A "vulnerable class" of about 400,000 people would be at high risk of falling into poverty if the economy faltered, a report from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) warns.
Published today, Trends In Welfare Groups, Ireland 1994-2001 considers the elderly, lone parents, the ill, the disabled and the unemployed are at particular risk.
While the situation of all groups improved during the economic boom years, relative income poverty among this "vulnerable" group increased sharply, and there was a "substantial increase in numbers falling below relative income poverty thresholds".
Relative poverty is a measurement of income relative to the average wage. The relative poverty line is most usually taken as 60 per cent of the average wage.
Consistent poverty measures deprivation across a series of deprivations, including low income and an inability to buy a warm coat, have a hot meal every day and own a second pair of shoes.
Drawing on data from the "Living in Ireland" surveys, the report finds the situation for those able to participate in the workforce - and their children - improved enormously during the boom. For those on welfare, particularly the elderly, disabled and long-term unemployed, "deprivation and psychological distress remained high".
The "vulnerable class" has fallen from just over three in 10 of the population in 1994, to one in nine in 2001. Numbering about 400,000 today, they are at particular risk of poverty should their circumstances or those of the economy worsen. Comparing different groups at risk of poverty before the boom, the authors say: "The situation of children provided a considerable contrast with that of older people, who saw their relative income poverty rates rise substantially."
Those older people "living alone and those relying on State old-age pensions . . . had higher consistent poverty rates than other older people."
They continue: "For the unemployed, deprivation, economic strain and psychological distress levels all remained well above- average and, over the period, gaps between them and others widened."
Numbers in this group fell dramatically, however. "Their level of welfare dependency also fell considerably, although a substantial proportion remained dependent."
The report finds the ill and disabled were more disadvantaged than the unemployed. This group "fared relatively-poorly as their income poverty rates rose sharply and their rate of improvement in other areas [such as housing and health] were typically below-average." A high proportion was in rented accommodation.
Focusing on lone parents and their children, the report again finds their levels of deprivation fell more slowly over the period than for the unemployed. But by 2001, their dependence on welfare was less than that of the unemployed.
Unsurprisingly, those lone parents in work had low risk of consistent poverty but those unable to work faced "high levels of consistent poverty."
