Author: Dr Lauren Winch, BPI Manager
Introduction
On the 5th and 6th June 2024 the Bristol Poverty Institute (BPI) were delighted to welcome a diverse audience to our conference on Poverty and Social Justice in a Post-COVID World. This important conference marked the 25th Anniversary of the establishment of the Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research at the University of Bristol, which laid the foundations the BPI has built upon since our launch in 2017. We welcomed around 120 attendees from a wide range of sectors and organisations around the world including universities, a local foodbank, Arigatou International, ATD Fourth World, Bristol City Council, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), Citizen’s Advice, Disability Rights UK, Innovate UK, and UNICEF. We also featured speakers from 12 different countries across five continents.
Across our two-day programme we brought together a multi-sector audience – including those with lived experience – with varied perspectives, approaches, and knowledge. Together, we explored how the pandemic has impacted on different dimensions of poverty and how we could combine our different expertise, approaches, and perspectives to help improve the lives of those suffering from poverty and address issues of social justice. We delivered a mix of thematic and regionally focussed sessions and a combination of in-person and online engagement opportunities to try to open the door for everyone to be part of the conversation.
On Day 1 (Wednesday 5th June), we convened in-person in Bristol to explore the impacts of the pandemic on different dimensions of poverty within the UK, with thematic sessions on topics such as mental health, structural inequalities, education, employment, and social mobility, as well as dedicated networking spaces. On Day 2 (Thursday 6th June), we brought together a global online audience to take a journey around the world with us exploring the impacts of the pandemic in different regions. We started with an Asia and Oceania-focused session in the morning, moved on to Europe and Africa in the middle of the day and, finally, to the Americas later in the day, following the sun around the world and shedding light on different dimensions of poverty and inequality in the wake of the pandemic.
The COVID pandemic wreaked havoc across the world, disrupting all of our lives. Inevitably, some were worse affected than others and, as with many things, it was often those already marginalised who feel the heaviest impact. New inequalities emerged and existing inequalities were exposed and exacerbated. Many of these have persisted long beyond the peak of the pandemic, even now, when life has settled into a so-called ‘new normal’. Political choices resulted in a pandemic that was experienced unequally, killed unequally and impoverished unequally and this has reduced trust in government and health systems.
Please read on for a whistle-stop tour of our conference! We have also made our conference resources available on our website, so if you want to delve into more detail on the presentations please do check those out. We have presentation slides from both days, as well as full recordings of all of our online sessions on our YouTube page:
Day 1
We were delighted to welcome our in-person attendees to Day 1 of our conference at the Wills Hall Conference Centre in Bristol for a fantastic programme of sessions.
Opening Session
Day 1 of our conference kicked off with an engaging welcome address from the University of Bristol’s Faculty Pro-Vice Chancellor for Arts, Law and Social Sciences Professor Esther Dermott, who was one of the founding members of the Bristol Poverty Institute back in 2017. Setting the scene for our two-day conference, Esther provided an overview of the BPI, its background, and its importance, embedded within reflections on the challenges of poverty in the modern day and how this intersects with various issues including politics, health, and education. She highlighted the value of the BPI’s interdisciplinary, multidimensional approach to poverty, and of the importance of bringing together different sectors and perspectives in events like this one.
We were then introduced to the BPI itself by the BPI Manager, Dr Lauren Winch. Lauren introduced the BPI team members, the BPI Advisory Board, and gave an overview of the BPI’s history, it’s key aims, and how the Institute operates. She again reiterated the multidimensional approach to poverty, and the Institute’s ambitions to translate research into evidence-informed policy and practice which improves peoples’ lives in the real world.
Lauren then provided a summary of the programme for the day, before introducing the BPI’s Academic Director Professor David Gordon for the opening presentation. David’s presentation was eye-opening, and at times shocking even to an informed audience. He shared statistics on poverty and deprivation changes over time, quoted the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights on the extent of poverty in the UK and the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on human rights violations in the UK, and finally shared evidence on the impacts of COVID on poverty and inequality. Professor Gordon illustrated the impacts of austerity on measures of poverty, wage growth, and spending on public services, and highlighted how poorly the UK had performed compared to other high-income countries in the wake of the pandemic with both high death rates and low-economic growth.
He concluded with a statement on how pandemics have historically affected the poor the most and exacerbated inequalities, and that COVID was no different – the poor got poorer, and the rich got richer. This, he said, is the state we’re in.
Education, Employment and Escalating Inequalities
Our first thematic session of the day was on ‘Education, Employment and Escalating Inequalities’. This session sought to explore how the pandemic had impacted on trajectories and life chances, including for those in education, in employment, and transitioning between the two. Our speakers explored child poverty, financial inequalities, in-work poverty, and the rise of food banks in schools.
First, we heard from our session chair Professor Sharon Collard, who is the Research Co-Director at the University of Bristol’s Personal Finance Research Centre and has been a member of the BPI Advisory Board and core team since the very beginning of our Institute. Sharon’s talk introduced the Financial Fairness Tracker and the evidence it had generated on the financial wellbeing of UK households since the pandemic.
Sharon highlighted evidence on how the number of households in serious difficulty had risen from 2.8million in 2021 to 4.8million in 2023, with increasing number of households resorting to taking on new debt and using foodbanks. She then outlined how household finances are linked to health and wellbeing, including lung issues linked to cold and damp houses, sleep deprivation due to stress, dental issues due to unaffordable treatment costs, and reduced mental health due to lack of capacity to engage in social activities. She concluded with a quote from Peter Barker on how “we can’t go back to normal”.
Our next speaker was Mr Alex Collinson from the Trades Union Congress (TUC), who was unfortunately unable to join us in person and therefore gave his presentation online. Alex’s talk looked at the rise of in-work poverty and the main drivers behind this, before moving on to exploring the policies that would help to reverse the rise. He highlighted the negative impacts of insecure work and a broken benefits system, and commented on how work is not currently a route out of poverty, echoing sentiments from a recent BPI seminar on Dismantling ‘Work as a Route out of Poverty’: Exploring experiences of underemployment and active labour market policy. He shared some of the TUC’s analysis on the drivers of in-work poverty, including pay rates, levels of insecure work, and reductions in the real value of standard monthly benefits allowances.
Alex closed his presentation with a plea to policy makers to bring in new legislation that tackles insecure work, addresses the pay crisis with measures including a £15/hour minimum wage, and fixes the broken social security net.
We then heard from Professor Jane Millar, who is the Chair of the Trustees of Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and Professor Emerita in the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath. Jane was speaking in her capacity as Chair of Trustees at CPAG, and shared findings from CPAG’s 2023 annual report on ending child poverty. Jane set the scene by highlighting that in 2022/23 there were 4.3 million children – around 30% of all children – in the UK living in poor households.
Echoing some of Alex’s points, she noted that many children are growing up in poverty despite having at least one working parent, and that child poverty can cast a long shadow on health impacts, education outcomes, and wellbeing and mental health. She also highlighted how policy in recent years has actually increased child poverty in the UK, and how the UK has fallen into the bottom third of European rankings for child poverty rates. In order to reverse this trend, Jane advocated for changes which combat the things which are making it worse, expand measures to prevent or reduce child poverty, and actively build support to achieve a society with no child poverty. Such measures could include abolition of the two-child limit and the benefit cap, making child benefit universal, providing more secure homes, and extending free school meals to all children whose parents are on Universal Credit. She wrapped up with a clear message that ending child poverty should not be a party-political issue; it should be something that unites all parties.
The final speaker in our Education, Employment and Escalating Inequalities session was Dr William Baker, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Bristol. William’s talk focussed on the rise of food banks in schools, highlighting how millions of families across the UK are struggling to put food on the table and large numbers of children are arriving at school too hungry to learn, and how this has led to a shocking situation whereby there are now more food banks in schools than outside of them. In addition, he exposed that one million children in poverty don’t qualify for free school meals because the income threshold is so low – if your income on Universal Credit is above £7400/year, you don’t quality for free school meals.
Mirroring comments from earlier presenters, William highlighted how toxic food insecurity can be for children, threatening their psychosocial outcomes, their educational trajectories, and ultimately their life chances. He also noted how parents’ mental health also suffers when they can’t provide adequate food for their children, with compounding impacts. William then went on to introduce his research on food banks in schools – many of which started during the pandemic – and how their prevalence has accelerated rapidly during the cost-of-living crisis. 21% of schools in England now have a foodbank, rising to a third in the most deprived areas. Interestingly, he also noted that it was often the poorest paid within the school systems – such as teaching assistants and receptionists – who were driving forward these initiatives. William’s talk drew to a close with reflections on how charitable food aid was being forced to step in where the welfare state should be supporting people, and how the UK is currently systematically failing to ensure that every citizen has the right to food.
Sharon, our session Chair, then opened up the floor to questions from the audience. The room explored topics including priorities for manifestos in the upcoming election, holding the UK government to account for child poverty and human rights now that we have left the EU, and what could be done to reduce child poverty in the next generation. Key topics which came to the fore were the need for the government to commit to a child poverty strategy, to address the cost-of-living crisis head on, and to reconsider the two-child policy and benefit cap which some of the panellists described as inhumane. In the closing remarks, William took the opportunity to highlight the upcoming Food Justice Fortnight in June and July organised by charity Feeding Bristol, which he is involved with. The BPI are also actively participating in this initiative, co-hosting a joint workshop with Feeding Bristol, the University of Bristol Food Justice Researchers Network, and Cabot Institute for the Environment on Connecting Research and Communities to tackle food justice and inequalities.
Mental Health, Poverty, and the Pandemic
Following a break for refreshments and networking, we re-convened for our second thematic session of the day on Mental Health, Poverty and the Pandemic, exploring intersections between mental and physical health and dimensions of poverty, including food deprivation and the care sector. The session was introduced and chaired by Dr Julie Mytton, who is a Professor of Public Health and leads the Global Health Research theme in the Centre for Public Health and Wellbeing at UWE and is an Honorary Professor at the University of Bristol. Julie also joined the BPI Advisory Board in 2023, bringing valuable expertise on children and young people and health inequalities to the Board following the retirement of previous members Professor Alan Emond and Dr Matthew Ellis.
Our first presenter in this session was Ms Tricia Jessiman, who is a Senior Research Associate in Qualitative Public Health at the University of Bristol. Linking in with some of the discussion before the break, Tricia’s talk explored the viability and impacts of a pilot intervention offering free school meals for all children. Her talk shared evidence from a case study in two London secondary schools, following an introduction where she shared more insights into food insecurity and child hunger and the implications this can have on a child’s growth, development, and mental health. Tricia outlined how child hunger and poverty can have implications for depression, anxiety, bullying, substance abuse, disordered eating, behavioural issues, and other psychosocial impacts with potential lifelong consequences.
Tricia’s research questions for this project focussed on whether universal free school meals could be feasible, what the costs would be, and crucially what the implications and impacts were. Data collection included interviews with parents/carers, school staff, and ‘peer partners’ from within the student body. Key findings included that once the system was in place it was easier for school staff to administer than means-tested free meals, that universal provision led to increased meal choice and quality, and that it also helped tackle stigma as well as the anticipated financial benefits for families and nutritional benefits for children. Whilst there are inevitable cost implications, Tricia concluded that the benefits outweighed these and argued that the evidence from this intervention proved that universal free school meals could be delivered successfully in secondary schools; however, more research is needed in different schools and different regions, and with comparisons against other food insecurity interventions.
Up next we heard from Mrs Dinithi Wijedasa, an Associate Professor in Child and Family Welfare at the University of Bristol. Dinithi’s presentation explored the mental health of children and young people in care in England through analysis of longitudinal patterns. Her talk began with some troubling statistics on children and young people in care who now number over 80,000, two-thirds of whom have been taken into care due to severe maltreatment such as abuse or neglect. She explained that these children come from backgrounds of poverty, deprivation and disadvantage, and 40-50% have a diagnosable mental health condition.
Dinithi’s talk questioned whether the current system delivers the protective role and duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children which is expected from the State, and explored how children and young peoples’ developmental contexts impacted on their mental health. One particularly worrying statistic was the amount of people experiencing difficulties who either hadn’t asked for mental health support, or had asked for support but didn’t received it, which was 20% in the first wave of the study and 27% in the second.
Overall, Dinithi concluded that the studies indicated that children’s whole developmental context influences their mental health, particularly the strength of their relationships with family, friends and other support networks. Her work also highlighted the importance of longitudinal tracking, and the need to address children’s mental health earlier rather than waiting until crisis point.
The final speaker in this session was from Professor Laura Howe who is a statistical epidemiologist at the University of Bristol. Laura’s presentation explored how poverty and adversity can affect physical and mental health over a life course, particularly when experienced in childhood. Laura explained how ‘childhood adversity’ refers to maltreatment as well as broader forms of household disfunction such as substance abuse, domestic violence, parental divorce, bullying, emotional abuse, and parental criminal conviction. This is therefore a broad spectrum of events which can deprive children of a safe home environment.
She went on to explore how poverty, adversity and health can all intersect, but acknowledged that they are not always addressed collectively and that the solutions and approaches to these areas can be different. Laura’s work drew upon data from the ALSPAC cohort, and revealed that childhood adversity reduces socioeconomic chances in life as well as affects numerous aspects of health outcomes including depression, obesity, and substance addiction/abuse. Echoing sentiments repeated earlier in the day, Laura surmised that the pandemic’s socioeconomic effects were hardest felt by people with pre-existing and long-lasting disadvantages.
Following-on from these thought-provoking presentations, the room entered into an engaging discussion of the intersections between mental health and poverty, and the role of the pandemic in these areas. This included, for example, the need for holistic responses at both individual and institutional levels to issues such as food security and effectively supporting children in care, as well as the value of interventions at family level. A key message which kept coming up was the need for early interventions instead of waiting until children and young people reach crisis point; the old adage of ‘prevention is better than cure’ certainly rings true in these circumstances. Other topics which the panel explored included why the study of poverty and adversity are separate, the power relationships in child poverty research, the importance of co-production, and the role of schools as a focal point for not only education but also the social and health needs of pupils. The discussion was lively and could have gone on much longer, but it was time for us to break for lunch and chew over the themes, questions, and revelations of the morning’s presentations as well as a tasty meal in beautiful surroundings.
Structural Inequalities and Social Justice
Our session after lunch was an interactive one, designed to combat the post-lunch ‘slump’. We also wanted to give our attendees the opportunity to actively engage in the discussion, to meet some new people, and to hear fresh perspectives from people with different experience and backgrounds. We therefore asked attendees not to sit with their friends and close colleagues for the breakout groups! We think it worked…
Whilst the session was interactive, we wanted to set the scene with a couple of thought-provoking presentations. Our session Chair, Professor David Gordon, introduced our afternoon session on structural inequalities and social justice and explained how the pandemic disproportionally affected different people, groups and communities due to dimensions including gender, ethnicity, disability, and socioeconomic status. The first presentation was from Ann Singleton, a Reader in Migration Policy at the University of Bristol, who was presenting on behalf of Tony Bunyan who was unfortunately unable to attend due to ill health. Tony is the Director Emeritus of Statewatch and the Honorary President of the Institute of Race Relations, and a well-known and highly respected voice on structural inequalities.
Ann and Tony’s presentation was entitled ‘Monitoring the State’ and was centred on the premise that the need for independent monitoring of the actions of the state is an essential cornerstone in the defence of civil liberties, challenging racism, inequalities in health, housing, and multiple dimensions of poverty. One of Ann’s opening statements was that “The most revolutionary thing you can do is to proclaim loudly what is happening”, and it was clear how much this struck a chord with the conference attendees. She went on to provide some background on both Statewatch and the Institute for Race Relations, including the evidence they hold in their archives and its importance. For example, they have decades worth of paper evidence documenting all of the measures implemented by the State. Ann highlighted how this information is vital to inform debate, and to hold the State to account. Her concluding remarks re-emphasised the message that we must address – and challenge – the structures in society in order to make progress.
Our second provocation came from Professor Saffron Karlsen, whose work at the University of Bristol focuses on improving understanding the significance of ethnicity in people’s lives, including its impact on social inclusion and its role in driving health and other inequalities. Saffron’s talk focussed on lessons from the pandemic for more inclusive policy-making, and building on Ann’s presentation it also explored the role the state can have in driving the narrative. She has done a lot of work with Black South West Network on how the pandemic disproportionately impacted different communities, particularly where this intersects with ethnicity. Saffron gave an overview of focus group studies with racialised groups in Bristol she had been part of in the wake of the pandemic as the rules and restrictions began to lift. Themes which came to the fore were a lack of representation and inclusion, ‘culture wars’ and the ‘blame game’, and mistrust of the government, its policies, and its respect for racialised groups.
These two talks certainly did their job of stimulating thought and discussion in the room, and were an excellent scene-setter for our breakout groups. The remainder of the session was therefore dedicated to exploring our breakout questions:
- How did the pandemic affect different groups in different ways? Who do you think gained and who do you think lost?
- What should the next government do to get poverty alleviation back on track?
There was such a buzz in the room that it was a shame to have to draw the breakout groups to a close, but we were keen to hear what the different tables had come up with. The response to question 1, who gained and who lost, was pretty unanimous: the rich won, and the poor, marginalised and/or disabled lost. Other groups who were identified as losing were school-aged children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, as well as people in densely populated areas, key workers on the ‘front line’, women, single parents, racialised communities, teachers, those in precarious employment, people who lived alone, care home residents, people with disabilities and/or chronic health conditions, and of course everyone who suffered with and died from COVID itself. Winners included software companies, ‘cronies’, PPE companies, pharmaceutical companies which developed the vaccines, and people with larger homes and/or gardens, although it was also acknowledged that homeless people and those on Universal Credit did also temporarily benefit from additional government support and that many of us have benefitted from the transition to hybrid working and from an enhanced community spirit with our neighbours.
In terms of what the next government should do to tackle poverty, providing adequate housing was a common theme, as was getting the economy and inflation back on track, ending the two-child limit, uprating benefits in line with inflation, restructuring the tax system and closing loopholes so that the super-wealthy pay their fair share, investing in and commitment to public services in general and the NHS, transport, and education in particular, and reparations for colonialism, slavery, and climate damage. It was clear that all of the groups had had engaging discussions with different perspectives, but these common themes really came to the fore. We can only hope the new government – as yet undecided at the time of writing this post – really get to grips with these challenges, and invests in the right areas to help those most in need.
Closing Session (Day 1)
We took a short break after the breakout session, before moving into our final closing session of Day 1 of our conference. Our final speaker was Mr Peter Matejic who is a Chief Analyst at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), and has engaged with BPI many times over the years. We were delighted to welcome him to the floor to share his reflections on the deepening of UK poverty, and what can be done to tackle it. Peter introduced JRF as an independent and politically neutral organisation who simply want to eradicate poverty. He shared the shocking statistic that there are 14.3million people in poverty in the UK and that 6 million of these are in ‘very deep poverty’, with disproportional amounts of people with disabilities and lone parents in poverty. Worryingly, levels of destitution and deep hardship are rising fastest of all; the number of people in destitution has more than doubled since 2016.
After sharing a thought-provoking video with lived experience testimonials, Peter outlined what JRF think is driving destitution. Causal factors include the fact that the basic rate of social security is at its lowest in 30 years, various housing-related challenges including housing benefits lagging behind rent, lack of appropriate regulation and much lower rates of social housing being built, and also an increasing number of people who are sick and/or disabled and therefore unable to work. Peter’s presentation did, however, end on a more positive note: change is possible. Measures such as uplifting Universal Credit, developing a fit-for-purpose housing policy, and improving the statutory sick pay system would all go a long way towards reducing poverty and deprivation, as would tightening and enforcing employee’s rights.
Peter’s talk inspired a series of interesting questions and discussions in the room, with topics including what is required for a decent standard of living, what happens to asylum seekers who drop out of the system, whether there is scope for further devolution in the UK – and whether this would be a good thing – and what are the gender dimensions of poverty and deprivation.
It was then down to the BPI Director, Professor David Gordon, to draw Day 1 of our conference to a close. He thanked all of the speakers, attendees, and BPI team for their contributions to the conference, and encouraged everyone to join us online the following day for our world-tour of the intersections between poverty and COVID-19. We then invited all attendees to join us for a drinks reception, to continue with the engaging discussions and explore new connections and potential opportunities for collaboration with other attendees. The fact that many attendees were still in the room over an hour and half later when the event closed is a real testament to the inspiring talks and presenters and to all of the attendees for being so engaged and involved in the discussion. Therefore, the BPI want to take this opportunity to once again thank everyone who participated in such a fantastic day.
Day 2
The second day of our conference was delivered online to a global audience, with a series of regionally-focussed sessions corresponding with respective time zones. We kicked off with a session focussing on Asia and Oceania first thing in the morning, followed by a late morning session on Europe, a session on Africa after lunch, and finally a session on the Americas in the afternoon/evening UK time. We were joined by speakers from 12 countries from across five continents, as well as a diverse audience of global attendees. Our session summaries are briefer for Day 2 than Day 1, as all of the sessions were recorded and you can therefore watch the full thing at your own leisure if the below piques your interest!
Asia/Oceania Session
Day 2 kicked off with a session on Asia/Oceania, with speakers joining us from Hong Kong, Japan, Kiribati, and the UK. The BPI team provided a brief scene-setting presentation, giving a bit of background to the Institute, the conference, and our programme of activities. The Asia/Oceania session was chaired by University of Bristol alumni and friend of the BPI Dr Shailen Nandy, who is now a Professor of International Social Policy at the University of Cardiff.
We began with a presentation from Professor Maggie Lau from Lingnan University in Hong Kong. Maggie’s presentation explored the impacts of the pandemic on child poverty and well-being in Hong Kong, applying the consensual deprivation methodology to understand poverty and develop appropriate poverty alleviation policies in Hong Kong. She explained how the consensual method incorporates both household and individual levels of analysis and therefore acknowledges the multidimensional nature of poverty and is a more direct reflection of living standards and quality of life than some other measures. Maggie provided an overview of where and how the consensual method has been applied globally, and her findings from its application in Hong Kong.
Our next presentation was from Dr Viliami Konifelenisi Fifita, who is the International Resident Advisor to the Kiribati National Statistics Office at the World Bank and is another University of Bristol alumnus who spent many years working for the Government of Tonga. Like Maggie, Viliami’s presentation focussed on the application of the consensual approach to poverty measurement, this time applying this methodology to Pacific Island countries with specific examples from Tonga. In his presentation, Viliami also outlined some of the other poverty measures which are commonly applied, including the World Bank’s international poverty line ($1.25/day), national poverty lines, and the multidimensional poverty line, as well as different categories of poverty classification.
The third presenter in our Asia/Oceania session was Professor Aya Abe from Tokyo Metropolitan University in Japan. Aya’s presentation provided an overview of the application of the consensual method in a third country context; she presented an analysis of changes in socially perceived necessities over time in Japan. She highlighted how one of the technical challenges in constructing the material deprivation scale is the identification of socially perceived necessities, which are contextually dependent and can also change over time in response to economic, demographic and political change. Her presentation therefore outlined research studies exploring changes over time in perceived necessities such as having shoes that fit, separate bedrooms for children, and visiting a doctor, and the impact of different factors on this.
Our fourth and final speaker in the Asia/Oceania session was Dr Qiujie Shi, a Lecturer in Quantitative Human Geography at the University of Bristol. Qiujie’s presentation focussed on migrant-local disparities in China’s urban labour market during the zero-COVID era, and how this intersected with multiple vulnerabilities. She outlined the challenges faced by migrant workers in China who have migrated from rural to urban areas for work, where they then encounter unequal access to certain resources due to the ‘Hukou’ system. For example, migrants cannot access certain jobs in the public sector, as well as having limited or no access to some services, benefits, and public funds. Qiujie went on to explore the implications of this for migrant workers, and the way that different vulnerabilities and cultural factors intersected.
Once we had heard from all of our speakers, we moved into a virtual Q&A chaired by Shailen. We received a range of interesting questions exploring topics including the influence of adaptive preferences on the application of the consensual approach, the impact of the pandemic on peoples’ perceptions and corresponding responses to surveys, and the influence of ‘parental sacrifice’ on differential responses from adults and children. To listen back to the full Q&A, check out the session recording via our website.
Europe session
Our second session on Day 2 focussed on poverty and the impacts of the pandemic in Europe. For this session, we had speakers dialling in from Australia, Luxembourg and Spain. The Europe session was chaired by our own BPI Director, Professor David Gordon.
The first presentation in this session came from Dr Alba Lanau from Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain, who was previously a member of the BPI during her time at the University of Bristol. Alba’s presentation explored intra-household inequality between children and adults in a range of different European countries. This presentation again touched upon the idea of parental sacrifice which had been introduced in the Asia/Oceania session, whereby parents tend to protect and prioritise children’s needs over their own. Alba explained how this unequal distribution of resources within the household is therefore obscured when poverty is only measured at the household level, contributing to conflicting narratives on child poverty. Alba then presented findings from research on 22 European countries, based on a sample of 38,000 households with children. A key finding was that parents – particularly mothers – as well as unemployed people and part-time workers were most likely to go without, whereas the young and old tend to be the most protected and sacrifice the least.
Our next presentation in the Europe session was from Mr Eric Marlier, who is the International Scientific Coordinator at the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER). Eric’s presentation explored how we can break the vicious cycles perpetuating disadvantage across generations, which damages lives, weakens social cohesion, and undermines environmental sustainability. He outlined how living in poverty affects so many aspects of peoples’ lives, including limiting access to healthcare, erosion of aspirations and self-confidence, exposure to stigma and discrimination, and lack of participation in society and culture. Eric explained how difficult it can be to escape poverty and break out of the cycle, but how this can have considerable social and economic advantages for society as a whole as well as the individual. In particular, he advocated for tackling child poverty as a positive investment for society with huge “returns”. He concluded by outlining four key reasons why fighting inequality matters, as outlined in the below slide:
Building on Eric’s presentation, we then heard from his colleague at Liser Dr Anne-Catherine Guio who is an economist with expertise in statistics and comparative data analysis. Anne-Catherine expanded on the European Child Guarantee, which had been touched upon in Eric’s presentation, exploring access for children in need in the EU to the key services covered by this guarantee. These are:
- high-quality early childhood education and care;
- education and school-based activities;
- at least one healthy meal each school day;
- healthcare; and
- effective access to two services: healthy nutrition and adequate housing.
Anne-Catherine’s presentation outlined a mapping of the situation, which would enable monitoring of adherence to the European Child Guarantee, with a particular focus on children living in low-income households. From her analysis, she concluded that there are many gaps in provision and barriers to access, but that the European Child Guarantee itself was very important and helpful and has led to amazing progress in some countries.
Our final presentation in this session was from Ms Amy Raub, the Director of Research of the WORLD Policy Analysis Center at UCLA in the USA, although she was joining us from Australia on the day. Whilst situated within the Europe-focussed session, Amy gave a fascinating presentation outlining intersections between gender, work, care-giving, and the pandemic in 193 countries across the world. In particular, she explored paid leave policies for care-givers, particularly women, and the impacts of this. For example, in 20 Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) there was a demonstrable correlation between paid maternity leave and reduced infant mortality rates. She therefore concluded that the implementation of paid leave policies can have a really positive effect on outcomes, and that mapping disparities between countries can help to advocate for change.
Following the presentations, we moved into a virtual Q&A chaired by David. We received a range of interesting questions exploring topics including the influence of maternity/paternity leave policies on fertility rates, the challenges of standardising indices, comparative analyses of the impacts of different global pandemics, and the likelihood/challenges/benefits of rolling out the European Child Guarantee to the rest of the world. To listen back to the full Q&A, check out the session recording via our website.
Africa session
All of a sudden we were already halfway through Day 2! After a lunchbreak (for those in the UK and similar time zones) we reconvened for our Africa-focussed session with speakers from Ghana, South Africa and the UK (although our UK-based speaker, Cynthia, originally from Cameroon, lives in Côte d’Ivoire and previously spent time working in Nigeria and other West African countries).
We were delighted to welcome Professor Leon Tikly to Chair this session. Leon is a Professor of Education and is the UNESCO Chair on Transforming Knowledge and Research for Just and Sustainable Futures at the University of Bristol, and has been an active and valued member of the BPI Advisory Board since the BPI’s earliest days.
Leon then introduced our first speaker in this session, Dr Nkechi Owoo from the University of Ghana. Nkechi is currently working with the World Bank, and recently spent a period of time with us at the BPI as Bristol ‘Next Generation’ Visiting Researcher in 2023 working with the University of Bristol research community on the effects of climate change on health outcomes. Her conference presentation focussed on spatial and regression analyses of climate shocks and household food insecurity in Ghana, outlining how the threats posed by climate change have the potential to disrupt food systems in various ways. Nkechi highlighted how there has been an increasing frequency of natural disasters and climate shocks in Ghana over the last decade in particular, with flooding the most common, and sharing the concerning statistic that almost half of Ghanaians experienced food insecurity in the first half of 2022. Her research explored spatial analysis of the overlaps between experiencing shocks and mild/moderate/severe food insecurity, and what the moderating effects were. Whilst the data suggested that there were other factors influencing food insecurity, even after these had been controlled for there was still a positive correlation between climate shocks and food insecurity in Ghana, and that this relationship was affected by whether households were poor or not.
Our next speaker was Professor Murray Leibbrandt, who is the Chair in Poverty and Inequality Research at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa. Murray has collaborated with the BPI Director (Professor David Gordon) many times over the years, and hosted David and the BPI Manager (Dr Lauren Winch) at UCT in August 2023 when we ran a joint training course on advanced poverty research methods. Murray’s talk explored inequality and poverty in South Africa through the prism of the pandemic, examining the differential impacts of COVID-19 on different people and groups influenced by various factors including their health, socioeconomic status, and living circumstances. This, by extension, impacted on the effectiveness of social and economic policy interventions in response to the pandemic. Murray then went on to present a COVID-19 vulnerability index in the South African context which had been developed in collaboration with partners including the BPI Director, which informed the South African government’s emergency response and helped to buffer the socioeconomic impact of COVID-19.
Murray explained how the study indicated that a large proportion of the population was ill-prepared to protect itself against the virus, with disparities across both space and social groups. He also noted how poorer households may have limited capacity to follow WHO recommendations due to their living conditions, including having limited access to clean water and soap, and/or living in large, overcrowded households. He also went on to explore the various impacts of the pandemic in South Africa, including impacts on and intersections with child hunger, mental health, and unemployment, and how the indices developed have helped to better understand the intersecting inequalities.
Next up was Dr Cynthia Fonta, a PhD researcher at the University of Bristol who has a diverse background that integrates practical medical work with deep academic research. Cynthia’s presentation was on a cross-comparative analysis of child poverty across Anglophone and Francophone states in sub-Saharan Africa. Cynthia began by outlining how poverty is not only monetary but also relates to severe deprivation of basic needs including access to water, shelter, education and a social life. She outlined how her work focusses on Africa because the development outcomes there have been slow, and it continues to be hard for low-income families to provide the most basic needs that people in other countries take for granted, and she wants to understand why that is. She therefore explored a range of contributing factors, including colonial legacies, neo-liberal policies, cuts in welfare spending, unemployment rates, conflict, corruption, and poor governance and mismanagement. Her analysis drew on a range of data sources from within and between country child poverty assessments, and concluded that policy markers need to commit to ensuring that the most basic services are provided to improve children’s living standards.
Leon then wrapped up the session with his own presentation on the Transforming Education for Sustainable Futures (TESF) in Africa project, which he co-produces with colleagues and collaborators from across the continent and beyond. He introduced how the TESF network has funded 67 projects, mostly in Africa, across the three high-level themes:
- How can education and training assist learners to achieve sustainable development?
- How can education and training support sustainable cities and communities?
- How can education contribute to climate action?
The main focus of Leon’s presentation was on sustainable and transdisciplinary partnerships, with a co-creative approach that is equitable and mutually enriching. He emphasised the importance of linking up different knowledge systems and perspectives to better understand complex and intersecting issues such as education, food and water security, and sustainable cities, as well as the importance of empowering the people involved to make a difference and transform processes, policies, structures and practices. As his presentation drew to a close, Leon also acknowledged and recognised how emotional legacies of issues such as apartheid, racism, colonialism and other inequalities can be a barrier to accessing different voices and experiences, and the need for universities to be epistemically humble.
Leon then opened the virtual floor up to questions from the online audience. We received a range of interesting questions exploring topics including the challenges and benefits of working directly with communities experiencing poverty on the continent, the influence of specific colonial policies on household-level differences, possible mechanisms for mitigating the effects of climate change in remote areas, and changes in the patterns of inequalities now compared to at the peak of the pandemic. To listen back to the full Q&A, check out the session recording via our website.
Americas session
The final session of the day, and the 2024 BPI conference, explored the poverty dimensions of COVID-19 in the Americas, with speakers in Brazil, Mexico and the USA, with origins in Argentina. This final session was chaired by Dr Camilla Morelli, an anthropologist of childhood and youth at the University of Bristol who recently joined the BPI Advisory Board.
Our first presentation was delivered by Dr Héctor Nájera on behalf of Professor Fernando Cortés, both of whom are based at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). This presentation was pre-recorded, due to Héctor’s travel commitments. The presentation outlined new findings on poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico, which shows that multidimensional poverty increased more than previously thought. Hector explained how the observed changes were due largely to changes in income, and also, to a lesser extent, on changes in material and social deprivation.
The second presentation in the Americas session came from Dr Flávia Uchôa from the Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) in Brazil. Flavia’s presentation outlined a project to develop a scientifically valid multidimensional poverty measurement for Brazil using the consensual approach outlined in some of the day’s earlier presentations. Flavia presented the methodology, the study regions and sample sizes, and the development and expansion of the research over time. She outlined the study’s findings, which included a broad consensus among the groups studied regarding socially perceived needs and the groups most vulnerable to deprivation of these needs, such as families with children. She concluded with a summary of next steps for the project, which will include further expansion and analysis, with the ultimate aim of going beyond income to construct a scientifically valid and socially legitimate measure of poverty in Brazil. Unfortunately, due to technical issues much of the presentation was inaudible, and the Chair ultimately decided not to continue. Flavia, has, however, kindly re-recorded her presentation and we have embedded this within the recording of the session.
We had better luck with the next presentation from Mr Enrique Delamónica, who is based in UNICEF’s New York offices as the Statistics and Monitoring Senior Adviser for Child Poverty and Gender Equality. His presentation described work that UNICEF had undertaken on ‘nowcasting’ child poverty during COVID, including the assumptions, results and limitations of the study and comparisons with data trends in more recent years. Enrique spoke about methods for assessing the short, medium and long(ish) term effects of COVID in Latin America, including effects on education, health, income distribution, and economic growth. He concluded his presentation with a summary of where they plan to take the study next, including consensus approach questions, exploring some of the embedded assumptions and limitations, and considering including income distribution in the modelling.
Our final presentation was on giving a voice to children and families living in poverty from Professor Alberto Minujin. Alberto is a Professor at The New School University in the USA and the Founder Executive Director of Equity for Children, a non-profit working to improve living conditions for deprived children. In his presentation, he shared a series of videos sharing lived experience during the pandemic, which can be viewed on the session recording, which demonstrated impacts of local NGOs as well as local networks to support children studying from home.
Some of Alberto’s key messages were the value of establishing informal, grassroots networks, using technology to shine a light on stories that often aren’t heard particularly from women and children, and the need for community-based social monitoring programmes. Many of his messages chimed with those from earlier in the day, particularly Leon’s presentation in the Africa session. He concluded that we need to begin with giving a voice to people in poverty to inform and shape the resultant policies, which he described as a ‘Top-Down, Bottom-Up Collaboration’.
Our Chair, Camilla, then invited questions for our speakers. Topics of discussion in this final Q&A included the challenges of agreeing on definitions of poverty which allow for multiple different worldviews and models of development, how different communities understand and perceive ‘poverty’ and how this varies between generations, and the ways in which the models discussed can be best applied to influence mechanisms of inclusions and exclusions. To listen back to the full Q&A, check out the session recording via our website. This brought to a close the final session of our two-day conference on poverty and social justice in a post-COVID world.
Close
If you have made it this far, congratulations! You are possibly overwhelmed by the breadth and depth of all of our sessions, but also hopefully intrigued, inspired, and inspirited. It really was a fantastic couple of days, with an incredible range of presentations from speakers around the world and representing such a wide range of sectors. Do check out the resources on our website if you haven’t already, sign up to the BPI newsletter to be kept up to date with our upcoming activities as well as poverty-relevant news and resources, and get in touch with the BPI if you’re interested in working with us!
.jpg){kind=link}