Single parenthood: the poverty industry’s kryptonite

Poverty cannot be meaningfully debated without due regard for a population’s demographic risk profile. When it comes to child poverty, this must include a discussion of the role of single parenthood. Other things equal, a society where single parenthood is more widespread will be prone to producing higher levels of child poverty.

For the poverty industry, single parenthood is a taboo topic. In their mindset, poverty is always and everywhere a ‘structural’ issue; it is caused by capitalism and capitalism alone. To them, talking about demographic characteristics of poor people smacks of ‘behavioural explanations’, which is shorthand for ‘blaming the victim’ and ‘demonising the poor’. Hence, talking about a phenomenon like single parenthood is kryptonite to the poverty industry.

This is not to say that social conservatives, in many ways the poverty industry’s natural enemies, are much more helpful in this regard. To them, single parenthood is a symptom of a decline in family values, which, in turn, is seen as a product of the wider social changes that have taken place since the 1960s. Yet in doing so, they are missing the main points. The UK is hardly the only country in the world which has gone through profound social changes during that time. But both the extent and the profile of single parenthood in the UK are quite unusual by Western European standards.

About one in five British children live with a single parent, one of the highest rates in Europe, and slightly ahead of Sweden and Denmark. Yet the really big difference is in the employment rates amongst that group. In Sweden and Denmark, four out of five single parents are in paid work. In the UK, it is little more than one out of two. The UK combines the single parenthood levels of the most socially liberal societies with the single parent employment rates of the most socially conservative societies – the worst of both worlds.


Worse, single parenthood in the UK is also extremely concentrated among those groups that are least prepared to cope with that challenge economically. Almost 70 per cent of British single mothers have no formal qualifications other than compulsory schooling. Among German single parents[i], that share is 35 per cent. British single parents are also having their first child at a considerably younger age than German single parents – a difference of four years, on average. These two variables – young age and low skill levels – are not unrelated, of course: having a child at a very young age makes it significantly harder to acquire skills and/or build up work experience.

This unusual demographic risk profile is one of the reasons why such high levels of social expenditure deliver such mediocre outcomes. The Scandinavian arrangement may not be the most attractive one from a classical liberal perspective, but on its own terms, it seems to work rather well. There are lots of single parents, but almost all of them work, and typically at high work levels. The government tops up their wages and subsidises their childcare costs, but supplementing income from employment is a lot easier than substituting it.

Unfortunately, the reasons for the UK’s high prevalence of single parenthood, combined with such an unfavourable skill profile among that group, are not well understood. But it is safe to say that raising work levels among that group has to be an absolute priority. The last government tried to do this, with an approach that was all carrots and no sticks. As soon as a single parent works for 16 hours a week, the government mobilises a Working Tax Credit payment of nearly £4,000 per year, and refunds 70 per cent of all childcare costs. To a degree, it worked. The single parent employment rate rose from 43 per cent in the mid-1990 to 55 per cent today, which is still the lowest rate in Europe, but no longer by such an extreme margin.

But the potential for this strategy has now been exhausted. A strategy to build on the progress made so far must involve more stick and less carrot, more low-paid work and less full-time benefit dependency. You can see why the poverty industry prefers to battle imaginary ‘structural causes’.

Kristian Niemietz is the author of Redefining the Poverty Debate – Why a War on Markets is No Substitute for a War on Poverty.

[i] Unfortunately, there are no broader international comparisons on the socio-demographic profiles of single parents.

Head of Political Economy

Dr Kristian Niemietz is the IEA's Head of Political Economy. Kristian studied Economics at the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and the Universidad de Salamanca, graduating in 2007 as Diplom-Volkswirt (≈MSc in Economics). During his studies, he interned at the Central Bank of Bolivia (2004), the National Statistics Office of Paraguay (2005), and at the IEA (2006). He also studied Political Economy at King's College London, graduating in 2013 with a PhD. Kristian previously worked as a Research Fellow at the Berlin-based Institute for Free Enterprise (IUF), and taught Economics at King's College London. He is the author of the books "Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies" (2019), "Universal Healthcare Without The NHS" (2016), "Redefining The Poverty Debate" (2012) and "A New Understanding of Poverty" (2011).

4 thoughts on “Single parenthood: the poverty industry’s kryptonite”

  1. Posted 06/03/2013 at 13:34 | Permalink

    A very interesting article, but I must challenge one assertion:

    ‘Unfortunately, the reasons for the UK’s high prevalence of single parenthood, combined with such an unfavourable skill profile among that group, are not well understood.’

    ‘Single parenthood’ is almost always used as a euphemism for single motherhood. Two keys to the phenomenon of single motherhood is the poor educational attainment you mention, and the state provision of housing and benefits for single mothers. Single mothers have daughters who go on to become single mothers themselves. It’s well known that the majority of single mothers are single by choice.

    I lead a newly-launched political party,Justice for Men and Boys (and the women who love them). We’re engaged in a public consultation exercise, and one of our proposal areas is the following:

    a) The government should set a date after which state support will not be provided for women having new babies which they are personally (or with the support of a partner and/or others) unable to care for financially.
    b) The money saved by the foregoing action will fund tax allowances for married couples.

    I invite people reading this comment to contribute to the consultation exercise:

    Mike Buchanan

    (and the women who love them)

  2. Posted 06/03/2013 at 14:39 | Permalink

    Mike, OK, the phenomenon is understood in that sense, but what is not well understood (as far as I know) is: Why is this problem worse here than in, say, Austria (87% of children in two-parent families; and among single parents, an employment rate of 80%)? I don’t know much about their benefit system, but I’d be surprised if it didn’t provide similar incentives. For some reason, they seem to respond less to bad incentives. Why is that? I haven’t come across a good explanation yet.

  3. Posted 06/03/2013 at 15:44 | Permalink

    Thanks Kris, but unfortunately I have no information on the issue in Austria. The British state has been supportive of single mothers over the past 30 years – not coincidentally, the point in time that a cohort of particularly misandrous militant feminists including Harriet Harman entered parliament. And over that time the state has become progressively less supportive of marriage and the nuclear family. Perhaps the rise in single motherhood in the UK is partly atttributable over this lengthy period to the ‘single mothers have daughters who often become single mothers themselves’ phenomenon. There’s only one thing that militant feminists hate more than men, and that’s the nuclear family, as I explained at length in ‘Feminism: the ugly truth’. You may or many not have noticed that Harriet Harman rarely criticises David Cameron personally, and in PMQs she generally smiles at him when he’s speaking, as a proud mother might. Why? Because he follows her agendas enthusiastically, as I explained in ‘David and Goliatha: David Cameron – heir to Harman?’ and ‘The Glass Ceiling Delusion’. He’s long been a leading proponent of increasing the number of women in major corporate boardroom, as outlined in forensic detail by an organisation I started 12 months ago, Campaign for Merit in Business (I wrote a blog piece on the matter for this website, and gave a well-received talk to a capacity audience at the IEA). The government refuses to engage with the overwhelming evidence – a number of longitudinal studies covering three other major developed countries – which shows that driving up the number of women on corporate boards leads to declines in corporate financial performance. Our latest briefing paper is here:

    Mike Buchanan
    [email protected]

  4. Posted 15/03/2013 at 22:29 | Permalink

    Mike, you should take heed of Angela Lansbury’s most recent comments.

Comments are closed.