them enough, this is not going to change much. Even worse it is going to make the citicens even more frustrated, tired and depressed.
    Reduced worklessness amongst couples and adjusted taxation shall help to reduce child poverty when the payment for the work takes into account the costs of necessary products to have a good life.
  • Brazil declares war on ‘chronic poverty’ (guardian.co.uk) and Brazil launches anti-poverty plan (bbc.co.uk)
    It’s a dead cert that the government or the state has to reach out to the poor and not having the poor knowing all the laws about benefits and having to go to several offices to  get sufficicient help.
    President Dilma Rousseff her ambitious plan, Brazil Without Misery, which aims to eradicate dire poverty by 2014 through welfare payments, education, jobs, healthcare, access to public services, improved infrastructure and rural development should receive support and imitation.
    Giving slightly more money to the poorest people, broadening the scope of the bolsa familia (conditional cash transfer) initiated by Rousseff’s predecessor, Lula da Silva now up to five children per family – formerly it was three – qualify for benefits, embracing a further 1.3 million children. Since its launch in 2003 the bolsa familia scheme has enabled tens of millions of Brazilians to get enough to eat, live a little better, and even discover the joys of consumption and credit.
    The government rightly aims to improve access to public services, particularly education, the health service, running water, electricity and sewerage for those most in need. They are the most essential necessities. As I shall point out in chapter 6: “Transport factor of immobilising financial growth” people do have to have the means to go from one place to the other, to find a suitable job and to get medical care and possibilities to shop at reasonable prises.
    Her “Productive inclusiveness”, the third and last part of the scheme, aims to give the poor the economic means to lift themselves permanently out of poverty, through job opportunities, vocational training and micro-credit. But it also gives their dignity in their own hands which is very important to have a good feeling and to progress individually as person and as part of a growing community.
  • Are We Really Helping? (missed60b.wordpress.com)
    Naturally there is a danger when one gets continued dependence on [government support] inducing a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.  It is not the task of the government, read all the citizens of a country, to continually take care of everybody. A take off has to be provided because there exist proof that certain attractive measures of funding can destroy the own incentive and initiative of the citizen.
    Thomas Jefferson said, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”
    The primary drivers of poverty such as single-family homes, fatherless families, and lack of working parents have to be confronted with sincerity head on.
    Robert Rector’s new paper, How Poor Are America’s Poor? Examining the “Plague” of Poverty in America does not justice to the poor of today. He bagatalises the problem with saying that some poor families do experience hunger but that it means only a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. “While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average “poor” person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.” he says and “While hunger due to a lack of financial resources does occur in the United States, it is limited in scope and duration. “. We can only notice an other picture than the one he presents of “Eightynine percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only 2 percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.”
    While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both.
    Also in such a rich country as Belgium there can be found people who really have to scrape the breadcrumbs and every last scrap.
  • The Root of Culture Rot (theconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com)
    As any “civilized” place east central Louisiana also faces the fact that Children from single-parent families (most of which are headed by a single mother) are over five times as likely to live in poverty than are those from married families.
    It is our destructive unashamed way of life and the loose way of life that is the principal cause for the absence of married fathers in the home.
    “Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.”
  • Thank God for Fathers
    also brings forward the same problem of the torn apart families, pointing to our modern way of life and trends in our modern society going proud to teach that religion is only for those who are superstitious, weak-minded, and/or closed-minded and old-fashioned. Logical that our society is going to feel the consequences of these purveyors of the secularization of modern culture which are doing everything possible to remove ’religion’ from the public discourse.Important to remember: “With over 40 percent of children born out-of-wedlock, we seem on the path to destruction. Can government (our modern god) do something to help? Not according to Jason Turner, who led the welfare reform campaign in Wisconsin and then took it to New York City, who stated sadly, “There is no solution that I can think of that will fundamentally affect men at the moment.” Government is not the solution to the problem, government programs are the problem. In fact most of the policies affecting those trapped in poverty are designed to penalize those who choose marriage.”
    “In 1996 the Kenosha job center director won praise for saying that he told welfare recipients “straight-out that marriage is not the answer.” They didn’t realize that work requirements are necessary but not enough. From 1996 to 2001 Wisconsin-style welfare reform did move hundreds of thousands of people toward economic independence. But others stayed stuck, and in 2003 the Manhattan Institute organized a conference that asked, “Whither Welfare Reform? Lessons from the Wisconsin Experience.””Everywhere in the world Fathers remain the countries strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet marriage continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result. Marriage is highly beneficial to children, adults, and society; it needs to be encouraged and strengthened.
  • Self inflicted misery #1 The root by man (christadelphians.wordpress.com)
    For some the Book of Joboffers no simple answer to the problem of suffering. But it should shed a light on how nobody can escape the problems of this world and shall be able to find himself confronted with misery at one or another time.Suffering and loss are common to man, and often he is at the root of it himself.
  • Child poverty easing in Ontario, report says (thestar.com)
    A 2009 decision to boost the Ontario Child Benefit to cushion struggling families during the recession helped pull 19,000 children out of poverty, advocates say in a new report on the province’s anti-poverty efforts.But on the third anniversary of Ontario’s Dec. 4, 2008 pledge to cut child poverty by 25 per cent by 2013, more action is needed if the province hopes to meet its target, warns the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction in a report being released Monday.

    “Given the slow recovery from the recession and growing income inequality, now is not the time for the provincial government to sit on its laurels,” says Mike Creek, chair of the network which represents more than 100 provincial groups and individuals working to eliminate poverty.

  • National News: Poverty ‘about more than income’ (coventrytelegraph.net)
    In a significant intervention in the debate on poverty, Mr Duncan Smith said that the “hugely expensive” drive to lift children out of poverty by boosting family income had failed.
  • Child poverty approach ‘to fail’ (bbc.co.uk)
    The work and pensions secretary said there were problems with officially classifying child poverty as a family on 60% or less than the median income.It created perverse incentives to lift people just over the mark, he said.

    Official figures published on Tuesday suggest child poverty is set to swell by 100,000 over the next few years.

  • Anti-poverty plan is failing millions, claims Rowntree report (guardian.co.uk)
    Young adults in need are being neglected by coalition’s focus on children and pensioners, say authors
    The government lacks a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy and risks neglecting large swaths of the population who are in dire need, such as young adults, the working poor and the 6 million under-employed, while its policies instead focus on…
Enhanced by Zemanta

About Marcus Ampe

Retired dancer, choreographer, choreologist Founder of the Dance impresario office and archive: Danscontact-Dansarchief plus the Association for Bible scholars, the Lifestyle magazines "Stepping Toes" and "From Guestwriters" and creator of the site "Messiah for all". - Gepensioneerd danser, choreograaf, choreoloog. Stichter van Danscontact-Dansarchief plus van de Vereniging voor Bijbelvorsers, de Lifestyle magazines "Stepping Toes" en "From Guestwriters" en maker van de site "Messiah for all".
This entry was posted in Education, Poverty, Upbringing and Education, Warning, Welfare and Health, World and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Welfare state and Poverty in Flanders #4 The Family pact

  1. Pingback: Eigendomsrecht, welvaarttaks en waardigheidsrecht | Marcus' Space

  2. Pingback: Welfare state and Poverty in Flanders #9 Consumption | Marcus' Space

  3. Pingback: Self inflicted misery #1 The root by man « Christadelphian Ecclesia

  4. Pingback: Welfare state and Poverty in Flanders #12 Conclusion | Marcus' Space

  5. Pingback: Rellen in Frankrijk en Belgë « Christadelphian Ecclesia

  6. Pingback: Materialisme, “would be” leven en aspiraties #1 | Broeders in Christus

  7. Pingback: Poverty and conservative role patterns | Stepping Toes

  8. Pingback: Importance of parents 2 | Stepping Toes

  9. Pingback: Subcutaneous power for humanity 2 1950-2010 Post war generations | Marcus' s Space

  10. Pingback: Subcutaneous power for humanity 4 Not crossing borders of friendship | Marcus' s Space

  11. Pingback: Subcutaneous power for humanity 5 Loneliness, Virtual and real friends | Marcus' s Space

  12. Pingback: Inequality, Injustice, Sustainability and the Free World Charter | Marcus' s Space

  13. Pingback: Less… is still enough | From guestwriters

Feel free to react - Voel vrij om te reageren

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.