French ‘poverty scorecard’ to facilitate progress towards poverty reduction goal
Newsletter 2010-1
Publication date : 2010-04-26
Having
committed, in October 2007, to reducing poverty by one third by 2012, the
French government is now required to present parliament with a detailed annual
“scoreboard” that describes progress towards that goal. This
scoreboard was developed in consultation with a wide range of government
departments, stakeholders and experts, including EU representatives. Its
central indicator is the poverty rate anchored in 2007, with a threshold set at
60% of median equivalised household income. In 2007, this threshold stood at
€910 a month. The intention is also to monitor poverty rates at lower
thresholds (40% and 50% of the median income), as well as poverty intensity,
i.e. the difference between poor households’ median income and the 60%
threshold. Another indicator measures the rate of non-negotiable (Préengagées)
expenditures for individuals in the lowest income quintile. Furthermore,
as poverty is not just a matter of income, the scoreboard also measures
progress on access to a wide range of everyday requirements such as employment,
housing, healthcare, education and training or banking services. The rate of
financial hardship/material deprivation is also part of the indicator set. All
in all, the scoreboard contains a series of 32 indicators linked to eleven thematic
poverty reduction objectives. The
first governmental progress report covering these indicators was presented to
the French parliament on 17 October 2009 – just one month and a half ahead of a
Peer Review hosted by France, which focused on the use of quantified objectives
and tools to measure the impact of policies aimed at combating poverty and
social exclusion. Although
too soon to evaluate the success of the French poverty reduction policy, the
Peer Review held in Paris (France) on 3-4 December 2009 provided an opportunity
for participants to discuss the role of indicators in the monitoring and
assessment of social exclusion, as well as a series of related governance
issues, such as partnership between national and local levels, and citizen involvement.
In addition to the host country, ten peer countries took part in the Review,
namely: Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal
and Romania.
Representatives from the European Commission, EUROCHILD and the European
Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) were also present. One
of the key conclusions that emerged from the Peer Review was that enacting
quantifiable poverty reduction goals and indicators into law, as has been done
in France,
can provide a useful means of raising policymakers’ accountability in the fight
against poverty. Nevertheless,
participants underscored that indicators can only ever be a means to an end and
that tracking indicators alone, without ensuring the appropriate follow-up
action on the ground and at all levels of government, will not help to reduce
poverty. Some
participants also stressed the risks related to quantified target-setting, such
as that of downplaying those poverty aspects that are not immediately quantifiable,
or of “gaming” – i.e. when administrations concentrate on actions that appear
to meet goals rather than on those that actually do so. The
importance of gathering predictive data in order to keep anti-poverty action
upto- date was also highlighted. All too often, official statistics fail to
reflect the current situation. This can hinder efficient action and lead to the
setting of inadequate or under/overambitious targets. Innovative data
collection systems at local level involving actors/ agents that are in direct
contact with the population, continuous monitoring panels and citizen panels
may provide a means of rectifying this. Asides
from this, participants hailed the French strategy’s emphasis on widespread
consultation, partnership with local communities and associations, and
involvement of people with direct experience of poverty, both during the
formulation and implementation phases. This focus was viewed both as crucial to
the identification and application of the most appropriate indicators, and as
an important factor in building popular support for anti-poverty action,
thereby encouraging politicians to take bolder steps.Lessons learned
