Abstract
PurposeThere is ongoing debate amongst in-work poverty researchers as to how to answer the question “who is counted as in-work poor?” and how to define the minimum size of work that should be used to determine a “working threshold”. The purpose of this paper aims to contribute to this debate by testing five different definitions of a “working threshold” and discussing their implications when testing the different measurement outcomes.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use data from Statistics Sweden (SCB), including the total population registered as living in Sweden for each year from 1987 to 2017. All calculations are on a yearly basis and in fixed prices (2017). The data set used is based on linked administrative data retrieved from Statistics Sweden and the software used is SAS 9.4.FindingsResults show how in-work poverty trends differ by measurement approach. The two definitions with the lowest income thresholds are found to include a very heterogenic group of individuals. The development of in-work poverty in Sweden over 30 years show decreasing in-work poverty during the first decade followed by an increase to almost the same levels at the end of the period. In-work poverty in Sweden has transformed from being female-dominated in 1987 and the typical person in in-work poverty 2017 is a male immigrant, aged 26–55 years.Practical implicationsThis methodological discussion might lead to a new definition of who is a worker amongst the in-work poor, which could consequently affect who is counted as being in in-work poverty and lead to new social policy measures.Originality/valueThis is, to the authors' knowledge, the first time different definitions of work requirement used to define in-work poverty have been tested on a data set including the total population and over a period of 30 years.
Highlights
Poverty was earlier primarily associated with worklessness but since the late 20th century or early 21st century, research in in-work poverty has been gaining growing interest due to changes in the economy and the labour market
The second question that needs to be considered is “who is counted as in-work poor?” and here, we find an ongoing discussion, in which some researchers have stated that the lack of a consensus makes the measuring of in-work poverty “a definitional chaos” (Crettaz, 2011, 2013; Marx and Nolan 2012; Clark and Kanellopoulos, 2013)
The aim of this paper was to contribute to the discussion about the question of “who is counted as in-work poor?” by measuring five different definitions of the minimum degree of working
Summary
Poverty was earlier primarily associated with worklessness but since the late 20th century or early 21st century, research in in-work poverty has been gaining growing interest due to changes in the economy and the labour market. The second question that needs to be considered is “who is counted as in-work poor?” and here, we find an ongoing discussion, in which some researchers have stated that the lack of a consensus makes the measuring of in-work poverty “a definitional chaos” (Crettaz, 2011, 2013; Marx and Nolan 2012; Clark and Kanellopoulos, 2013). By testing the five different definitions on the Swedish data, this paper adds a study over in-work poverty in Sweden over a 30-year period and contributes to knowledge about the development of in-work poverty in Sweden, a research area that, in many ways, has been neglected. This has contributed to reshaping the Swedish labour market All these factors are indicators that the composition of the relatively poor has changed and that there might be a growing proportion of in-work poor in Sweden (Asplund et al, 2011; Brostr€om, 2015). Loopholes in the existing labour laws might have already been used to employ people at a low wage (Forslund et al, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
