Social Europe - Aiming for inclusive growth - Annual report

ISSN 2315-1552
Social Europe
Aiming for inclusive growth
Annual report of the Social Protection
Committee on the social situation
in the European Union (2014)
SOCIAL EUROPE: AIMING FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH
Annual report of the Social Protection Committee on the
social situation in the European Union (2014)
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible
for the use that may be made of the information contained in this publication.
© Cover photo: Thinkstock
For any use or reproduction of photos which are not under European Union copyright, permission must be sought
directly from the copyright holder(s).
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls
(though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
ISBN 978-92-79-44100-4
doi:10.2767/355771
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ 8
Introduction................................................................................................................... 9
Key messages on the social situation in the EU.................................................... 11
1. Recent developments in the overarching social policy setting at EU level . 14
2. The social situation in the European Union ...................................................... 15
2.1
Macro-economic and labour market context ...................................................................................... 15
2.2
Little progress on the Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target .................................... 22
2.3
What are the drivers behind increased poverty and social exclusion at EU level?................... 26
2.4
Developments in the relative poverty risk .............................................................................................. 36
2.5
Deterioration in living standards and increasing depth of poverty are becoming a very
tangible consequence of the economic crisis in some countries................................................... 41
2.6
Long-term exclusion from the labour market continues to be a main driver of increasing
trends in poverty and social exclusion .................................................................................................... 47
2.7
While the overall share of working poor is stable at EU level, there is strong divergence in
trends across Member States ..................................................................................................................... 49
2.8
The situation regarding child poverty and youth exclusion is a major concern ....................... 49
2.9
Income inequality is growing across and within Member States ................................................... 58
2.10
Mixed effectiveness of income support systems for those furthest away from the labour
market ................................................................................................................................................................ 60
2.11
Consistent and widespread improvement of the employment rate of older workers ........... 64
2.12
Pensions continue to avert poverty for many though divergence in adequacy and
effectiveness remains .................................................................................................................................... 66
2.13
Access to health and health outcomes ................................................................................................... 70
2.14
Developments in access to housing and homelessness ................................................................... 74
2.15
Trends in the take-up of selected social benefits ................................................................................ 84
3
2.16
Signs of more positive trends emerging regarding the number of unemployment benefit
recipients ........................................................................................................................................................... 84
2.17
Countries with downward trends in both unemployment benefit recipients and social
assistance benefit recipients ....................................................................................................................... 85
2.18
Potential continued gaps in social benefits' coverage in some Member States ....................... 86
2.19
More mixed developments in terms of the number of benefit recipients from social
assistance schemes ........................................................................................................................................ 88
3. Examining the 2013 social trends to watch ...................................................... 89
3.1
Key messages from the thematic in-depth reviews ............................................................................ 89
3.2
Social protection and youth exclusion in the EU ................................................................................. 90
3.2.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 90
3.2.2
Recent trends and future challenges ..................................................................................................... 91
3.2.3
Youth employment ....................................................................................................................................... 92
3.2.4
Poverty and social exclusion of young people ................................................................................... 95
3.2.5
RISK FACTORS .................................................................................................................................................... 98
3.2.6
Future challenges ........................................................................................................................................100
3.2.7
Social inclusion and social protection of young people – policies and practices ...............101
3.2.8
Results of the in-depth thematic review .............................................................................................110
3.3
Depth of poverty .......................................................................................................................................... 112
3.3.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................112
3.3.2
Recent trends ................................................................................................................................................114
3.3.3
Policy responses ...........................................................................................................................................115
3.3.4
The need for a comprehensive social investment approach ......................................................122
3.3.5
Results of the in-depth thematic review .............................................................................................122
3.4
The role of activating and enabling benefits and services in reducing long-term exclusion
from the labour market in the EU ........................................................................................................... 124
3.4.1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................124
4
3.4.2
Recent trends ................................................................................................................................................125
3.4.3
Policies, best practices and evidence-based responses................................................................131
3.4.4
Results of the thematic in-depth review .............................................................................................141
4. The 2014 social trends to watch .......................................................................143
5. SPPM dashboard .................................................................................................148
6. Views of the European Social Partners ............................................................151
7. Country Profiles....................................................................................................161
Belgium ......................................................................................................................162
Bulgaria ......................................................................................................................173
Czech Republic .........................................................................................................184
Denmark ....................................................................................................................195
Germany ....................................................................................................................206
Estonia ........................................................................................................................217
Ireland ........................................................................................................................228
Greece ........................................................................................................................239
Spain ...........................................................................................................................249
France.........................................................................................................................259
Croatia........................................................................................................................270
Italy .............................................................................................................................280
Cyprus ........................................................................................................................289
Latvia ..........................................................................................................................300
Lithuania ....................................................................................................................310
Luxembourg ..............................................................................................................321
5
Hungary .....................................................................................................................331
Malta...........................................................................................................................342
Netherlands ...............................................................................................................353
Austria ........................................................................................................................364
Poland ........................................................................................................................376
Portugal .....................................................................................................................387
Romania .....................................................................................................................398
Slovenia ......................................................................................................................409
Slovakia ......................................................................................................................420
Finland ........................................................................................................................431
Sweden ......................................................................................................................443
United Kingdom .......................................................................................................453
8. References.............................................................................................................467
9. Definitions and data sources .............................................................................468
6
Abbreviation
Full name
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
European Union (28 countries)
European Union (27 countries)
Euro area (18 countries)
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
7
Acknowledgments
The present report has been prepared as part of the mandate given to the Social Protection
Committee (SPC) by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to monitor the
social situation in the European Union and the development of social protection policies (art. 160
of TFEU).
The report is prepared by the Secretariat of the Committee and its Indicators' Sub-group. The
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion provided the necessary analysis
and calculations used in the report with the extensive assistance and data provision of Eurostat.
The principal authors are Paul Minty and Kornelia Kozovska, with specific contributions from
Susanne Conze, Istvan Vanyolos, Maria Ilies, Andrea Meszaros, and Regina Sauto. Eurofound
(European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions) has contributed
extensively to the section on youth exclusion and social protection. The members of the SPC and
its Indicators Subgroup contributed extensively to the drafting of the report and its key messages.
The views of the European social partners are annexed to the report. The report was approved by
the Social Protection Committee on 23 February 2015. The Council of the European Union
endorsed the conclusions of the report on 9 March 2015.
The list of SPC Members appears on the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=758&langId=en
The list of members of the SPC Indicators' Subgroup appears on the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=830&langId=en
8
Introduction
This edition of the annual review of the social situation in the European Union (EU) delivers on the
core Treaty task of the Social Protection Committee (SPC) to monitor the social situation in the
Member States and the European Union (art. 160 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union). The SPC is an advisory policy Committee which provides a representative forum
for multilateral social policy coordination, dialogue and cooperation at EU level. It brings together
policy makers from all EU Member States and the Commission in an effort to identify, discuss and
implement the policy mix that is most fitted to respond to the various challenges faced by social
policies. It uses the social open method of coordination as the main policy framework combining
all major social policy strands: social inclusion, pensions, health and long-term care.
This year's report on the social situation shows little improvement in the overall situation in the EU,
with continued disparities across Member States and a worsening situation in several. Even though
trends are more mixed than in previous years, with 11 Member States registering statistically
significant falls in poverty and social exclusion in 2013, around a 1/3 still saw significant rises, and
the most recent figures for the EU at-risk-of poverty or social exclusion rate point to stagnation at
a high level. These latest figures on living and income conditions in the EU show that the EU is not
making any progress towards achieving its Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target of
lifting at least 20 million people from poverty and social exclusion by 2020. In 2013 there were 4.8
million more people living in poverty or social exclusion in the EU28 compared to 2008, and a total
of 122.6 million or close to 1 in 4 Europeans.
The current economic situation poses a major challenge to policy makers trying to fight poverty
and social exclusion. The emphasis needs to shift from short-term measures to structural reforms
in order to spur economic growth, raise employment and tackle in-work poverty, and guarantee
adequate levels of social protection and access to quality services. Social policies alone cannot
deliver on the Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target. Reaching this objective must be
supported by other public policies in the economic, employment, tax and education fields.
This edition of the annual review of the social situation in the EU focuses on the results from the
latest edition of the Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM), which is based on a set of key
indicators for monitoring developments in the social situation, and has three main objectives: i)
analysing the most recent trends in the social situation in Europe, ii) providing an in-depth review
of the key challenges for the EU identified by the 2013 social trends to watch as endorsed by the
SPC, and iii) identifying what are the 2014 social trends to watch. It should be borne in mind that
analysis mainly focuses on the indicators included in the SPPM and that data used in the report
can refer to different years for different types of information (e.g. income versus labour market
developments), due to the different sources and reference periods of the data collected.
9
To start, chapter 1 provides a summary of the recent developments in the overarching policy
setting at EU level, with a focus on the adoption of the scoreboard of key employment and social
indicators to strengthen the social dimension of the EMU and the discussions in the context of the
mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy.
Chapter 2 then analyses the latest available figures for the set of social indicators included in the
Social Protection Performance Monitor, which present a summary picture of the social situation in
the EU. It draws upon some additional context information, including the broad macro-economic
and labour market situation in the EU and specific administrative data on benefit recipients,
collected through SPC delegates, in order to provide a comprehensive view on the main
developments in social policy outcomes across Member States. The chapter also includes special
focuses on developments in access to housing and summaries of information provided via the SPC
on how Member States have developed complementary approaches for monitoring social
developments during the recent period of crisis.
Chapter 3 focuses on the key quantitative information underlying some of the social trends to
watch identified in the previous SPC report (Social Protection Committee (2013)), namely
worsening depth of poverty, long-term labour market exclusion and youth exclusion, their social
and economic impact and most importantly the policy measures with proven effect against these
trends. It is the product of a series of in-depth thematic reviews on these policy challenges held in
2014/15 which saw Member States engage in analysing their positive and negative performance
and the potential for transferability of policy measures across different Member States and
institutional contexts. A first group of countries presented the policy framework in place enabling
them to register positive developments in the given areas. The countries concerned by clearly
negative social trends formed the second group of countries, and reviewed key elements of the
successful policy approaches of the first group and the scope for transferring these to their own
social protection systems.
Chapter 4 presents the 2014 results of the Social Protection Performance Monitor and the social
trends to watch based on the latest available data, as well as the resulting topics for thematic indepth reviews in 2014 based on these trends.
The report ends with country profiles for all Member States which provide a detailed snapshot of
the main social indicators for each country, the progress towards the national 2020 poverty and
social exclusion target, and the evolution in benefit recipients for a selected number of benefit
schemes.1
1
The report is to be read in conjunction with the SPC report on "Social policy reforms for growth and cohesion: Review
of recent structural reforms 2014", adopted in October 2014, which outlines the most important policy measures taken in
2014 in the fields of social protection and social inclusion.
10
Key messages on the social situation in the EU
1.
Although the EU has resumed economic growth, the recovery remains subdued and recent
GDP forecasts for the EU have been revised down. Despite the weak macroeconomic
background, employment has shown a small but consistent growth in the EU since mid2013 and in the large majority of EU Member States (although this is yet to be fully reflected
in all social indicators), and this has led to a slight easing in the pressure on social protection
systems in many Member States. Nevertheless, labour market and social conditions remain
extremely challenging.
2.
Long-term unemployment and low employment opportunities for youth (15-24) and young
adults aged 25-39 are some of the major challenges in the EU labour market. At the same
time, poverty and social exclusion have risen over recent years in most Member States,
affecting particularly the working age population and, by extension, children. Although some
of these challenges may have recently eased slightly, they remain substantial and need to be
tackled urgently.
3.
This year‘s results of the Social Protection Performance Monitor, as outlined in the 2014 SPC
Annual report on the social situation in the EU, show the situation to have stabilised at EU
level, although there continue to be disparities across Member States and a worsening
situation in some. Compared to the results from last year‘s edition, there is a more mixed
picture across the EU with the following social trends to watch for the latest period being
identified in around a third or more of all Member States:
4.

increases in the risk of poverty and especially its depth for the overall population;

continued rise in the share of the population in (quasi-) jobless households;

increasing housing cost overburden rate;

declines in real gross household disposable income;

increase in the share of the working poor.
These social trends to watch are partly balanced by positive developments in the labour
market participation of older workers and the further reduction in the rate of early school
leavers. Owing to the structural stabilising role of social protection, and pensions in
particular, the income and living conditions situation of the elderly continues to improve
relative to the rest of the population.
11
5.
The EU is still not making any progress towards achieving its Europe 2020 poverty and social
exclusion target of lifting at least 20 million people from poverty and social exclusion by
2020. In 2013 there were 4.8 million more people living in poverty or social exclusion in the
EU28 as compared to 2008, i.e. a total of 122.6 million or close to 1 in 4 Europeans. Even
though 11 Member States registered statistically significant falls in poverty and social
exclusion in 2013, around 1/3 still saw significant rises. Furthermore, national targets
continue to vary in their ambition and do not add to the EU collective headline target.
6.
Based on the thematic reviews which the SPC undertook on the 2013 social trends to watch
– youth exclusion, long-term exclusion from the labour markets, and depth of poverty, the
following main policy conclusions are to be considered:

In the context of high and persistent unemployment among young people and the
related risks of youth exclusion, social protection systems have an important role to
play in supporting labour market integration and helping young people to bridge
difficult periods of transition from education and training to work and employment
of progressively higher quality. The in-depth review made clear that further
exchange on the efficiency and effectiveness of the different approaches is
needed.

The long-term unemployed form a heterogeneous group with specific and
different obstacles such as health concerns, difficulty in reconciling work and family
life, social problems, or lack of skills. Alongside labour supply measures,
understanding the profile of the target population is crucial to effectively
implement policies and support their sustainable re-integration into the labour
market. Measures need to take a comprehensive approach, tailored around
individual needs in order to be effective, including targeted activation, adequate
income support and enabling services.

Drivers behind severe poverty and social exclusion are multiple. They can vary
across an individual's life-cycle and are closely related to the wider economic and
labour
market
context.
Comprehensive,
needs-driven,
preventive
and
individualised approaches can contribute to avoiding and alleviating poverty and
social exclusion in an effective and sustainable manner. Social investments are part
and parcel of such approaches by targeting specific needs arising across the lifecycle, ensuring adequate income support and providing access to quality enabling
services, supporting individuals in critical transitions.
7.
The EU social market economy needs to be strengthened. The emphasis needs to shift from
short-term measures to structural reforms in order to spur economic growth and social
cohesion, raise employment and tackle in-work poverty, improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of social protection and guarantee adequate levels of social protection and living
standards and access to quality enabling services.
12
8.
Social policies alone cannot deliver on the Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target
and the inclusive growth agenda. Reaching this objective can only be a result of an
integrated and coherent approach towards the economic, employment and social objectives
of the Union.
9.
As the economy picks up, policies should focus on ensuring that improving the social
situation across the Union becomes a shared priority. Structural reforms need to take into
account social and employment concerns. Reforms, particularly major ones, should be
subject to social impact assessments to minimise adverse social effects. Where reforms entail
trade-offs, the cost of reform should be fairly distributed across society and income groups,
and those at greater risk of poverty and social exclusion should not bear the brunt of
economic adjustment.
10.
In the short and medium term, improvements in the social situation should come from more
jobs, particularly for young people and from reduced poverty and social exclusion. To
achieve this, growth, structural reforms and social investments are needed. Wage and tax
policies should allow earnings and in-work benefits to lift people out of poverty and ensure
adequate levels of social protection. Investing in children and in young people should be a
political priority given the long-term gains stemming from their higher human capital and
well-being, labour market participation and productivity.
11.
In the long-run, the Union needs to prepare itself to address demographic imbalances that
will asymmetrically affect the growth potential of Member States, shifting social risks
between generations and along the life-course, and growing inequalities that weaken
cohesion and hold back upward mobility and growth.
13
1. Recent developments in the overarching social
policy setting at EU level
2014 has seen reinforcement of the monitoring of social developments in the context of a
strengthened social dimension of the EU and EMU as called for by the June and October 2013
European Council Conclusions. In 2013 the Council, upon a proposal from the Commission,
approved a scoreboard on employment and social indicators to be used in the context of the
European semester for policy coordination. The scoreboard is aimed at strengthening the social
dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union and consists of 6 indicators presented in a single
table allowing for monitoring the employment and social developments in the EU, and taking
account of the social and labour market situation within the EMU and EU in political discussions
and policy steer coming from the Council. The scoreboard is part of the annual ‗Joint Employment
Report‘ prepared by the Commission and adopted by the Council of the European Union.
Upon the invitation of the Greek Presidency, the Social Protection Committee, together with the
Employment Committee, prepared for EPSCO a joint opinion on the scoreboard2, recognizing it as
an important step forward in terms of granting political visibility for employment and social
challenges in relevant Member States and aiming to identify the most serious problems and
developments at an early stage. Both Committees retained that the scoreboard should be a fully
integral part of the Social Protection Performance Monitor and the Employment Performance
Monitor. The SPC Indicators Subgroup prepared an ad-hoc report on the operationalisation of the
scoreboard from that perspective and reviewed the list of the indicators of the SPPM accordingly.
In addition to the scoreboard, the Commission also decided to use a set of social indicators as
auxiliary indicators in the scoreboard of the macroeconomic imbalance procedure3. This
accumulation of monitoring instruments is expected to enhance the capacity of the EU to better
anticipate the social impact of its economic policies.
In the second half of the year, the SPC undertook a comprehensive reflection in the context of the
mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy, which resulted in a joint opinion with EMCO
endorsed by the 2014 EPSCO Council. This recognized the important contribution of the
development of the SPPM to the capacity of the SPC to identify the main social trends and
communicate them to the Council. It has also reinforced the multilateral surveillance capacity of
the Committee, thus supporting EPSCO to bring the relevant social issues to the attention of the
European Council.
2
http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?advSearchKey=EMUsocdimension&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en&p
olicyArea=&type=0&country=0&year=0
3
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/macroeconomic_imbalance_procedure/mip_scoreboard/in
dex_en.htm
14
2. The social situation in the European Union
2.1 Macro-economic and labour market context
Although the EU has resumed economic growth the recovery which started in the spring of 2013
remains subdued and recent GDP forecasts for the EU have been revised down. Indeed, after just
a year of moderate growth, the momentum of the EU economy began to slow in spring 2014 and
in the second half of the year turned out to be very modest, while in the euro area it almost
stagnated. GDP rose by 0.2% in the euro area (EA18) and by 0.3% in the EU28 during the third
quarter of 2014, compared with the previous quarter. In the second quarter of 2014, growth rates
were +0.1% and +0.2% respectively. Compared with the same quarter of the previous year, GDP
was up by only 0.8% in the euro area and by 1.5% in the EU28 in the third quarter of 2014, but
with particularly strong annual growth of over 3% in IE, HU, MT, PL, RO, SI and the UK although
with continued contraction in CY, HR and IT.
The autumn 2014 European Commission Economic Forecast (European Commission (2014))
projects real GDP growth for 2014 as a whole to have advanced only moderately, at 0.8% and
1.3% respectively in the euro area and the EU. Looking to the year ahead, the forecast revised
previous GDP growth for 2015 downwards significantly in both the euro area and the EU, but
nevertheless the economy is still expected to gain some further traction with growth rates
accelerating to 1.1% and 1.5% respectively in 2015.
Despite the weak macroeconomic background, employment has shown a small but consistent
growth in the EU since mid-2013, in the large majority of EU Member States, and across the large
majority of sectors. Nevertheless, labour market and social conditions remain extremely
challenging. The euro area (EA18) seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate remains high at 11.4%
in December 2014, slightly down from the peak of 12.0% recorded for most of 2013, while the
EU28 unemployment rate was 9.9% in December, compared with 10.6% one year earlier. The
number of (seasonally adjusted) unemployed in the EU28 reached an all-time high of 26.5 million
in April 2013, but subsequently has been declining on a consistent basis to fall to around 24.1
million in December 2014. This nevertheless still represents a total increase of 8.0 million since the
low of 16.0 million recorded in March 2008.
15
Figure 1: Monthly change in youth and adult unemployment and the total
level of unemployment in the EU, January 2007 - December 2014
Source: Eurostat, data seasonally adjusted
Many challenges remain in the EU labour market, with important social consequences, in particular
long-term unemployment and low employment opportunities for youth (15-24) and young adults
aged 25-39. At the same time, poverty and social exclusion have risen over recent years in most
Member States, affecting particularly the working age population and, by extension, children.
Young people are suffering from high levels of labour market exclusion: nearly a quarter of
economically active young people in the EU are unemployed and their prospects remain bleak for
at least the year ahead. Although these challenges have recently eased slightly, they remain
substantial and need to be tackled urgently.
A key feature of the recent crisis has been the growing divergence between countries in terms of
the labour market and social impacts, especially within the Euro Area. Across the EU, but
particularly within the euro area, Member States have experienced widening gaps in terms of
employment, income, poverty, inequalities, youth employment and many other key aspects of the
social situation. This divergence is exemplified by the varying extent to which the unemployment
rate has evolved across the different Member States, with huge rises between 2008 and 2013 in
the southern Member States (PT (up 7.7 pp), CY (12.2 pp), ES (14.8 pp) and EL (19.7pp)) compared
to more moderate rises of under 2 pp in AT, BE, FI, LU, MT, RO and SE, and a reduction of 2.2 pp
in DE.
16
Figure 2: Unemployment rate developments across EU Member States, 2008,
2012 and 2013
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
In terms of more recent trends, compared with a year earlier, the unemployment rate in December
2014 had decreased in almost allthe Member States and rose in only 3 (FI, FR and IT). BG, EE, EL,
ES, HU, LT, PL and PT experienced decreases of the order of 2 pp. Despite the recent
improvement in in the EU labour market, and the relatively stronger falls in the unemployment
rates in many of the southern Member States, the rates in CY, EL, ES and PT (16.4%, 25.8%, 23.7%
and 13.4% respectively) remain far above those of the central and northern countries at the end of
2014. In contrast, some of the other Member States hit particularly hard by the crisis, namely the
Baltic States (EE, LV and LT) and IE, have seen a very strong recovery in their labour markets over
recent years which has led to a substantial fall in unemployment in those countries. The lowest
unemployment rates at the end of 2014 were observed in AT, CZ, DE, LU, MT and the UK, all with
rates under 6%.
Although many factors have influenced the overall economic performance of different Member
States in the past years, much of the current divergence results from how labour markets and
social systems reacted to the severe global downturn as well as the fiscal consolidation packages
implemented in the majority of Member States. The shockwaves from the crisis appear to have
been asymmetric but the different institutional setups saw very different resilience to the widely
experienced major shock from the initial financial crisis: countries with relatively un-segmented
labour markets, solid industrial relations institutions and strong welfare systems have tended to
fare better than those with highly segmented labour markets, strained labour relations and weak
welfare provisions.
17
More than one in five young people in the labour market are unemployed. The situation of youth
in the labour market represents both an economic and a social emergency, with around 5.0 million
young persons (15-24 years) unemployed in the EU28 at the end of 2014, of whom 3.3 million
were in the euro area. Driven by strong falls in the UK, and to a lesser extent in ES and PL,
compared with December 2013 youth unemployment decreased by 464 thousand in the EU28
and by 168,000 in the euro area. Nevertheless, in December 2014, the youth unemployment rate
was still a high 21.4% in the EU28 and 23.0% in the euro area, compared with 23.1% and 23.9%
respectively in December 2013. The lowest rate was observed in DE (7.2%), but AT and NL also
recorded rates under 10%. In contrast, the highest rates were in ES (51.4%) and EL (50.6%), while
HR and IT also reported rates in the range 42% to 45%.
The proportion of young people (18-24 years) who are neither in employment, education, nor in
training (NEET) has increased sharply over recent years but appears to have stabilised at EU level
in 2013. The average NEET rate in 2013 was 17.0% (compared to 17.1% for 2012), representing
an increase of 3.1 pps on the rate at the start of the crisis in 2008. However, underlying the EU
average is wide disparity across Member States in both levels and trends in the NEET rate, with
high and generally still increasing rates in the south of the euro area (for example rates continued
to rise in CY, EL, ES and IT to reach levels of 27.1%, 28.2%, 24.0% and 29.3% respectively in 2013),
whereas in the northern euro area Member States it remains relatively low, and under 10% in DE,
DK, LU, NL and SE.
Long-term unemployment continues to rise and has reached alarming levels. In 2013, 12.4 million
Europeans had been unemployed for more than 12 months, accounting for 5.1% of the
economically active population across the EU and 6.0% in the euro area. Since 2008 the number of
long-term unemployed has more than doubled in the EU and in the euro area (an increase of 6.2
million and of 4.8 million respectively). The largest increases in the long-term unemployment rate
were recorded in Greece (from 3.7% in 2008 to 18.5% in 2013), Spain (from 2% in 2008 to 13% in
2013) and Ireland (from 1.7% to 7.9% (although having reduced over 2013 from 9.1% in 2012)).
18
Figure 3: Long-term unemployment rates in EU28, 2008 and 2013
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Migrants tend to be more affected by unemployment than the general population, as 19.5% of
economically active third-country nationals living in the EU were without a job in mid-2014. The
gap between the unemployment rates of migrant and native workers already existed before the
economic downturn but increased markedly since the crisis hit, although declining somewhat over
the first part of 2014.
As for intra-EU mobile citizens, they are generally more likely to be in employment than nationals
living in the same country (despite the fact that unemployment rates tend to be relatively higher
amongst intra-EU mobile citizens). This gap can be partly explained by differences in the age
composition between EU mobile citizens and nationals. The overall rate of inactivity among intraEU mobile citizens of working age has declined between 2008 and 2013 – from 23.7% to 22.1%.
This happened despite an increase in the rate of unemployment among intra-EU mobile citizens
during the economic crisis.
19
Figure 4: Unemployment rate breakdown for native workers, EU27 nationals
and third-country workers, 2007-2014
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Another issue relevant to the context for understanding developments in the social situation,
especially regarding the target on the reduction of the population in poverty or social exclusion
(see the following section), is the change in the size of the overall population since 2008, which has
been quite dramatic in certain Member States. For example, the total population in LV and LT has
declined by close to 8%, while it has expanded by around 11% in CY and LU (Table 1). Other
Member States with sizable increases in the population include IE (3%), MT (3.3%), UK (3.8%), SE
(4.1%) and BE (4.6%). For the EU as a whole, the total population increased by 1.3% or 6.7 million,
mainly reflecting rises of around 1 million in ES and IT, 1.6 million in FR and 2.3 million in the UK.
20
Table 1: Population change between 2008 and 2013
2008
2013
% change
EU28
500,418,320
507,162,571
1.3
EU27
496,106,353
502,900,431
1.4
EA18
330,005,457
334,611,086
1.4
BE
10,666,866
11,161,642
4.6
BG
7,518,002
7,284,552
-3.1
CZ
10,343,422
10,516,125
1.7
DK
5,475,791
5,602,628
2.3
DE
82,217,837
82,020,578
-0.2
EE
1,338,440
1,320,174
-1.4
IE
4,457,765
4,591,087
3.0
EL
11,182,224
11,062,508
-1.1
ES
45,668,939
46,727,890
2.3
FR
64,007,193
65,578,819
2.5
HR
4,311,967
4,262,140
-1.2
IT
58,652,875
59,685,227
1.8
CY
776,333
865,878
11.5
LV
2,191,810
2,023,825
-7.7
LT
3,212,605
2,971,905
-7.5
LU
483,799
537,039
11.0
HU
10,045,401
9,908,798
-1.4
MT
407,832
421,364
3.3
NL
16,405,399
16,779,575
2.3
AT
8,307,989
8,451,860
1.7
PL
38,115,641
38,533,299
1.1
PT
10,553,339
10,487,289
-0.6
RO
20,635,460
20,020,074
-3.0
SI
2,010,269
2,058,821
2.4
SK
5,376,064
5,410,836
0.6
FI
5,300,484
5,426,674
2.4
SE
9,182,927
9,555,893
4.1
UK
61,571,647
63,896,071
3.8
Source: Eurostat, population statistics.
Notes: Population figures on 1 January of given year.
21
2.2 Little progress on the Europe 2020 poverty and social
exclusion target
The commitment made in 2010 by the EU Heads of States and Governments to lift at least 20
million people out of being at risk of poverty or social exclusion, in the context of the Europe 2020
strategy, was a significant step forward. It stressed the equal importance of inclusive growth
alongside economic objectives for the future of Europe, and it introduced a new monitoring and
accountability scheme4. Within the framework of the Europe 2020 target, Member States set
national poverty and social exclusion targets (Table 2), although the individual poverty-reduction
ambitions of the Member States sums to a figure much lower than the EU level commitment to
reduce poverty and social exclusion by 20 million.
4
COM (2010) 758 final
22
Table 2: Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target - national targets
2014
National 2020 target for the reduction of poverty or social exclusion (in number of
persons)
EU28
20,000,000
BE
380,000
BG
260,000 (persons living in monetary poverty)*
CZ
Maintaining the number of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion at the level of
2008 (15.3% of total population) with efforts reduce it by 30,000
DK
22,000 (persons living in households with low work intensity)*
DE
320,000 (long-term unemployed)*
EE
Reduction of the at risk of poverty rate after social transfers to 15%, equivalent to an
absolute decrease by 36,248 persons*
IE
200,000 (persons in combined poverty)*
EL
450,000
ES
1,400,000-1,500,000
FR
1,900,000
HR
Reduction of the number of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion to
1,220,000, equivalent to a decrease by 152,000 persons compared to 2011
IT
2,200,000
CY
27,000
LT
121,000 (at risk of poverty after social transfers and/or living in households with very
low work intensity)*
Reducing the number of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion to 814,000
LU
6,000
HU
450,000
MT
6,560
NL
100,000 (people aged 0-64 living in a jobless household)*
AT
235,000
PL
1,500,000
PT
200,000
RO
580,000
SI
40,000
SK
170,000
LV
FI
SE
UK
770,000 persons living at risk of poverty or social exclusion, equivalent to an absolute
decrease by 140,000 persons
Reduction of the % of women and men aged 20-64 who are not in the labour force
(except full-time students), the long-term unemployed or those on long-term sick
leave to well under 14%*
Existing numerical targets of the 2010 Child Poverty Act and Child Poverty Strategy
2011-2014*
Source: National Reform Programmes (2014)
Notes: * denotes countries that have expressed their national target in relation to an indicator different than the EU
headline target indicator.
The EU poverty and social exclusion headline target is based on a combination of three indicators
– the at-risk-of-poverty rate, the severe material deprivation rate, and the share of people living in
(quasi-)jobless (i.e. very low work intensity) households. It considers people who find themselves in
any of these three categories and, while very broad, it reflects the multiple facets of poverty and
social exclusion across Europe. This definition extends the customary concept of relative income
poverty to cover the non-monetary dimension of poverty and labour market exclusion.
23
The most recent EU SILC figures available (i.e. for 2013) show that there has been a stabilisation in
the overall situation at EU level, although there continue to be disparities across Member States
and a worsening situation in many. Even though 11 Member States registered statistically
significant falls in poverty and social exclusion in 2013, around a 1/3 still saw significant rises. The
latest figures on living and income conditions in the EU show that the EU is not making any major
progress towards achieving its Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target of lifting at least 20
million people from poverty and social exclusion by 2020. In 2013 there were 4.8 million more
people living in poverty or social exclusion in the EU28 compared to 2008 (the reference year, due
to data availability, for the target adopted in 2010), a total of 122.6 million people or close to 1 in
4 Europeans.
Figure 5: Evolution of the Europe 2020 poverty and social exclusion target 5
(figures in 1000s)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: AROPE – at risk of poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (Quasi-)jobless HHs - share of
population living in (quasi)-jobless households (i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households); SMD - severe material
deprivation rate. For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year
(i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the
(quasi-) jobless households (i.e. very low work intensity) rate refers to the previous calendar year (i.e. 2012) while for the
severe material deprivation rate, the reference is the current survey year (i.e. 2013).
5
Based on data for EU27
24
The overall trend masks growing divergence between Member States. Increases between 20082013 have been observed mainly in the countries most affected by the economic crisis (EL, IT, CY,,
but also IE and ES using data for the period 2008-2012), have persisted in a number of Eastern
European countries which have some of the biggest challenges related to poverty and social
exclusion (BG, HU) but have started becoming a significant trend also in countries such as MT and
also in countries with some of the lowest shares of AROPE and solid welfare systems like DK and
LU. AROPE has remained more or less stable compared to 2008 in BE, CZ, DE, EE, FR, LV LT, NL,
PT and SK, while it has decreased in only four countries in the whole EU – AT, FI, PL and RO
(Figure 6). In contrast to the generally worsening trend in the years since the crisis hit, many
Member States have registered significant improvements between 2012 and 2013, including some
(BG, IT, LT, LV) with strong prior increases relative to 2008.
Figure 6: At risk of poverty or social exclusion rate (in %), evolution (in pp)
2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
24.5
24.4
23.0
20.8
48.0
14.6
18.9
20.3
23.5
30.0
35.7
27.3
18.1
29.9
28.4
~
~
~
-0.8
-1.3
-0.8
~
0.7
~
n.a.
1.1
n.a.
-1.0
-2.7
-1.5
3.2
n.a.
0.6
1.3
3.1
AT
RO
SI
SK
~
FI
n.a.
MT
~
PT
3.7
LU
~
PL
7.6
LT
~
NL
6.3
LV
~
HU
2.6
CY
SE
UK
27.8
35.1
30.8
19.0
33.5
24.0
15.9
18.8
25.8
27.4
40.4
20.4
19.8
16.0
16.4
24.8
~
-1.1
-1.7
~
~
0.9
0.9
~
-0.9
2.1
-1.3
0.8
~
-1.2
0.8
0.7
4.5
~
~
3.5
5.3
3.9
~
-1.8
-4.7
~
-3.8
1.9
~
-1.4
1.5
1.6
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes), using Eurostat computations of significance of net change. "~" refers to stable performance
(i.e. statistically insignificant change). v) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year
prior to the survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the
survey). Similarly, the (quasi-)jobless households (i.e. very low work intensity) rate refers to the previous calendar year (i.e.
2012) while for the severe material deprivation rate, the reference is the current year (i.e. 2013).
The major part of the population at risk of poverty or social exclusion (between 59% in SE and
72% in DK) is composed of working age individuals (18-64). Children (0-17) comprise around a
fifth in the EU as a whole, but around a quarter in FR and the UK and close to one third in IE and
LU. For the elderly (65+) they account for 13 % at EU level, but for around 20% in EE, LV, LT, HR,
SI, FI and SE, and as much as 23% in BG.
25
Figure 7: Distribution of the population at risk of poverty or
social exclusion across age groups, 2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012.
Substantial and focused policy efforts need to become a political priority so that the EU poverty
and social exclusion target remains a credible political commitment. Since current (2013) levels of
poverty and social exclusion are 4.8 million people higher than in 2008, and assuming no further
negative developments, almost 25 million people now need to be lifted out of poverty or social
exclusion by 2020 in order to still achieve the target.
2.3 What are the drivers behind increased poverty and social
exclusion at EU level?
Table 3 looks at the change in the risk of poverty or social exclusion for the period 2008-2013 for
different population characteristics and specific risk groups across Member States. The main
stylized facts that emerge are:
i)
the countries with the largest increase in the population at risk of poverty or social
exclusion are EL, ES, IE, HU, CY, MT, LU, BG, LT and IT;
26
ii)
when taking into account the population size, the countries contributing substantially to
the increase in the AROPE rate at the EU level are IT, ES (referring to the change 2008 to
2012) and to a lesser extent EL, HU and the UK;
iii)
relative poverty rates have remained fairly stable or with changes of up to 2pp in the
period 2008-2013 for most Member States (with the exception of EL (3pp) and HR, LU, SE
and SI (all with rises of around 2-2.5 pp);
iv)
severe material deprivation has seen some more substantial increases of around 5pp or
more in several countries – EL (9.1 pp), HU (8.9 pp), CY (7.0 pp), MT (5.2 pp), IT (4.9 pp)
and LV (4.7 pp);
v)
labour market exclusion as reflected in the share of (quasi-)jobless households has
increased substantially in the countries hardest hit by the crisis – EL, ES, IE, LV, LT and PT,
but also in BG;
vi)
youth have generally seen the most important deterioration in their income and living
conditions, but also those of prime working age (25-54) and in some Member States also
children have experienced substantial declines, while the elderly have fared better across
the board, highlighting the important role of pension systems;
vii)
there is wide variation in the extent to which countries have managed to protect
households with dependent children at risk (single parents, large families). Among those
Member States with the largest rises in the AROPE rate, nearly all (with the exception of
ES, LU and LT) have seen the most important increases in the AROPE for large families,
this being especially the case in BG, EL, HU, IE and MT (all with rises of over 8 pp). In some
cases (LU, LT but also DK, EE, FR, LV and SE), it is single parent households that have
clearly suffered the largest increases compared to other household types.
27
Table 3: Evolution of the at risk of poverty or social exclusion rate (2008-2013) across relevant population
characteristics and risk groups, in percentage points and % for the at-risk-of-poverty threshold
AROPE
…by gender
AROPE components
AROPE
AROP
AROP
Threshold
SMD
…by age group
…by activity status
(quasi-)
jobless HHs
(VLWI)
male
female
0-17
18-24
25-54
55-64
…by Household type
65+
employed
unemployed
inactive
(excl.
retired)
single
person
HH w/out
single parent
dependent
HH
children
Share
Large
families
% share in
the EU28
AROPE
PL
-4.7
~
35.3
-5.8
~
-4.4
-5.0
-3.1
-3.6
-3.8
-8.0
-7.2
-4.2
-3.0
-5.7
-6.1
-6.3
-4.9
~
7.9
RO
-3.8
-1.0
21.7
-4.4
-1.9
-3.6
-4.0
-2.7
2.6
-1.2
-6.0
-14.2
-2.3
4.0
2.7
-9.1
-8.3
-12.7
-2.2
7.0
AT
-1.8
~
10.5
-1.7
~
-1.5
-2.2
~
~
-5.7
-5.0
-1.7
-2.8
~
-2.8
-2.7
~
-3.7
1.3
FI
-1.4
-1.8
15.5
-1.0
1.5
-2.7
-2.1
-2.0
~
-7.1
-1.8
-3.3
4.2
-1.9
-1.1
-6.6
-1.5
0.7
SK
1.9
41.5
-1.6
2.4
-1.8
1.2
1.4
1.1
-4.5
-8.3
-1.9
-1.5
3.2
-10.0
-2.8
4.0
-2.6
0.9
~
9.5
-1.1
-2.2
1.1
~
~
-2.1
7.6
-4.1
~
-19.1
-3.5
1.2
10.8
~
-2.6
-3.7
-3.5
4.7
-1.1
-1.5
3.6
~
9.2
18.1
2.3
1.3
-1.2
2.7
-6.4
-3.4
11.9
4.1
~
3.7
1.9
-1.8
~
~
1.5
6.6
3.3
1.1
-4.6
-1.1
13.2
0.6
n.a.
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.0
3.4
2.7
~
~
~
EU27
-5.2
~
2.2
1.9
-1.2
~
~
99.0
LV
-6.5
-7.4
4.7
4.6
2.8
6.0
11.3
6.6
-1.3
-22.7
3.1
11.9
6.5
-16.3
-6.6
10.8
7.6
0.6
NL
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
4.0
7.6
~
~
~
1.3
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
-3.6
1.2
~
~
~
~
~
~
DE
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1.0
1.1
~
1.4
1.5
2.5
2.1
1.8
-3.6
~
-2.6
9.0
3.8
-3.6
4.1
2.2
EA18
1.3
n.a.
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.2
3.8
3.4
~
-3.9
1.0
3.0
1.5
~
~
~
61.6
2.3
CZ
FR
BE
PT
1.4
~
~
~
~
1.2
5.9
2.4
~
~
2.1
5.6
4.2
2.1
-7.4
-1.4
8.1
4.9
-8.3
~
~
~
-4.6
13.3
SE
1.5
2.6
15.3
~
1.6
1.2
1.8
1.6
2.9
1.2
~
1.0
~
-1.6
10.1
5.7
1.8
5.1
1.5
1.3
UK
1.6
-2.8
-11.2
3.8
2.8
1.9
1.1
3.0
6.5
4.0
3.8
-10.4
1.4
-4.5
3.5
~
-1.9
-1.5
-1.7
12.7
EE
1.7
~
13.0
2.7
3.1
3.6
~
2.9
9.3
4.1
5.0
-12.9
2.4
-3.6
4.9
-11.6
~
2.6
~
0.3
SI
1.9
2.2
~
~
1.3
2.8
1.1
2.2
3.3
2.6
~
-1.4
1.4
11.2
-5.8
-6.2
1.1
-6.6
5.5
0.3
DK
2.6
8.7
1.8
4.4
3.0
2.2
2.8
10.5
4.2
2.1
-7.2
~
~
3.4
2.9
1.8
8.2
3.3
0.9
IT
3.1
~
4.9
1.2
4.0
2.4
2.8
6.3
5.5
2.1
-1.8
4.3
8.9
~
~
2.9
1.4
3.3
14.1
5.8
3.7
5.9
3.0
3.3
6.0
1.9
5.6
3.1
-6.4
1.8
13.7
-3.6
-9.2
1.1
1.8
-5.3
0.7
27.1
1.8
4.9
3.5
3.0
7.3
8.8
5.9
-1.3
-7.9
4.2
2.9
8.2
-12.9
-1.8
6.7
8.5
2.8
LT
3.2
BG
3.2
~
~
~
~
LU
3.5
2.5
~
1.1
1.9
4.4
2.7
5.1
4.9
2.8
3.2
1.6
2.1
12.2
5.8
3.5
1.9
4.7
~
0.1
ES
3.7
1.4
-9.1
2.2
7.7
5.0
2.4
3.2
9.4
8.7
2.1
-11.1
1.7
11.0
-1.5
-6.5
2.0
1.3
-6.9
10.3
MT
3.9
5.2
~
4.4
3.4
7.0
10.2
5.8
~
-5.2
4.5
16.9
4.9
-3.0
~
-9.5
8.5
0.1
4.5
~
~
17.1
CY
~
7.0
3.4
6.3
2.9
6.2
11.9
10.6
1.2
-23.2
6.7
21.5
6.6
-3.2
-1.1
-5.6
2.8
0.2
HU
5.3
1.9
13.9
8.9
~
5.8
4.9
9.6
4.7
6.5
2.5
1.5
6.0
6.6
7.2
~
2.7
4.6
9.1
2.7
IE
6.3
~
-10.9
4.3
9.7
7.0
5.7
6.5
20.7
9.0
1.4
-7.8
1.7
8.0
-2.8
-5.8
5.7
~
8.7
0.9
EL
7.6
3.0
-24.5
9.1
10.7
8.3
7.0
9.4
16.7
11.3
8.3
-5.0
1.5
10.0
10.4
-1.1
4.9
3.0
10.6
3.2
EU28
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
100.0
HR
n.a.
2.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1.0
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC); Sorted by the size of the AROPE change between 2008 and 2013.
Notes: i) "" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant change) with a 1pp threshold level used, or for AROPE using Eurostat computations of significance of net change
(note figures for changes in AROPE in EE, PT, LT are shown but are not significant using Eurostat estimates); ii) no 2013 data for IE, so reference is made to the period 2008-2012; iii) For
2013 EU-SILC data ES registered a major break in series for the income variables. As a result, income related indicators are not comparable to 2008 for this country and the changes in the
AROPE and its components are therefore, for consistency, all presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iv) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have
affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious; iv) the AROP threshold refers to a single person
household and is calculated as the percentage change of the threshold expressed in pps.
28
Looking at the country-specific situation, we can note that in EL, which has registered the largest
(7.6pp) deterioration in the AROPE rate for the period 2008-2013, the main drivers behind this are
the increases in the severe material deprivation rate and the share of (quasi-) jobless households.
Youth (18-24) and workers of prime working age (25-54) have seen their income and living
conditions deteriorate more than children and older workers, while the income situation of the
elderly has improved relative to the rest of the population. While the share of working poor has
increased only slightly, the AROPE rate for people outside of the labour market (unemployed or
inactive) has increased above 10pp. Single parents and especially large families have also seen
their situation deteriorate substantially, with the share of large families at risk of poverty or social
exclusion increasing by more than 10 percentage points.
In IE, which has the second highest increase in AROPE (based on the change between 2008 and
2012, amounting to 6.3pp), the main driver has been the share of (quasi-) jobless households (up
9.7 pp). With regard to age groups the pattern is similar to that for EL, with youth and workers of
prime working age faring the worst while the relative situation of the elderly has improved. The
AROPE rate for the unemployed has risen by 8 pp while for the inactive it has decreased by 2.8 pp.
While large families have seen a substantial rise in their AROPE rate, single parents have been
relatively less affected.
For HU, the worsening level of severe material deprivation is behind its AROPE increase of 5.3 pp.
In terms of age groups, the strongest increase in the AROPE rate has been for children, and in line
with this single parent households and large families have seen the most important rises among
the various household types. With regard to activity status, the rises for employed, unemployed
and inactive have been broadly similar.
At the other end of the spectrum, only four countries have registered a decrease in their AROPE
rates in excess of 1 pp for the period 2008-2013, namely AT, FI, PL and RO. In all cases a main
driver behind this change has been the improvement in the severe material deprivation rate. The
AROPE has decreased for all age groups in PL, while this has also been the case in RO apart from
for the youth age group. In AT and FI the improvement has mainly been for the elderly or older
workers. In PL and RO, substantial improvements were observed across all households types
except for large families, while in FI the strongest improvement was for single parent households.
All this clearly shows that behind the changes in the AROPE rates lie very different dynamics in
terms of what is driving the change. Some countries show quite similar patterns in terms of the
type of individuals most affected but a number of Member States have very heterogeneous
profiles. This is due not only to the way the economic crisis has affected countries and their
population but also to the structural challenges they face and the policy mix they have
implemented.
In order to examine developments further, some Member States have developed complementary
approaches to monitoring social developments during the crisis, going beyond the common
indicators generally used in social monitoring (as in the SPPM). These complementary approaches
29
can provide useful additional information on what is happening to the social situation in countries,
and are summarised in Box 1 for certain Member States (BE, IE and IT).
Box 1. Social monitoring in times of crisis – the approaches of Belgium,
Ireland and Italy
Belgium: Simultaneously picturing the level and the evolution of the
at-risk-of-poverty rate and threshold during the Great Recession
Since the start of the Great Recession, median income and thus the at-risk-of-poverty threshold
(60% of median income) has gone down at one time or another in nearly all the EU Member
States. This has raised questions regarding the interpretation of the results of the at-risk-of-poverty
indicator, especially in cases where a drop in the at-risk-of-poverty rate (positive) coincided with a
drop in median income and thus in the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (negative). Some people
whose income hadn‘t changed were no longer considered to be at risk of poverty simply because
of the drop in the threshold.
In considering this, it is important to remember that the at-risk-of-poverty rate is actually the
relative income poverty rate where the threshold is equal to 60% of median income. The indicator
is consistent with the early official definition of poverty by the EU Council of Ministers (1975), which
defines people as poor in relation to the standard of living in the Member State in which they live.
It captures the relative, and not the absolute dimension of poverty. Looking at developments over
time, the question the relative income poverty indicator tries to answer remains as relevant as ever:
‗Does an increase in the average standard of living brought about by economic growth also
benefit the lower end of the income distribution?‘ Or conversely - in case the average standard of
living goes down – ‗Does the living standard of people at the lower end of the income distribution
(proportionally or more than proportionally) go down with it or are these people to some extent
protected from the decline in the average standard of living?‘
Even if it makes sense to look at the development of the at-risk-of-poverty rate in isolation, it is
clear that analysing it in combination with the threshold can lead to a better understanding of
what is happening to income poverty in the EU. Therefore, adding a scatterplot that combines the
rate and the threshold will reinforce the monitoring framework.
The at-risk-of-poverty rate and threshold are contained in the Social Protection Performance
Monitor that is at the core of this report as two separate indicators (see Figure 10), meaning that
there is an agreed normative interpretation of the change in both indicators (hence the colour
coding of statistically significant developments: green = positive, red = negative). This implies that
Member States should try to bring down the at-risk-of poverty rate, while increasing the average
standard of living, i.e. driving up median income, and thus the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. It is
important to note that in the SPPM the threshold is expressed in purchasing power parities.
Purchasing power parities (PPPs) are used as currency conversion rates to convert income or
expenditures expressed in national currencies into an artificial common currency (the Purchasing
Power Standard, PPS), thus eliminating the effect of price level differences across countries. Since
the Monitor refers to the threshold in PPS (and not in national currency) developments of the
threshold in an EU comparative perspective are measured.
30
In the scatterplot below, which is strictly limited to SPPM data and is based on EU-SILC 2013
figures6, EU Member States are compared according to their at-risk-of-poverty rate (X-axis) and
their at-risk-of-poverty threshold for a single person (Y-axis). The challenge is to move to the top
left corner of the graph (increase the threshold and reduce the rate). The chart allows us to visually
compare not only the at-risk-of-poverty rates but also the at-risk of poverty thresholds across
countries. It is clear that countries with similar rates often have very different median income levels.
Figure 8: The at-risk-of poverty rate and associated poverty threshold
in 2013
(*) SILC 2012 data have been used for Ireland because of the unavailability of SILC 2013 data and for Spain because of the
break in the times series in 2013 and the need for consistency with Figure 11. Clustering and colour coding of countries is
based on the groupings proposed by the Commission in the ESDE 2013 report (page 337): Southern Europe: red; Western
Europe: green; Central Europe: purple; Eastern Europe: yellow; Northern Europe: blue; North-Western Europe: grey.
It is possible to further develop the analysis by introducing the time dimension in the graph. This
has been done in Figure 11 of this report. The graph shows the combined evolution in the at-riskof-poverty rate and the associated at-risk-of-poverty threshold over the period 2008-2013. The
arrows depict how Member States have moved on the two indicators over the full period since the
start of the crisis. Arrows pointing to the top left corner (in green) point to progress on both
indicators, while arrows pointing to the bottom right corner (in red) point to a negative
6
SILC 2012 data have been used for Ireland because of the unavailability of SILC 2013 data and for Spain because of the
break
in
the
times
series
in
2013
and
the
need
for
consistency
with
Figure 11.
31
development on both indicators. This visual representation can contribute to a better
understanding of the development of the risk-of-poverty at Member State level. It will also help in
assessing the situation at the level of the EU, e.g. by showing whether trends are converging or
diverging between the Member States. Similar graphs can be produced to cover the pre-crisis
period 2005-2008 or the full period for which EU-SILC data are available: 2005-2013. Of course, in
showing/interpreting the graphs, any breaks in the time series need to be taken into account and
one should be aware that the threshold is shown in PPS. Furthermore, there is no indication of the
statistical significance of the changes.
Ireland: Economic Stress and the Great Recession in Ireland:
Polarization, Individualization or ‘Middle Class Squeeze’?
Bertrand Maître7, Helen Russell5 and Christopher T. Whelan8
Following an unprecedented boom, since 2008 Ireland has experienced a severe economic and
labour market crisis. Considerable debate persists as to where the heaviest burden of the recession
has fallen, but conventional measures of income poverty and inequality have a limited capacity to
capture the impact of the recession.
The economic crisis has had a detrimental effect on the livelihoods of many Irish households.
While rising unemployment and poverty are visible signs of the recession‘s impact, it is likely that
the effects of such an extensive decline in GDP and severe cuts in public expenditure have spread
considerably further than those who have directly experienced job losses and income poverty.
Increases in taxation, declining wages and hours of work, and reductions in state transfers have
impacted across the social and income distribution, while indebtedness and mortgage arrears
have spiralled among groups who were previously well protected from financial difficulties. The
scale of these effects has led to questions as to the class and life-course distribution of the cost of
the recession and the extent to which the burden has been disproportionately borne by specific
social groups. 9
Purely income-based poverty measures have failed to pick up the rising hardship because the
general decline in income levels led to the poverty threshold falling in value. Here instead the
focus has been on a subjective measure of economic stress while controlling for level of material
deprivation and welfare dependency. The analysis suggests that changes in economic stress levels
between the boom and bust periods for income class groups are largely accounted for by trends
in objective circumstances and their changing impact.
It is clear from the findings that economic stress was strongly influenced by income class and social
class stratification for both of the time periods considered. There is no evidence that the increasing
influence of life-course factors led to a diminution in the impact of either income class or social
7
Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin
8
School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen‘s University Belfast & Geary Institute & School of
Sociology, University College Dublin
9
Use is made of both a measure of social class as developed by Goldthorpe (2006) as well as a measure based on
household income classification as used by Atkinson and Brandolini (2013).
32
class. Instead a pattern of interaction is observed that shows the impact of each factor to be highly
contingent on the situation in relation to the other.
The pattern of change over time cannot be accurately described as involving either
individualization or polarization. The recession resulted in raised stress level for all income classes
and social classes. The affluent class remained largely insulated from the experience of economic
stress, however, it saw its advantage relative to the income poor class decline at the earliest stage
10
of the life-course and remain stable across the rest of the life course.
At the other end of the hierarchy, the income poor class experienced a relative improvement in
their stress situation in the earlier life course phase and no significant change at the later stages.
For the remaining income classes, life-course stage was even more important. At the earliest stage
the precarious class experiences some improvement in its situation while the outcomes for the
middle classes remain unchanged. In the mid-life course the precarious and lower middle classes
experience disproportionate increase in their stress levels while at the later life-cycle stage it is the
combined middle classes that lose out. Additional effects over time relating to social class are
restricted to deteriorating situation of the petit bourgeoisie at the middle stage of the life-course.
The analysis has provided clear evidence of the substantial impact of both class and life course
effects or as they have been described in the social investment literature – ‗old‘ and ‗new‘ risks.
However, rather than ‗old‘ class related risks being displaced by ‗new‘ life course risks, instead a
complex pattern of interaction is observed in which income and class effects are conditional on
phase of the life-course and vice versa. Understanding the changing role of class and life course
factors is greatly facilitated by moving beyond a focus on income in order to develop a multidimensional perspective that encompasses material deprivation and economic stress.
Since 2011 there have been significant further cuts in public sector pay, and tax changes such as
the introduction of a property tax and additional cuts in public sector pay introduced in 2013.
These are not captured in the current analysis and may affect subsequent patterns of economic
stress. The analyses also stops well before the labour market recovery observed in 2013. It is likely
that in an upturn, middle class groups will benefit disproportionately from increased employment
and a rise in property values. Nevertheless, dealing with the potential political pressures arising
from the unprecedented levels of economic stress for the precarious and lower middle income
classes and the petit- bourgeoisie while sustaining the social welfare arrangements that have in
significant part protected the income poor class, presents formidable challenges in terms of
maintaining social cohesion and political legitimacy as exemplified by the scale of the recent
opposition to the introduction of water charges.
References:
Atkinson, A. and Brandolini (2013). ‗On the Identification of the Middle Class‘ in J. C. Gornik and M. Jäntti
(eds), Economic Disparities in the Middle Class in Affluent Countries, Stanford: Stanford University Press
Goldthorpe, J. H. (2006), ‗Social Class and Differentiation of Employment Contracts‘, in J.H. Goldthorpe, On
Sociology Volume II Second Edition: Illustration and Retrospect Stanford: Stanford University Press
10
The affluent class is the group of individuals with an equivalised household income greater or equal to 167% of the
median equivalised household income. The precarious income group has an equivalised household income between
60% and 74% of the median equivalised household income (see Maître, Russell and Whelan, 2014 for more details)
33
Maitre, B, Russell, H & Whelan, C (2014), Trends in Economic Stress and the Great Recession in Ireland: An
Analysis of the CSO Survey in Income and Living Conditions (SILC). Department of Social Protection, Dublin.
http://www.socialinclusion.ie/documents/2014-04-24_TechnicalPaperOnEconomicStress_pap_FINAL.pdf
Italy: Social monitoring in time of crisis: the Italian absolute measure
of poverty
The Italian National Institute of Statistics disseminates yearly a measure of absolute poverty based
on a basket of goods and services considered as essential for a household to avoid the extreme
condition of social exclusion (basic needs). It is made up of a food and drink component and a
housing component. However, such components do not completely define individual and
household needs, as health, education, transport and clothing expenses are excluded. For these
needs a lump-sum was defined (residual component).
The total of the three components (in particular their monetary definition) is a standard reference
consumption expenditure for an Italian household that guarantees an adequate nourishment, a
decent dwelling and the fulfilment of other main needs and to avoid any kind of social exclusion.
The assumption underlining the basket is that the basic needs are homogenous all over the
Country but their costs differ. Therefore the basket monetary value - and the absolute poverty
threshold- vary by geographical area and residence municipality size.
The poverty thresholds are calculated for each single household type, depending on the number
and age of its members. Finally, the basket monetary value is updated taking into account the
individual good and service price dynamics by geographical area.
The food component was based on the individual calories needed to carry out usual daily activity;
assumed as invariable over time and independent from the preferences of single individuals for
various foods or drinks. A nutritional model defined by the Italian National Nutritional Institute was
used proposing daily individual diets on the basis of sex and age of individuals.
The monetary evaluation of the food basket was made on the basis of the lowest consumer prices
available for each household in Italy. Using the elementary prices collected by Istat, for each single
good a weighted average of the prices charged in three different distribution canals (hard
discount, modern and traditional distribution) is obtained for each geographical area.
At this stage, the food and drink component value is computed without taking into account the
effect of possible saving actions, since it is calculated only on the basis of the individual caloric
need. Larger/smaller households can save/not save money on purchasing bigger quantities of
food or on being obliged to buy the minimum packaging. Even if these do not represent real
economies of scale, they have to be considered on evaluating the minimum amount of money
needed by the single household to buy the defined basket.
As regards the housing component a distinction is made between two aspects: i) the availability of
the dwelling; ii) the facilities it must be equipped with. According to the availability, expenditure on
rents was used adopting the national regulation (Decreto Ministeriale 5 July 1975) that associates
specific household sizes to minimum adequate surface classes houses.
34
Among housing expenditures, electric power and heating were considered. For the electric power
the monetary evaluation (at current prices) was made under the hypothesis of minimum
consumption, obtained using the estimation provided by the ―Autorità per l‘energia elettrica e il
gas‖ by household size and electrical durable goods availability.
TV, refrigerator and washing machine are the electrical durable goods included in the basket as
basic needs. Also the availability of a non- electric cooker is included because it is widely owned
even by households with strong economic constraints. For these goods the monthly depreciation
quotas were taken into account, calculated for each good on the basis of the average duration
(estimated by the insurances) and of the relative consumer prices.
As the residual expenditures strongly depend on individual characteristics and less on scale
economies in respect to housing expenditure, it has been hypothesized that this component
depends on the household typology and it has been obtained as a percentage of the food basket
expenditure.
The total basket value was calculated summing up the different components for each household
and it differs by i) household size, ii) household age composition, iii) size of the residence
municipality and iv) geographical area. In this way many thresholds of absolute poverty have been
defined, as combinations of household type, geographical distribution and size of the municipality
of residence. To inflate or deflate the poverty threshold over time, the consumer price analytical
indexes (the specific index for each good and service in the basket) for the whole community have
been used. Under the hypothesis that the prices dynamics can geographically differ, the
deflation/inflation has been done by geographical area.
During the crisis years, in Italy, the incidence of absolute poverty began to show signs of growth
since 2011, continuing in 2012 and 2013 against an increase of severe deprivation and of the
indicator of the risk of poverty or social exclusion (EU2020) observed in 2011 and 2012, but not in
2013. The risk of poverty increased in 2011 (2010 income), but was stable in 2012 (2011 income),
given a poverty line in 2012 with income lower than that obtained in 2011 and 2010 and slightly
higher than those calculated for 2009 and 2008 income.
The latter indicators capture different aspects of the condition of households, more linked to
inequality (such as the risk of poverty measure) rather than conjunctural trends and price
dynamics.
The absolute poverty indicator represents an additional instrument that can be used with other
indicators, also available at the European level, to give a more complete picture of the households‘
economic conditions, to enrich the flow of information and "correct" possible interpretation
distortions of each approach. Moreover, it focuses on the poorest among the poor, giving key
elements to properly orient policies against poverty.
35
2.4 Developments in the relative poverty risk
Looking at the evolution in the relative poverty rate over the past 8 years, we can see that the
EU27 rate has been quite stable and only started to increase noticeably after 2010, although 2013
saw it fall again to the same level as in 2008. Behind the movements in the average, there are two
underlying trends worth highlighting – while the overall trend for the average poverty rate of new
Member States was downward until 2010, with only a slight increase in 2011 before the downward
trend continued, the Euro area poverty rate registered a rather consistent increase through to
2012, before showing a fall in 2013 (Figure 9).
Figure 9: At-risk-of-poverty rate (EU27, EA17, NMS12), 2005-2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
8 Member States experienced increasing at-risk-of-poverty rates between 2012 and 2013, the
most notable rises being observed in EE, LT and SI. In around half of the Member States, the
poverty rate has remained stable in the most recent period, with some improvements for a few
countries – BE, CZ, FI and FR. In the longer term, however, 9 Member States had substantially
worse relative poverty rates compared to the start of the crisis in 2008, with the highest increases
in EL (3.0 pp), HR (2.2 pp), LU (2.5 pp), SI (2.2 pp) and SE (2.6 pp).
However, the changes in the at-risk-of-poverty rate must be assessed in parallel with the
underlying developments in the poverty threshold. In this regard, for 2/3 of Member States there
was no significant change in the threshold between 2012 and 2013, while for some 6 Member
States there was a substantial increase. However, of particular note is the 10% decline in the
poverty threshold in EL, which raises concern even though the at-risk-of-poverty rate remained
stable.
36
Figure 10: Evolution (in pp) of the at-risk-of-poverty rate and the associated
at-risk-of-poverty threshold (in %, in Purchasing Power Standard (PPS)),
2012-2013 and 2008-2013
AROP
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
16.7
16.6
16.7
15.1
21.0
8.6
12.3
16.1
18.6
15.7
23.1
20.4
13.7
19.5
19.1
~
~
~
~
~
1.1
n.a.
~
~
n.a.
-0.2
~
-1.0
n.a.
-0.4
3.0
1.4
1.2
2.2
SI
SK
FI
SE
~
UK
14.8
15.9
~
CY
LV
~
LT
~
LU
~
HU
~
MT
~
NL
~
AT
~
PL
~
PT
~
RO
15.3
14.4
17.3
18.7
22.4
14.5
12.8
11.8
~
1.0
~
-1.4
~
~
-1.0
2.2
1.9
-1.8
2.6
-2.8
19.4
20.6
15.9
14.3
15.7
10.4
0.6
~
2.0
0.8
~
0.6
0.3
~
~
0.8
~
-6.5
~
2.5
1.9
~
~
~
~
~
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
11,865
3,633
6,389
11,481
11,622
5,130
9,713
5,452
8,543
11,631
4,355
9,205
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
6.9
~
~
~
~
8.4
n.a.
-9.7
n.a.
~
~
~
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
18.1
27.1
9.5
8.7
7.6
13.0
-10.9
-24.5
-9.1
10.8
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
~
SE
~
UK
10,896
3,971
4,411
16,360
4,507
9,321
11,536
12,555
5,463
5,705
2,237
8,571
5,741
11,470
12,316
9,882
~
6.9
9.3
~
~
6.4
~
~
5.4
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
-7.4
5.8
13.9
17.1
10.5
35.3
41.5
15.5
15.3
-11.2
AROP Threshold (in PPS)
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
~
~
~
~
21.7
~
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). For the change 2012-2013, Eurostat computations of significance of net change. For the
change 2008-2013, a 1pp threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant
change). v) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e.
2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
Focusing on the longer term changes since 2008 (Figure 11), again highlights the especially
worrying developments in EL where a significant rise in the risk of poverty is combined with a
substantial fall in the poverty threshold of close to 25%. In addition, based on the change between
2008 and 2012, IE has not seen a significant rise in the risk of poverty, but this is nevertheless
associated with a fall of around 11% in the actual poverty threshold, while in ES a significant
increase in the poverty rate occurs simultaneously with a fall of around 9% in the threshold. Some
Member States have experienced a combined significant rise in both the poverty risk and the
threshold (most notably SE and SK), and some a significant fall in the poverty risk combined with a
rise in the threshold (most notably FI). Finally, a few countries have seen a fall in the poverty risk
together with a drop (in PPS terms) in the poverty threshold.
37
Figure 11: Combined evolution in the at-risk-of-poverty rate (in %) and the
associated at-risk-of-poverty threshold (in PPS), 2008-2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so changes are presented for the period 2008-2012
only;; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since
2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious; iv) The income
reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and
Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Line colours reflect the combined movement of the threshold and AROP rate:
Green = threshold up and rate down, purple = both threshold and rate up, orange = threshold down and rate down,
red = threshold down and rate up) v) In this chart all changes are shown without regard to the statistical significance of
the change.
As the above results highlight, in periods of sudden changes in the median income of the
population, as has been the case in a number of Member States during the economic crisis, the
poverty threshold can move quite substantially and impact on the real implication of evolutions of
the poverty rate. A useful way to account for this is to keep the poverty threshold fixed in real
terms over a longer period of time, therefore controlling for the effects of a moving poverty
threshold, and reflect the evolution of the real income of the poor and the effectiveness of social
inclusion policies. In the current context this method reflects better the deterioration of the real
income of the poor and the lack of effectiveness of social inclusion policies.
38
Figure 12 shows the evolution of the at-risk-of-poverty rates anchored in 2008 poverty threshold
levels. Results suggest that between 2012 and 2013 the largest increases were observed in EL (8.5
pp), CY (5.7 pp), HU (3.2 pp), PT (2.9 pp) and SI (2.7 pp) while the three Baltic States reported the
largest decreases (EE (-3.2 pp), LV (-2.0 pp) and LT (-1.7 pp)). Looking at the longer timeframe
2008-2013, and with reference to the beginning of the crisis and keeping the poverty threshold at
the 2008 value, EL has clearly seen the largest increase in its anchored poverty rate (24.2 pp),
followed by CY (7.4 pp), LV (7.1 pp), IT (6.3 pp), LU (5.9 pp) and LT (5.7pp), while the rate in IE
increased by 9.8 pp between 2008 and 2012. The biggest improvements were observed in PL and
SK, with a decrease of 4.9 pp and 3.5 pp, respectively, while BG, FI and RO also saw declines of the
order of 3 pp.
In absolute terms, 18.3 % of the population in the EU-28 in 2013 were at-risk-of-poverty anchored
at 2008 poverty threshold levels, which is 1.6 pp higher than the ordinary rate of 16.7 %. Similarly
for the Euro Area the rate is slightly higher at 19.0 % versus 16.7 % for the normal at-risk-ofpoverty rate.
Figure 12: At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored in 2008 for 2008, 2012 and 2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Sorted on the anchored-AROP for 2013; ii) break in series in 2013 for ES iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle
and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer
term trend must therefore be particularly cautious; iv) no 2013 data available for IE; v) for the at-risk-of poverty rate, the
income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
39
Another issue of concern is the rise in the share of the population suffering persistent poverty. In
2012, the persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate11 in the EU27 was 10.2%, up from 8.6% in 2008. Given
the relatively small sample sizes currently available for this indicator it is not possible to identify
many statistically significant trends at Member State level in its evolution. However, significant rises
in the persistent poverty rate for the latest year of data available can be seen in AT (3.0pp), EL
(3.3pp) and LT (4.8pp) Significant longer term developments are also apparent in AT and DE (both
up 3.2pp), while there has been a significant reduction in EE (down 4.3pp).
Box 2. The persistent poverty risk indicator
The ―at persistent risk of poverty rate‖ is an important indicator as it is the only EU social indicator
looking at persistence. However, the small sample size on which it is based, which is due to the
design of the EU-SILC instrument, leads to relatively large confidence intervals (of plus or minus 2
percentage points in most countries). The European Statistical System (ESS, consisting of Eurostat
and the Member States‘ National Statistical Institutes) are working on improving the reliability of
the indicator. In this regard, the ESS is exploring the possibility of modifying the longitudinal
component of EU-SILC by moving from a 4-year to a 6-year rotational panel. A 6-year panel
would more than double the existing sample size used for calculation of the persistent poverty risk
indicator, thereby improving is reliability significantly. It would also allow better analaysing
transitions, providing greater opportunities for developing additional longitudinal indicators.
11
The indicator shows the percentage of the population whose equivalised disposable income was below the ‗at-risk-ofpoverty threshold‘ for the current year and at least 2 out of the preceding 3 years
40
Figure 13: Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate, evolution in pp,
2011-2012 and 2008-12
2013*
2012-2013*
change in pp
2008-2013*
change in pp
2013*
2012-2013*
change in pp
2008-2013*
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
10.2
10.2
10.1
9.9
12.9
4.1
5.1
10.4
9.3
:
13.8
11.6
7.0
:
13.1
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n.a.
3.3
~
n.a.
n.a.
~
~
~
0.9
n.a.
~
~
3.2
-4.3
n.a.
~
~
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
~
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
8.3
12.6
12.3
7.1
8.0
8.5
5.8
8.8
10.7
11.4
18.2
7.5
8.6
7.0
:
8.6
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n.a.
~
~
~
4.8
~
3.0
3.2
n.a.
n.a.
~
n.a.
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) *Most figures are for the year 2012 (and hence most longer term changes refer to 2008-2012), but where figures
for 2013 are available (AT, CZ, DK, EE, FI, HU, MT and SI) these are included ii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and
institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term
trend must therefore be particularly cautious; ii) no data for IE, FR, HR or SE; iii) the income reference year is the calendar
year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
2.5 Deterioration in living standards and increasing depth of
poverty are becoming a very tangible consequence of the
economic crisis in some countries
Looking at the relative poverty rate set with other thresholds (40%, 50% of equivalised median
income) can give further information on the shape of the distribution around the 60% threshold
and allows to see what share of the population living below the 60% poverty threshold actually
finds itself in the very bottom of the income distribution. When many incomes are concentrated
around the threshold, the exact level of the threshold can have a considerable impact on the atrisk-of-poverty rate. Looking at 2013 data (Figure 14), we can see that overall for countries with
equal levels of poverty risk at the 60% threshold, the share of people at the very bottom, i.e. below
the 40% threshold is quite similar. The only notable exception is DK whose share of people at the
very bottom (below 40%) is twice as high as that of FI while they share very similar poverty risk
rates. The overall ranking of countries does not change substantially with the exception of FR, LU
and LT which see their positions improve as they have a stronger concentration of people around
the 60% threshold.
41
Figure 14: At-risk-of-poverty rate at different threshold levels (40%, 50%
and 60% of median equivalised income), 2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) sorted on the AROP rate with a 60% threshold ii) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012. iii) For the atrisk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the
United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
It is interesting to look at the evolution of the poverty rate at the different threshold-levels as this
gives an indication as to where the major changes have occurred – more people slipping into
more severe forms of poverty or rather more people concentrating at the 60% poverty threshold
level. For EL, IE, IT and PT it is notable that there is a more pronounced rise in the share in the
most severe poverty category. For LU and SE, it is more a case of changes reflecting people
concentrating more around the 60% threshold.
Table 4 below shows the evolution in the short-term (2012-2013) and long-term (2008-2013)
highlighting only changes of magnitude greater than 1pp. For several of the countries the longterm changes observed have been more or less of similar magnitude regardless of the threshold
level used, including those countries where changes were not significant across the range of
thresholds and SK. For EL, IE, IT and PT it is notable that there is a more pronounced rise in the
share in the most severe poverty category. For LU and SE, it is more a case of changes reflecting
people concentrating more around the 60% threshold.
42
Table 4: Evolution (in pp) of the at-risk-of-poverty rate at different poverty
threshold levels (40%, 50%, 60%), 2012-2013 and 2008-2013
pp change 2008-2013
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
pp change 2012-2013
40%
50%
60%
40%
50%
60%
n.a
~
~
~
n.a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n.a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
-1.0
~
~
~
3.0
n.a
1.2
2.2
~
~
n.a
~
n.a
~
n.a
~
n.a
1.6
~
3.9
n.a
1.1
n.a
~
~
-2.6
~
-5.8
~
-6.5
~
n.a
~
~
~
~
~
n.a
~
~
~
~
~
1.0
1.2
-1.2
~
~
~
1.8
2.4
~
~
~
~
~
~
2.5
1.9
~
~
~
~
~
n.a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1.8
1.3
~
1.5
~
~
~
~
~
~
1.2
~
2.0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1.2
~
1.2
~
1.2
2.1
4.4
n.a
~
2.3
~
~
1.8
~
1.1
-1.3
1.7
2.1
-1.1
1.7
-2.3
-1.0
2.2
1.9
-1.8
2.6
-2.8
1.5
~
~
~
1.1
~
~
~
~
1.0
~
-1.4
~
~
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) For ES there is a major break in series in 2013. Ii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012
might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore
be particularly cautious; iii) LV shows positive developments but the value of the poverty threshold for the period 20082013 has decreased substantially so these need to be taken with caution.
The poverty gap is another way of looking at the depth of poverty, indicating the extent to which
the incomes of those at risk of poverty fall below the poverty threshold on average. In policy
terms, it indicates the scale of transfers which would be necessary to bring the incomes of those
concerned up to the poverty threshold. The poverty gap in the EU27 in 2013 was 23.8% lower
than the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. This has expanded by 2.0 pp since 2008, although broadly
remaining stable since 2012. In 2013, the poverty gap in the EU27 countries varied between 15%
(in FI) to over 30% (BG, EL, ES and RO). It is especially concerning that the poverty gap has
increased in two-thirds of all Member States since 2008, and in some countries quite substantially
so (by around 4 pp or more in BG, PT, HU, IT, DK, SK, ES and EL) (Figure 15).
43
The increasing depth of poverty was identified as a social trend to watch in 2013 by the SPC as
more than 1/3 of Member States had statistically significant increases in their poverty gaps.
Chapter 3 of this report analyses in-depth both the characteristics of the population that is found
in this situation as well as the policy instruments put in place in Member States to address it.
Figure 15: Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, evolution in pp,
2012-2013 and 2008-13
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
23.8
23.8
24.0
19.2
30.9
16.6
23.7
20.4
21.5
19.1
32.7
30.9
16.6
28.1
28.0
~
~
~
~
~
-2.5
~
~
-2.3
n.a.
2.8
n.a.
~
-2.9
2.6
n.a.
2.0
2.8
2.0
3.9
-1.9
5.7
-1.8
1.2
1.4
8.0
7.0
2.1
3.1
5.0
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
17.7
27.5
24.8
17.5
21.7
19.1
16.5
21.3
22.6
27.3
32.6
20.4
24.1
15.0
19.8
19.6
-1.3
-1.1
2.2
2.5
~
3.0
~
1.2
~
3.2
1.7
1.3
3.6
~
~
-1.3
2.4
-1.1
~
~
4.4
-1.2
1.6
1.4
2.0
4.1
~
1.1
6.0
~
1.8
-1.4
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). For the change 2012-2013, Eurostat computations of significance of net change. For the
change 2008-2013, a 1pp threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant
change). iii) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e.
2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
After the evidence presented in the previous sections, it comes as no surprise that we observe
substantial increases in the severe material deprivation rates in some Member States and clear
signs of worsening living standards not only in countries with historically high rates. Figure 16
shows the evolution of the severe material deprivation rate both with respect to 2008 and for the
latest yearly change 2012-2013. In the period 2012-2013, 8 Member States saw statistically
significant increases in the share of their population living in severe material deprivation (with the
highest increases in PT (2.3pp), CY (1.1 pp) and DK (1.0 pp)). However, the overall picture was
more balanced than in the preceding years since there were also 11 Member States that recorded
a statistically significant reduction in severe material deprivation, with particularly notable
improvements in the Baltic States (LT (-3.8 pp), EE (-1.8 pp), and LV (-1.6 pp)) as well as IT (-2.1
pp) and PL (-1.6 pp). Nevertheless, as illustrated in Figure 17, the longer term trend remains
mainly negative overall, with the rate of severe material deprivation having increased since 2008 in
more than half of Member States. The countries seeing the worst increases – EL (9.1 pp), HU (8.9
pp) and CY (7.0 pp), but also IT, LV, IE, LT and MT – are among those most affected by the
economic crisis, although LV and LT have experienced a very sharp improvement in the situation
over the last year or two. PL and RO are the countries with the most important improvements
since 2008.
44
Figure 16: Severe material deprivation rate, evolution in pp,
2012-2013 and 2008-13
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
9.6
9.6
7.4
5.1
43.0
6.6
3.8
5.4
7.6
9.8
20.3
6.2
5.1
14.7
12.4
~
~
~
-1.2
-1.1
1.0
0.5
-1.8
n.a.
0.8
-0.2
-1.2
-2.1
n.a.
1.1
1.5
2.7
4.3
9.1
~
~
~
1.8
~
~
1.8
~
~
2.6
4.9
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
16.1
24.0
16.0
1.8
26.8
9.5
2.5
4.2
11.9
10.9
28.5
6.7
10.2
2.5
1.4
8.3
1.1
-1.6
-3.8
0.5
-1.6
2.3
-1.4
7.0
4.7
3.7
1.1
-5.8
1.2
-4.4
~
~
8.9
5.2
0.2
1.0
~
-1.7
~
~
~
-1.6
-0.4
-1.0
~
~
0.5
3.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since
2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious;; ii) Latest data available
for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) Only statistically significant
changes have been marked in green/red (positive/negative changes). For the change 2012-2013, Eurostat computations
of significance of net change. For the change 2008-2013, a 1pp threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable
performance (i.e. statistically insignificant change).
Figure 17: Longer term developments in the severe material deprivation
rate, 2008-2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since
2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious;; ii) no 2013 data for IE,
so longer term evolution refers to the period 2008-2012; ii)) For the change 2008-2013, a 1pp threshold has been used
to determine whether changes are statistically significant, with ―stable performance‖ referring to statistically insignificant
change.
45
If one looks at the "standard" material deprivation rate (defined as the percentage of the
population with an enforced lack of at least three out of nine material deprivation items in the
'economic strain and durables' dimension), the general pattern of changes across Member States
since 2008 is broadly similar to that for the severe material deprivation rate with a few notable
exceptions - the relative decline in living standards is more pronounced compared to other
Member States with regard to this measure than for severe material deprivation in IE (second
largest rise in the material deprivation rate) and LT, and less pronounced in LV and MT. The largest
rises in material deprivation since 2008 are observed in CY, EL and IE, with increases in excess of
10 pp, while AT, PL, RO and SK have seen significant declines.
Figure 18: Changes in the “standard” (enforced lack of at least 3 items)
material deprivation rate, 2008-2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since
2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious;; ii) no 2013 data for IE,
so longer term evolution refers to the period 2008-2012; iii) the ―standard‖ material deprivation rate is defined as the
percentage of the population with an enforced lack of at least three out of nine material deprivation items in the
'economic strain and durables' dimension.
The deterioration in living standards is also clearly evident when examining the real change in
gross household disposable income across the EU. Among those Member States for which figures
are available, 11 have seen a decline in real household income between 2012 and 2013, in
contrast to 6 where it has risen. Among the former, most notable is the close to 9% drop in EL,
while among the latter, the improvements in LV and LT stand out (increases of 9.4% and 4.8%
respectively). In a longer term perspective, however, real incomes have fallen markedly in many
Member States since the crisis hit, with particularly strong falls in household income in ES (-6.3%),
IT (-9.0%), LV (-14.6%), LT( -6.2%), PT (-6.6%) and above all EL (-31.9%).
46
Figure 19: Real change in gross household disposable income
2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
-0.2
n.a.
-0.2
-0.2
n.a.
-2.3
-1.8
0.6
n.a.
n.a
-8.7
0.2
FR
~
HR
IT
n.a.
-1.3
-9.0
-0.1
n.a.
-2.3
0.7
n.a.
-3.1
2.5
3.4
n.a.
n.a.
-31.9
-6.3
2.4
n.a.
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
n.a.
9.4
4.8
n.a.
0.3
n.a.
-1.0
-1.9
n.a.
-0.7
n.a.
-1.2
1.9
-0.5
n.a.
-0.2
n.a.
-14.6
-6.2
n.a.
-5.5
n.a.
-3.1
-1.6
n.a.
-6.6
n.a.
-5.8
1.7
3.7
n.a.
2.5
Source: DG EMPL estimates based on Eurostat (National Accounts)
Notes: i) Data only available for 18 countries based on the ESA2010 national accounts revision. ii) ,Growth for the EU28
in real terms is estimated from existing Member States‘ data which must cover at least 85% of the EU nominal GDHI, iii)
Any positive or negative change is highlighted given that the data source is national accounts.
2.6 Long-term exclusion from the labour market continues to be
a main driver of increasing trends in poverty and social
exclusion
The rises in unemployment and long-term unemployment have been some of the more
immediate and tangible impacts of the economic crisis. The share of (quasi-) jobless households
increased in 11 countries in 2013, most noticeably in the southern Member States most affected
by the crisis (EL, ES, CY, PT) but also in DK and SE. EL registered the largest increase between 2012
and 2013 with a rise of 4 pp. Only 5 countries registered a significant reduction (EE, FR, HR, LV and
RO) (
Figure 20). With reference to 2008, 2/3 of Member States have statistically significant increases in
their share and for 1/3 of them the increase is around 5pp or more – BG, EL, ES, IE, LV, LT and PT.
Figure 20: Evolution of the share of people living in (quasi-) jobless
households, 2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
10.7
10.6
10.9
14.0
13.0
6.9
12.9
9.9
8.4
23.4
18.2
15.7
7.9
14.8
11.0
~
~
~
~
~
~
-0.7
n.a.
4.0
1.4
-0.5
-2.0
0.7
n.a.
1.5
1.7
2.3
4.9
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
~
NL
7.9
10.0
11.0
6.6
12.6
9.0
9.3
1.4
-1.7
~
~
3.4
4.6
~
~
~
5.9
0.5
1.9
1.6
~
4.4
-1.8
3.1
9.7
10.7
9.1
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
~
FI
7.8
7.2
12.2
6.4
8.0
7.6
9.0
~
~
2.1
-1.0
0.5
~
~
~
~
5.9
-1.9
1.3
2.4
1.5
0.4
1.1
n.a.
1.2
SE
UK
7.1
13.2
1.4
0.2
1.6
2.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii) For
UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and
interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious; iii) Only statistically significant
changes have been marked in green/red (positive/negative changes) while "~" refers to stable performance (i.e.
47
statistically insignificant change). For the change 2012-2013, Eurostat computations of significance of net change have
been used. For the change 2008-2013, a 1pp threshold has been used. iv) The (quasi-) jobless households rate refers to
the previous calendar year (i.e. 2011).
Unemployment has worrisome social costs – greater probabilities of lower life-satisfaction, poorer
health, a greater sense of disillusionment with society and a far more pessimistic assessment of
labour market prospects. The important point about all these identified social effects is that, once
established, they become increasingly difficult to eradicate (Saunders, 2002). In addition, past
experiences of recessions in the EU and other parts of the world show that long-term
unemployment continues to rise after total unemployment has peaked, and takes a long time
before it starts to decline. For instance, during the 1990's, while overall unemployment in the EU
had already started to decline in 1995 (following the increases during the period 1991-94) the
number of long-term unemployed decreased only from 1998.
Long-term labour market exclusion was identified as a social trend to watch in 2013 by the SPC as
more than 1/3 of Member States had statistically significant increases in their shares of the
population experiencing this. Chapter 3 of this report analyses in-depth both the characteristics of
the population that is found in this situation as well as the policy instruments put in place in
Member States to address it.
One of the most significant challenges for social policy over the coming years will involve far more
than lowering total unemployment back to its former levels, because this in itself will not unwind
the cumulative long-term social effects that accompany the rise in unemployment. In some
countries, increasing numbers of people are moving onto long-term sickness and disability
benefits or early retirement schemes. Among these people, many are likely never to enter or
return to the labour market. Moreover, workers in some sectors/occupations (such as in the
construction sector, where the incidence of long-term unemployment was previously limited),
experienced a double disadvantage: higher probability of becoming unemployed, and if
unemployed, higher chance of becoming long-term unemployed. This underlines the role of job
creation policies, especially in growing sectors, to ensure new places for both the short-term and
long-term unemployed as well as of activation measures focusing on re-training in order to adapt
workers' skills to the new needs of the labour market. Furthermore, there is need for early
identification of short-term unemployed with an increased risk of slipping into long-term
unemployment and subsequent provision of additional interventions, such as personal counselling
and tailored activation programmes including re-training and up-skilling. Even though such
targeted interventions tend to be more costly in the short run, their longer-term individual and
societal benefits prevail, and their importance becomes pivotal at the moment when long-term
unemployment threatens to leave permanent scars on significant proportions of human capital
stock in many EU countries (European Commission, 2013b).
48
2.7 While the overall share of working poor is stable at EU level,
there is strong divergence in trends across Member States
Having a job is not always a guarantee against the risk of poverty, as the working poor represent
one third of working-age adults who are at-risk-of-poverty. In 2013, 8.9% of people in
employment were living under the poverty threshold in the EU, little changed from the previous
year, although the latest annual developments were fairly mixed across Member States. Over
2012-2013, the risk increased in 8 Members States, most notably in CY (1.0 pp), LT (1.5 pp) and
HU (1.3 pp), but also in DE and LU (both up 0.9 pp). In contrast, improvements were recorded in 7
Member States, among which DK (-1.4 pp), EL (-2.1 pp) and RO (-1.2 pp) showed the strongest
reductions. Despite recent improvement in some cases, the highest rates are still observed in RO
(17.7%), mostly driven by the high poverty risk for the self-employed, EL (13.0%) and LU (11.2%),
with rates also above 10% in ES, IT, PL and PT.
In-work poverty was previously identified as a social trend to watch in 2012 by the SPC (SPC, 2012)
and a detailed analysis of the situation in Member States and the policy measures implemented
across Member States to combat it was presented in last year‘s annual report (SPC, 2013).
Figure 21: Evolution of the share of working poor, 2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
8.9
9.0
8.7
4.4
7.2
4.1
4.3
8.6
7.7
5.4
13.0
10.6
8.0
6.2
10.7
~
~
~
-0.1
~
-0.5
-1.4
0.9
-0.8
n.a.
-2.1
n.a.
~
~
~
-1.2
1.2
1.5
n.a.
1.7
UK
n.a.
1.5
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
9.0
9.1
9.2
11.2
6.6
5.9
4.5
7.9
10.8
10.4
17.7
7.1
5.8
3.8
7.1
1.5
0.9
1.3
0.7
0.5
-1.2
0.6
1.0
2.7
~
-1.6
~
1.8
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
2.0
~
~
~
-1.3
~
~
8.2
-0.5
~
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only;; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). For the change 2012-2013, Eurostat computations of significance of net change. For the
change 2008-2013, a 1pp threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant
change). iii) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e.
2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
2.8 The situation regarding child poverty and youth exclusion is a
major concern
As highlighted in the previous sections, long-term exclusion from the labour market continues to
be one of the main drivers in the deterioration of income and living standards, alongside the
49
phasing out the automatic stabilisation instruments of social protection systems in the face of the
prolonged economic downturn, and persistent levels of in-work poverty. This is particularly
important when discussing the situation of children as unemployment, low work intensity of
parents and low earnings, in some countries coupled with low access to services and the weak
impact of income support measures, are among the main factors leading to child poverty and
social exclusion.
Box 3. Peer review on local consultation platforms to fight child poverty
In May 2014 Belgium launched the pilot project ―Children First‖ to offer a more specific response
to the European Commission‘s Recommendation on Investing in children (European Commission
(2013a), which recommends that Member States strengthen coordination between the different
actors involved; streamline their policies in all relevant areas; and promote stakeholder
participation and exchange of best practices. The programme supports the Public Centres for
Social Welfare (PCSW) in playing a leading role in the fight against childhood poverty through the
launch of local consultation platforms. The aim is to detect hidden childhood poverty and to
promote child well-being. The local consultation platforms are expected to assume one or more of
the following tasks: i) to sensitise local actors about poverty and inform them of the existing aid
channels, ii) to provide general support to local actors through social workers, and iii) to offer
concrete support including collective and individual level support. The target group includes
children aged 12 and under, in or at risk of poverty. Special attention is paid to early childhood.
The related Peer Review, held in Brussels on 13-14 January 2015, discussed ways of ensuring and
enhancing cooperation between various services and actors involved in the fight against child
poverty, the role of early childhood education and care institutions, monitoring and evaluation of
related projects and initiatives, and the best way to involve stakeholders in the process.
The Belgian Children First programme has the potential to significantly contribute to the goals of
Europe 2020 and the Social Investment Package. First, it seeks to prevent the intergenerational
transmission of poverty. Second, it has a focus on early intervention and prevention which are
essential for developing effective and efficient policies. Furthermore, through bringing together
actors from different policy levels and sectors, the consultation platforms have the potential both
to strengthen synergies between different fields/sectors and to promote cooperation between
public authorities, local communities and civil society organisations.
For further details consult the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en&newsId=2100&furtherNews=yes
There were 26.1 million children in the EU-28 (25.9 in the EU-27) living in poverty or social
exclusion in 2013, accounting for around 1/5 of all people living in poverty or social exclusion. The
situation of children has been strongly affected by the economic crisis and until 2012 had been
generally worsening in the EU, mainly reflecting rises in severe material deprivation among
children and in the number of children living in (quasi)jobless households.
50
Figure 22: Evolution in child poverty and social exclusion and its
components in the EU-27
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: Figures are in 1000s. AROPE – at risk of poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi)Jobless households - share of population living in (quasi-)jobless (i.e. very low work intensity) households; SMD - severe
material deprivation rate. For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the
survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
Similarly, the (quasi-)jobless household (i.e. very low work intensity) rate refers to the previous calendar year (i.e. 2012)
while for the severe material deprivation rate, the reference is the current survey year (i.e. 2013).
However, in 2013 the situation stabilised somewhat at EU level, with 8 Member States registering
statistically significant reductions in the poverty or social exclusion rate for children compared to
the year before, most notably HR (-5.5 pp), RO (-3.7 pp) and CZ (-2.4 pp) as well as FI, FR and IT
(all with declines of 1.9 pp). Nevertheless, 5 Member States saw a continued worsening in the
situation for children, for some with very sharp increases of around 3pp or more – PT (3.8 pp), LT
(3.5 pp) and EL (2.7 pp). The situation with respect to the longer term trend remains alarming, with
2/3 of Member States seeing significant increases in the rate of child poverty or social exclusion
between 2008 and 2013. In a number of countries, these longer term increases are in the range of
6-10 pp (HU (9.6pp), EL (9.4 pp), BG (7.3 pp), MT (7.0 pp), IE (6.5 pp to 2012), CY (6.2 pp), and LV
and LT both 6.0 pp), while only four Member States (CZ, FI, PL and RO) recorded a significant
decrease in their child poverty or social exclusion rates (Figure 23). Levels of child poverty of the
order of 40% in EL, HU and LV, and around 50% in BG and RO in 2013 are of particular concern.
51
Figure 23: Evolution of the share of children (0-17) at risk of poverty or
social exclusion, 2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
27.6
27.6
25.0
21.9
51.5
16.4
15.5
19.4
22.3
33.1
38.1
32.6
21.3
29.3
31.9
~
~
~
~
~
~
n.a.
2.7
n.a.
-1.9
-5.5
-1.9
-0.9
~
-2.4
n.a.
1.0
1.2
~
7.3
-2.2
2.8
~
2.9
6.5
9.4
3.2
~
n.a.
2.8
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
27.7
38.4
35.4
26.0
43.0
32.0
17.0
22.9
29.8
31.6
48.5
17.5
25.5
13.0
16.2
32.6
~
-1.6
3.5
~
~
~
~
~
3.8
-3.7
1.1
~
-1.9
~
1.4
6.2
6.0
6.0
5.1
9.6
7.0
1.5
-3.1
2.1
-2.7
2.2
1.2
-2.1
1.6
3.0
~
~
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes), using Eurostat computations of significance of net change "~" refers to stable performance
(i.e. statistically insignificant change). v) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year
prior to the survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the
survey). Similarly, the (quasi-)jobless households (i.e. very low work intensity) rate refers to the previous calendar year (i.e.
2012) while for the severe material deprivation rate, the reference is the current survey year (i.e. 2013).
Box 4. Peer review on innovative practices with marginalised families to
prevent out of home child placement
The 2013 Commission Recommendation on Investing in Children guides Member States to
organise and implement policies to address child poverty and social exclusion and promote
children‘s well-being, through measures grounded in multi-dimensional strategies and recognition
of children‘s rights and best interests. The Programme to prevent institutionalisation (P.I.P.P.I.),
which was subject to a Peer Review held in Italy on 11-12 December 2014, provides an innovative
example of how to address the 2013 Recommendation.
The P.I.P.P.I. is a holistic research-training intervention for vulnerable families and professionals
working with them, with the primary goal to prevent out of home child placement. The core
activities are oriented to improving parenting skills, promoting full involvement in children‘s school
life and strengthening social networks. The construction of an integrated and common assessment
and care plan is core to the programme. This is done on an inclusive and participatory basis in the
sense that all the relevant actors (parents, children, teachers, practitioners, other relatives, and all
people involved in the promotion of the child‘s wellbeing) are part of the continual assessment
and child plan.
The Peer Review had a number of thematic foci: family support, parenting support and child
protection. It also discussed the necessity for interventions with marginalised families to be multifaceted and integrated, the role of research and evidence gathering in planning and provision and
how those who are in need of interventions can be engaged with. The child-centred nature and
the build-up of local knowledge/bottom-up basis of the P.I.P.P.I. were praised by the Peer Review
participants. Further interesting elements of the Italian case study include the strong theoretical
52
and holistic basis, the mobilisation of a multi-disciplinary team around the child, the mix of
activities (individual and group, formal and informal), the focus on assessment, care planning and
evaluation and the partnership way that this is done, the tailoring to families, the close
collaboration between academia and service providers and the networking component which is
core to the P.I.P.P.I.
For further details consult the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en&newsId=2133&furtherNews=yes
While the worrisome levels of child poverty and what they imply in terms of human capital
development pose an important question for the longer-term future of European countries, the
disproportionate ways in which the recent economic crisis has affected youth is an important alarm
bell for the very short-term. The gloomy outlook for the young implies growing risks of long-term
unemployment and lasting inactivity, and remaining outside the labour market has far reaching
consequences – not solely economic. These include a loss of confidence, an undermining of trust
and expectations, and an increasing risk of social exclusion and disengagement from society. The
labour market situation of young people and their exclusion from social security rights is therefore
an increasingly urgent matter of utmost priority.
A recent report by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions (Eurofound (2014a)) provides an up-to-date overview of the situation of young people
aged 18 to 29 years in Europe, based on findings from the European Quality of Life Survey. It
concentrates in particular on their social situation, especially dimensions such as living
arrangements, social exclusion, relationships and sources of support, and participation in society
and social and cultural activities. Among the main findings are that:





Unemployed and inactive young people give a comparatively low rating for their subjective
well‑being;
Deprivation has increased for young people of all social backgrounds since 2007 in nearly
all EU countries, especially for those who are living in extended families with their parents
and their own children; such people are likely to be unable to move out of the family
home;
Unemployed and inactive young people are more likely than others to feel socially
excluded, to feel lonely, to face a lack of social support, and to have lower levels of mental
well‑being;
Young people are less likely to trust institutions now (in 2014) than they did in 2007 – with
the exception of the police, whom they trust as much as before;
Young people are more likely than older people to perceive tensions between ethnic or
religious groups, as well as between groups of different sexual orientation.
In view of these findings, the report highlights that one focus of policy should be on boosting
social and democratic participation, personal development, and the sense of belonging to society.
53
In 2013 the youth unemployment ratio12 remained rather stable compared to the previous year.
The vast majority of Member States recorded no significant change in the ratio, while only 4
countries recorded an increase and 5 a reduction. Of particular note among those countries with
a deteriorating situation is the 4.1 pp rise in the ratio in CY. With regard to the beginning of the
crisis the picture is clearly one of strong deterioration in the labour market situation of young
people, with a significant increase witnessed in all but 4 Member States. The most dramatic
increases (in excess of 6 pp) in the youth unemployment ratio have been observed in CY, EL, ES,
HR, and PT. Improvement has been registered only in DE and LU (Figure 24).
Figure 24: Youth unemployment ratio (15-24), 2008, 2012 and 2013
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Notes: The categorisation ―improvement‖, ‖stable‖,
improvement/deterioration between 2008 and 2013.
‖deterioration‖
and
―strong
deterioration‖
refers
to
Analysis by the European Commission (2012a) shows that the difficult labour market situation
experienced by youth during the crisis has been reflected in a rise in inactivity among young
people, mostly taking the form of labour market withdrawal rather than continued enrolment in
12
The reason for looking at both youth unemployment rates and ratios is that a use of only the unemployment rate can
produce a distorted picture when comparing the youth labour markets of different countries. More precisely, one
difficulty with using the unemployment rate as an indicator for the labour market performance, especially of young
people, is that it shows the number of unemployed youth as a percentage of the youth labour force, i.e. those who are
either employed or unemployed but actively looking for work. Using the youth labour force as a denominator can lead
to distortions when comparing countries with great differences in youth activity rates or when activity rates change
significantly over time. For instance, youth unemployment rates for two countries with identical numbers of youth and
unemployed youth will differ if one country has a higher share of youth not available for the labour market because of,
for example, a higher number of youth in education. More concretely, the country with a higher share of youth in
education (or otherwise inactive) will display a higher youth unemployment rate.
54
education. Moreover, the developments that have taken place since 2008 may have serious longer
term consequences for the current youth generation, as the delayed transition to the labour
market and frequent periods of unemployment during a person's early working life may have
lasting adverse effects on future employment and wage prospects. Long-term unemployment,
detachment from the labour market and education or training may also intensify, leading to
poverty and social exclusion, and other social challenges.
Young people are particularly vulnerable to social exclusion and poverty as they move towards an
independent life away from the parental household, a key step which involves looking for work
and establishing their own household. For many, however, this is far from easy. Even if they find
employment, they often start with low-paid jobs, which can make sustaining a household difficult.
As Ward et al (2006) highlight, the process of achieving autonomy is influenced by public policies
in a number of areas including employment, education, housing and social protection, and the
outcomes have important implications for society as revealed in fertility and demographic trends.
Low economic activity of youth as such should not be the main concern, given the high proportion
of students among the young generation (close to 80% of the youngest age group 15-19), but
rather the proportion of young people who are neither in employment nor in education and
training (NEET). The share of NEETs in the EU had been shrinking up until 2008 (when the share
was 13.9%), but then grew substantially through to 2012 when it reached 17.1%. In 2013 it
stabilised at EU level, with only 5 Member States recording a deterioration (but with marked rises
of close to 5 pp in CY and HR) while 6 recorded an improvement (Figure 25)
The longer term picture however remains decidedly bleak, with 24 Member States having
recorded significant increases in their NEET rates over the period 2008 to 2013. Particularly
marked rises in NEET rates in excess of 6 pp were registered in CY, HR, EL, IT, RO, ES and PT, while
only DE and LU have recorded a significant decrease. As a result of these developments, NEET
rates in 2013 were over 25% in BG, CY, EL, HR and IT, and above 20% in ES, IE, HU and RO. In
contrast, rates in AT, DE, DK, LU, NL and SE remained below 10%.
55
Figure 25: NEET (not in employment, education or training) rates (18-24),
2008, 2012 and 2013
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Notes: The categorisation ―improvement‖, ‖stable‖,
improvement/deterioration between 2008 and 2013.
‖deterioration‖
and
―strong
deterioration‖
refers
to
Youth exclusion was identified as a social trend to watch in 2013 by the SPC as more than 1/3 of
Member States had statistically significant increases in their shares of youth neither in employment
nor in education and training. Chapter 3 of this report analyses in-depth both the characteristics of
the population that is found in this situation as well as the policy instruments put in place in
Member States to address it.
Early school leaving increases the likelihood of young people entering the labour market without
adequate skills, who then may face unemployment or in-work poverty. Still, one out of every six
early school leavers has completed only compulsory education or less. Across Europe, rates of
early leavers from education and training range from as low as around 4-6% in CZ, HR, LU, SI and
PL to as high as 23.6% in ES. Developments since 2008 have been widely positive across the EU,
with reductions of more than 1pp in early school leavers rates in 20 Member States, most notably
in PT (-16.0 pp ), ES (-8.1 pp), LU (-7.3 pp) and MT (-6.4pp). In the latest year for which data is
available, 2013, 10 Member States recorded still further improvements in early school leaver rates,
as opposed to only 1 country where the rate increased (Figure 26).
School drop-out rates are much higher for children with a Roma or migrant background and also
for children with special needs (Social Protection Committee (2012)). Early school leaving also
shows a strong correlation with factors associated with poverty such as learning difficulties,
discrimination, rejection by peers, hampered mobility, reduced school accessibility or ghettoisation.
56
Figure 26: Early leavers rates (in %) from education and training (18-24),
2008, 2012 and 2013
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Notes: The categorisation ―strong improvement‖,
improvement/deterioration between 2008 and 2013.
―improvement‖,
‖stable‖
and
―deterioration‖
refers
to
The 2012 SPC Advisory Report on ―Tackling and Preventing Child Poverty, Promoting Child Wellbeing‖13 and the European Commission Social Investment Package14 highlighted the importance of
following a comprehensive approach to tackle early school-leaving. This means integrated multilevel responses linking the home, the child, the school, adult education, community and relevant
services. Schools, social and employment services and parents should combine their efforts and
work together to prevent early school leaving. Offering a greater variety of education and training
possibilities, both formal and informal as well as after school programmes, creating permeable and
flexible education pathways, forming smaller classes and preparing individualised education plans,
may help reduce early school-leaving. Providing quality vocational training options, educational
experimental frameworks aimed at boosting the attractiveness of schools and enhancing
motivation of pupils as well as special programmes for children with specific needs are vital to
combat disadvantages. Improving availability of alternative or non-formal education, raising the
compulsory schooling age or making secondary schools universally accessible will improve the
flexibility of education systems.
13
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7849&langId=en
14
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=1807&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news
57
The ability of the EU to tackle the challenges related to child poverty and youth exclusion will be
decisive in its capacity to guarantee a long-term future to its citizens. As pointed out by European
Commission (2013b), the positive link between human capital and productivity, and therefore
economic growth, has been clearly established by economic literature. It is, therefore, particularly
worrying that the economic recession has had an especially strong negative impact on youth and
children. More young people and children face poverty and exclusion, which imperils the
development of those generations' human capital. The EU is at risk of creating a "lost generation"
that might not be able to achieve its full potential in society. An insufficient level of human capital
would affect individuals' employability and productivity and thereby their future earnings prospects
and pension entitlements. In the context of ageing populations, younger generations would be illequipped to bear the expected burden of growing public finance expenditures. Such
developments would also undermine the competitive advantage in the global markets that Europe
derives from its highly skilled human capital and create significant barriers to long-term growth
prospects. To avoid such a scenario, sufficient investment in human capital and well-being at an
early age through, inter alia, provision of affordable and quality child care and education, as well
as healthcare, facilitation of smooth transitions from education to work and support for career
development of younger workers, is a policy imperative.
2.9 Income inequality is growing across and within Member States
As highlighted by the 2014 Joint Employment Report15, and analysed extensively in the
Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2013 report (European Commission (2013c)), the
crisis has substantially altered the dynamics of inequality and affected different sections of the
population in different ways. Income inequality is growing across and within many Member States,
particularly in the South and in several non-Central European countries. These are also the
Member States that witnessed the largest increases in unemployment. In many countries, the crisis
has intensified the long-term trends of wage polarisation and labour market segmentation, which
together with less redistributive tax and benefit systems have fuelled rising inequalities. High levels
of unemployment, and in some cases the impact of fiscal consolidation, also explain the significant
increases in inequalities observed in the countries most affected by the crisis.
A recent OECD report16 highlighted the development of income inequality during the initial part of
the crisis, covering the period 2007-2010. It showed that market income (i.e. work and capital
income) decreased considerably during 2007-2010, but that disposable income fell less strongly,
due to an offsetting effect stemming from an increase in social transfers and/or lower direct taxes
and social security contributions. However, the loss in income was not evenly shared among
income groups, with the result that income inequality (as measured by the GINI coefficient)
continued to edge upwards during the crisis.
15
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2014/jer2014_en.pdf
16
OECD (2013), 'Crisis squeezes income and puts pressure on inequality and poverty'
58
An alternative measure of inequality, the income quintile ratio (S80/S20), shows that while on
average inequality remained stable between 2008 and 2013 at EU level, there is a wide dispersion
and growing divergence in inequality between Member States. The S80/S20 inequality ratio has
increased significantly in 13 Member States compared to 2008, including in most of the Southern
Member States (ES, EL, IT, CY) as well as in DK, EE, HU, HR, IE, LU, SI, SK and SE (Figure 27Error!
Reference source not found. and Figure 28). In contrast, significant reductions in inequality were
registered in BE, FI, LV, NL, RO and the UK over the same period. The highest income inequalities
are found in BG, EL, ES, LV, LT, PT and RO, where the median equivalised income of the richest
20% of the population is around 6 times or more that of the poorest 20%.
Figure 27: Income quintile ratio (S80/S20), evolution (% change)
2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.8
6.6
3.4
4.3
4.6
5.5
4.7
6.6
6.3
4.5
5.3
5.7
~
~
~
-5.0
8.2
~
~
7.0
~
n.a.
~
n.a.
~
10.0
6.8
11.9
26.3
n.a.
-7.3
19.4
UK
~
~
~
~
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
4.9
6.3
6.1
4.6
4.2
4.1
3.6
4.1
4.9
6.0
6.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
15.1
12.2
5.0
5.1
12.2
16.7
~
~
-13.7
~
~
~
~
-10.0
~
~
~
~
~
~
-5.7
5.9
5.9
~
~
11.8
CY
14.0
~
~
17.8
~
~
~
5.9
-5.3
5.7
4.6
-8.0
-17.9
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). A 5% threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant
change). vi) income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e. 2011) except for the United Kingdom
(survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
59
Figure 28: Income quintile ratio (S80/S20), evolution 2008-2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Data not available for IE for 2013, so 2012 figure is shown; ii) Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income
variables in EU-SILC, so 2012 figure is shown; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have
affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be
particularly cautious; iv) The blue line shows equal inequality in 2008 and 2013, so countries to the left of the line have
seen a rise in inequality, and those to the right a reduction.
2.10 Mixed effectiveness of income support systems for those
furthest away from the labour market
Member States differ substantially in terms of the minimum safety nets they provide to jobless or
quasi-jobless households, especially relative to the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. In 2013 the
poverty risk for the (quasi-) jobless households ranged between as much as 78.4% in EE, 73.7% in
SE, 73.6% in SK and 72.0% in BG to around 40% in DK, NL and the UK. Between 2012 and 2013, 6
Member States experienced a significant worsening of the poverty risk for (quasi-)jobless
households with increases of 7.6 pp in LU, 7.0 pp in CY and around 5 pp in EE and PT. In contrast,
strong reductions were recorded in DE (-4.8 pp), FI (-8.8 pp) and the UK (-4.8 pp), suggesting an
improved efficiency of safety nets in terms of income support in these countries.
The longer term trend since the beginning of the crisis (2008) has mainly been one of worsening
poverty among (quasi-)jobless households, with 14 Member States seeing an increased poverty
risk for people in such households and with increases of around 10 pp in FR, HU and PL, and of
around 20 pp or above in EL, SK and SE. When looked at together with the parallel evolution of
the share of the population in (quasi-)jobless households, it is evident that in some Member States
such as BE, EL, ES, IT, LU, PT, SI, SK and SE, income support levels of last resort schemes have
60
worsened significantly at the same time as the number of people counting on them has increased.
Furthermore, the adequacy of minimum safety nets is further affected by access limitations. In fact,
significant shares of people who are entitled to social assistance do not actually receive these
benefits, partly due to administrative complexities, lack of information and stigma.
Figure 29: At-risk-of-poverty rate for the population living in (quasi-) jobless
households (in %), evolutions 2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
56.6
56.5
59.7
60.7
72.0
53.5
41.0
63.7
78.4
46.7
58.4
61.3
60.5
64.2
57.9
~
~
~
-4.8
5.4
n.a.
~
n.a.
3.0
~
2.5
18.1
7.4
10.7
n.a.
4.9
n.a.
~
~
~
~
~
4.3
6.0
-5.8
-1.9
~
~
-3.9
~
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
52.4
67.9
66.0
51.9
58.9
65.2
39.8
50.2
59.4
59.4
49.3
56.8
73.6
50.7
73.7
41.2
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
10.4
3.6
~
~
-1.1
1.8
20.5
7.0
2.0
-15.4
~
7.6
2.5
10.2
4.9
6.2
-8.8
-5.6
~
22.3
-4.8
-21.9
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). For the change 2011-2012, Eurostat computations of significance of net change have been
used. For the change 2008-2012, a 1pp threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically
insignificant change). v) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey
year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the
(quasi-)jobless households (i.e. very low work intensity) rate refers to the previous calendar year (i.e. 2012) while for the
severe material deprivation rate, the reference is the current year (i.e. 2013).
To support the needs of people at risk of poverty, governments provide social security in the form
of social transfers. The effectiveness of social provision can be examined by comparing the at-riskof-poverty rate before and after social transfers. The impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction varies greatly across Member States. In 2013, it ranged from only 17.5% in EL to 56% in
DK and 60% in IE (2012 figure). These large differences highlight the potential for improvement in
some Member States in the size and effectiveness of social protection expenditure. Between 2012
and 2013, however, there were no significant changes in the capacity of social transfers to reduce
poverty, and in the longer term (2008-2013) only 8 countries (EE, LV and LT as well as CY, ES, IE, FI
and the UK) have strengthened the impact of transfers in reducing poverty as opposed to 4
countries (CZ, HU, PL and SE) where the impact has decreased17.
17
The assessment of the impact of social transfers on poverty reduction is complex, as it depends on various factors
such as the effect of pensions' indexation on the poverty threshold and the phasing out of benefits (e.g. for long-term
unemployed).
61
Figure 30: Impact of social transfers (excluding pensions) on poverty
reduction, 2008, 2012 and 201318
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
35.3
35.7
34.0
42.6
21.3
48.2
56.2
34.0
26.8
60.1
17.5
32.0
43.4
34.3
22.4
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n.a.
~
n.a.
~
~
~
n.a.
~
~
~
~
-6.8
~
~
5.7
5.6
~
7.5
~
~
~
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
37.0
25.4
32.0
45.9
45.6
32.6
50.0
44.4
24.8
26.7
19.4
42.7
36.3
55.3
45.4
47.2
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
6.5
11.1
5.5
~
-13.6
~
~
~
-7.9
~
~
~
~
5.1
-11.8
11.9
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). A 5% threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant
change). vi) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e.
2011) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
The above assessment of the impact of social transfers does not take into account non-cash
benefits such as transfers in kind. A number of Member States provide public services to those
furthest away from the labour market which contribute to general welfare and are not detected in
purely income-based measures. However, if we look into the expenditure on such in-kind services,
we can see that the countries which generally achieve a low impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction are also those that tend to spend less on in-kind services. In most countries the
spending on in-kind benefits has slightly increased since 2008, with an average increase of 1.1 pp
at EU level, but with more notable rises in IE (8.1 pp) and FI, NL and the UK (all with rises of close
to 2 pp).
18
The impact of social transfers is a theoretical indicator which is calculated using a fixed poverty line and ignores the
influence that social transfers have on median income. This should be taken into account when interpreting the figures.
62
Figure 31: Social benefits in-kind, as % of GDP, 2008 and 2012
Source: Eurostat (Esspros)
Box 5. Peer review on social impact assessment by means of microsimulation models
The Peer Review held in Austria, on 4-5 December 2014, discussed quantitative models which
simulate the probable effect of changes in taxes and welfare benefits in order to provide policymakers with a useful evidence base. Austria has broken new ground by creating an easy-to-use
public website (SORESI) which enables all citizens to calculate the effects of tax and benefit
changes on different sections of the population. SORESI is based on the EU-wide EUROMOD
simulation engine, which holds the EU-SILC data on all 28 Member States.
Key messages that emerged during the discussion included that building customisable national
web front-ends for the EUROMOD simulation engine is a replicable initiative. The European
Commission is willing to help Member States with set-up costs should the need arise. However,
also constant support including funding for running a micro-simulation model has to be ensured.
Since social NGOs are key potential users, they should be involved in the design of such websites.
There are persuasive arguments for developing systems with two interfaces – a user-friendly but
limited one for use by the general public, and a more flexible one for expert users. It was pointed
out that there is a need to extend EUROMOD to include the modelling of indirect taxes as well as
wealth taxes. There is also a good case to include gender impact assessment in micro-simulations,
for example related to pension issues.
63
Tax-benefit micro-simulation is a useful tool in measuring progress towards meeting the objectives
of the Europe 2020 strategy. It helps policy-makers to develop evidence-based policies because it
enables them to see in detail how policy changes are likely to affect different parts of the
population and to estimate their budgetary effects. In this context, the European Semester
approach could benefit from micro-simulation models. Furthermore, the open availability of a
micro-simulation model would allow stakeholders to play a more active part in policy-making,
because they could compare the effects of government proposals with those of possible
alternatives. Tax-benefit micro-simulation is also relevant for the Social Investment Package in that
it can track the way in which childcare benefits affect poverty and social inclusion. However, to
forecast the return to social investments, the tax-benefit model must be linked with a labour
supply model.
For further details consult the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en&newsId=2098&furtherNews=yes
2.11 Consistent and widespread improvement of the employment
rate of older workers
Considerable effort has been made over the last decade or so to improve older people‘s labour
market participation. As can be seen in Figure 32, this is an area where positive strides have been
made, even during the period of the crisis. The employment rate of older workers aged between
55 and 64 years had increased to 50.2% in the EU in 2013, a rise of close to 5 pps since the
beginning of the crisis in 2008. The increase since 2008 has been highest in DE (+9.9 pps) and PL
(+9.0 pps), but also substantial (around 6-8 pps) in BE, FR, LU, HU, MT, NL and IT, in some of
which the financial incentives to continue work at older ages have improved strongly in recent
years (e.g. DE, FR, IT and NL). Overall, since 2008, 18 Member States have improved their
employment rates for older workers, and the widespread positive impetus is continuing as
significant rises were also recorded between 2012 and 2013 in 17 Member States.
Only in the southern Member States of CY, EL, ES and PT as well as in EI, LV and RO, generally
those Member States which were hardest hit by the crisis have negative trends been observed
over 2008-2013. For some such as CY, EL, LV and PT the fall in older workers‘ employment rates
has been very marked, ranging from around 4 pps to as high as 7.4 pps in EL. The Baltic States
had previously experienced a generally worsening situation overall with reference to 2008, but in
recent years have registered notable improvements.
64
Figure 32: Employment rate of older workers (55-64), evolution
2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
50.2
50.3
50.0
41.7
47.4
51.6
61.7
63.6
62.6
51.3
35.6
43.2
45.6
37.8
42.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
2.2
1.7
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
~
~
1.1
1.1
2.3
4.7
4.7
5.6
7.2
1.4
4.0
9.9
~
-2.4
-7.4
-2.3
7.4
1.1
8.3
~
3.3
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
49.6
54.8
53.4
40.5
38.5
36.3
60.1
44.9
40.6
46.9
41.5
33.5
44.0
58.5
73.6
59.8
-1.1
2.0
1.7
~
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.9
~
~
~
~
~
~
1.7
-5.2
-4.3
~
6.4
7.1
6.2
7.1
3.9
9.0
-3.8
-1.6
~
4.8
2.0
3.5
1.8
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Note: Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red (positive/negative changes) with a 1pp
threshold. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant change).
Reasons for the overall positive trend, which was already on-going before the crisis, include a
continuing upward shift in educational achievement levels and in the participation of female
workers aged 55-64 along with the higher employment protection enjoyed by older workers, but
also the impact of tax/benefit reforms restricting access to early retirement and encouraging
longer working lives and some changes in age management in work places. All this is feeding
through into extending the effective retirement age.
Box 6. Peer review on the Active Ageing Index and its extension to the
regional level
The Peer Review in Poland on 15-16 October 2014 discussed the use of the Active Ageing Index
(AAI) as a means to measure the untapped potential of older people, their independence and
participation in paid employment and social activities. The AAI contributes to the objectives of the
Social Investment Package by enabling Member States to invest better in the skills and capacities
of older people. The Peer Review explored whether a regional AAI, as piloted by Poland, could be
a useful extension to this.
Most policies focus on the issues of employment and health, and the focus is shifting from the
national to the regional level. In order to implement policies for active ageing, the Peer Review
participants stressed the necessity to involve regional and local authorities, as well as a wide range
of stakeholders – primarily older people, but also young people, employers, trade unions, service
providers and researchers. The wide gender disparities that the index reveals show that it is
furthermore vitally important to take a gender approach to preparing indexes on ageing. The
governance of active ageing policy was also an issue as many countries lack the administrative
machinery to co-ordinate the efforts of the different ministries involved. Those countries that do
have a coordinating body have the advantage that there is an interlocutor to conduct dialogue
with the stakeholders.
There was a broad consensus among the Peer Review participants that the Active Ageing Index is
potentially a useful tool at regional and local level. However in order to use it, an investment needs
to be made in obtaining data, and the index needs to be applied flexibly to cope with regional
65
differences, such as the rural/urban distinction. It should not be seen as a rigid tool, but as a
framework for policy dialogue. For further details consult the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en&newsId=2099&furtherNews=yes
Active ageing measures are of growing importance as recent pension reforms require longer
contributory periods to ensure an adequate pension. Increased employment ensures the
accumulation of pension rights and contributes to the sustainability of the pension system. For this
to be successful however, older workers' employment must guarantee pension rights and pension
levels must be adequate in order to combat poverty and social exclusion in old age. This is of
particular importance for women. The move towards gender equality in the employment rate of
older workers is not mirrored in a broader move towards more equal work patterns.
Women, generally, have a lower participation rate, experience a gender pay gap, and more often
interrupt their working lives due to child rearing. Female pensioners have a higher risk of poverty
than men as a consequence of these gender inequalities; women receive lower pensions than men
and often fail to qualify for benefits. Therefore, first and foremost, active ageing measures which
ensure equal outcomes for men and women are needed, as the lack of progress in activity and
employment rates can often be explained by poor employment opportunities and working
conditions for older workers which can undermine the incentives embedded in pension systems.
Social protection systems which effectively contribute to maintaining the health of the population
and provide adequate long-term care also play a key role in enabling participation in society and
the labour market and ensuring independent living by older people. Beyond health services,
working and living environments should also be better adapted to the needs of older people,
including adapted housing and transport services, local libraries, and home support, which enable
the elderly to live independently for longer.
2.12 Pensions continue to avert poverty for many though
divergence in adequacy and effectiveness remains
Pensions constitute by far the main source of income for older Europeans, who represent a large
and growing share of the EU population. They are also the largest element in social protection
systems, affecting the primary incomes of more people than any other component. The total
number of pensioners in the EU presently comes to about 120 million or a quarter of the
population. Almost 2/3 of these are women. The adequacy of pensions is measured by, among
other things, their ability to prevent poverty, the degree to which they replace income before
retirement and how they compare to the average incomes of people below pensionable age.
66
Regarding the ability of pensions to prevent poverty in old age, the trend since the beginning of
the crisis in the income situation of the elderly has been better than for other age groups in many
Member States, mainly due to the stability of pension income. 23 Member States have seen the
share of the elderly at risk of poverty or social exclusion decrease by more than 1pp between 2008
and 2013. There are, however, three countries which have had increasing rates of poverty or social
exclusion of the elderly over the same period – HU, LU and SE. In addition, several countries saw
increases between 2012 and 2013 (EE, LV, LU and the UK), although the general trend remains
widely positive with 15 Member States recording significant reductions. In terms of actual levels of
the share of the elderly living in poverty or social exclusion there remain wide disparities across
Member States. In 2013 the share was close to 60% in BG and above 30% in HR, LT, LV and RO,
while being below 10% in LU and NL.
Figure 33: At risk of poverty or social exclusion rate for the elderly (65+),
evolution 2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
18.3
18.2
16.5
19.5
57.6
10.4
11.4
16.0
28.0
14.7
23.1
14.5
10.4
31.9
22.6
-1.1
-1.0
-1.0
-1.7
-1.5
~
-3.2
~
6.2
n.a.
~
n.a.
-0.7
~
-2.6
n.a.
-5.2
-3.9
-3.4
-7.9
-2.1
-7.2
~
-12.9
-7.8
-5.0
-11.1
-3.7
n.a.
-1.8
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
26.1
36.1
31.7
7.0
19.0
20.8
6.1
16.2
19.7
20.3
35.0
23.0
13.6
16.8
16.5
18.1
-7.3
2.4
-4.0
0.9
-1.6
-1.5
~
~
-3.7
-1.9
-0.7
-2.7
-2.7
-1.4
0.8
-23.2
-22.7
-6.4
1.6
1.5
-5.2
-3.6
-5.0
-7.2
-7.4
-14.2
-8.3
-7.1
1.0
-10.4
~
-1.4
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). For the change 2012-2013, Eurostat computations of significance of net change have been
used. For the change 2008-2013, a 1pp threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance (i.e. statistically
insignificant change). vi) For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey
year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the
quasi-)jobless households (i.e. very low work intensity) rate refers to the previous calendar year (i.e. 2012) while for the
severe material deprivation rate, the reference is the current year (i.e. 2013).
Pension systems play a key role in allowing people to maintain their living standards in old age at a
level comparable to that achieved during working life. The median relative income of older people
(i.e. the ratio of the median equivalised disposable income of people aged above 65 to the
median equivalised disposable income of those aged below 65), has been rather stable in most
Member States in the latest period with few exceptions. At EU level the relative median income
ratio reached 93% in 2013, but underlying this are substantial differences across countries. The
relative median income ratio was below 70% in EE, and under 80% in BE, BG, CY, DK, FI, LV and
MT. At the other end of the spectrum, EL, ES, FR, HU, LU, and RO recorded a relative median
equivalised income for people over 65 that was equal to or greater than that for younger cohorts.
67
Figure 34: Median relative income ratio for the elderly, 2008, 2012 and 2013
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.76
0.76
0.85
0.76
0.89
0.69
0.88
1.04
1.00
1.02
0.88
0.96
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n.a.
~
n.a.
~
~
~
n.a.
9.4
9.3
~
15.2
7.6
8.6
~
11.3
18.9
20.9
17.7
7.4
17.3
9.1
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
0.77
0.77
0.81
1.13
1.05
0.79
0.90
0.95
0.98
0.94
1.04
0.87
0.90
0.78
0.81
0.87
10.0
~
~
~
8.2
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
11.1
~
~
~
30.5
45.3
14.1
16.5
5.0
8.2
7.1
8.0
~
13.3
22.4
~
13.9
8.3
~
17.6
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so no latest year changes are shown while longer
term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in
2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must
therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red
(positive/negative changes). A 5% threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable performance, vi) income reference year
is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12
months preceding the survey).
Since 2008 the ratio has increased by more than 15% in ten countries: BG, CY, EL, ES, IE, HR, LV,
LU, RO and the UK. The only countries which did not show a significant improvement (i.e. of above
5%) were BE, DE, PL, SI and SE.
When analysing fluctuations of this income ratio indicator, one has to be aware that it is a relative
measure and its value is influenced by changes in the income of both the elderly (numerator) and
the working age population (denominator). A decrease in the income of the working age
population when the income position of people age 65+ remains stable might give the impression
that the actual position (i.e. income level) of the older cohort has improved. The indicator thus
needs to be assessed together with some absolute variables, such as the evolution in per capita
incomes.
To assess the extent to which pensions fulfil their role of replacing income after retirement, it is
important to consider how many people are covered by pension systems and how large a
proportion of their income is derived from pensions. The aggregate replacement ratio measures
the median individual gross pension (including old-age and other pension benefits) of people
aged 65-74 relative to median individual gross earnings of people aged 50-59.
68
Figure 35: Aggregate replacement ratio, evolutions 2012-2013 and 20082013
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
2013
2012-2013 %
change
2008-2013 %
change
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.47
0.39
0.56
0.44
0.47
0.50
:
0.60
0.60
0.64
0.37
0.62
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
n.a.
15.4
n.a.
~
~
n.a.
12.0
12.0
9.8
7.3
6.8
11.1
n.a.
46.3
18.4
~
-7.1
14.7
~
-21.3
6.9
21.6
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
0.40
0.47
0.48
0.78
0.61
0.56
0.47
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.65
0.46
0.61
0.49
0.58
0.53
~
~
6.7
~
5.2
21.7
~
~
~
~
~
~
8.9
~
~
6.0
21.2
56.7
9.1
34.5
~
36.6
9.3
~
7.1
15.7
32.7
~
13.0
~
-6.5
23.3
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: i) Data not available for IE for 2013 or 2012; ii) Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC,
so no latest year changes are shown while longer term changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK,
changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and
interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious; iv) Only statistically significant
changes have been marked in green/red (positive/negative changes). A 5% threshold has been used. "~" refers to stable
performance, vi) income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e. 2012) except for the United
Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey).
At EU level the ratio reached 56% in 2013, although there are substantial variations across
countries (see Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.Figure 35). In general, the aggregate
replacement ratios show that current median pension levels are very low compared to current
median earnings in HR, BG and CY (respectively 37%, 39% and 40% in 2013) and to some extent
in BE, DE, DK, FI, LV, LT, NL and SI (all below 50% in 2013). This can be due to low income
replacement from statutory pension schemes (e.g. BG), but it can also reflect the immaturity of
supplementary pension schemes (e.g. CY), low past labour force participation rates and
incomplete careers.
As for its evolution, the value of the ratio for the EU-27 increased by 12%, from 50% in 2008 to
56% in 2013. This upward trend is observed in two-thirds of Member States and is primarily the
result of the crisis-related decline in wage incomes of people aged 50-59. Only HR and SE have
experienced a worsening of the income position of pensioners in comparison to the working
population 50-59 since 2008, and only BG registered a deterioration between 2012 and 2013.
In 2012 the SPC adopted its report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2012-2052)19
which analysed the future adequacy of pensions by assessing theoretical replacement rates (TRRs).
Some of the main conclusions related to the fact that future levels of pensions in relation to
earnings (income replacement levels) will depend on different factors, notably the pace of accrual
of pension entitlements (which is linked to developments in the labour market), the maturation of
pension schemes and the effect of reforms.
19
http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url
=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fsocial%2FBlobServlet%3FdocId%3D7805%26langId%3Den&ei=KzHaVKfxKIK3PPPug
YAC&usg=AFQjCNEoUYCc12Zi20O6lUkVWof1pYST1w
69
Most Member States' reforms of statutory schemes will lead to a decrease of replacement rates at
given retirement ages. Indeed, measures introduced in many Member States in order to cope with
increasing longevity and to incentivise longer working lives go in this direction: lowering future
benefit levels at a fixed retirement age, increasing the statutory retirement age, tightening and
abolishing of early retirement options, or increasing contributory periods needed for a full pension.
2.13 Access to health and health outcomes
Health status is a key determinant of the well-being and labour market participation of the
individual. A healthy population is associated with better educational attainment, better earnings
and wages, higher labour market participation and a higher number of hours worked in adult age.
Health is also shown to be positively associated with economic growth and social welfare.
Despite these benefits, a recent Eurofound study (Eurofound (2014b)) reports that in the wake of
the crisis, many European governments have cut spending on healthcare services. However, in the
face of rising unemployment and financial strain, there is an increased need for some healthcare
services, while decreased disposable income has made access to healthcare more difficult for
many households in the EU. In this context, policymakers and service providers are faced with the
challenge of maintaining access to healthcare services.
Looking at both objective and subjective measures of health can provide a snapshot of the health
status of society as a whole. In general, at EU level the number of healthy life years (HLY) at 65 is
now quite similar for both women and men, with the EU average for both being 8.5 years in 2012.
Over the period 2008-2012, there was a significant increase in healthy life expectancy for women
in 10 Member States, the greatest rises being in AT (2 years) and PT (3.5 years, but with a break in
the time series). There were only five countries where HLY at 65 for women decreased significantly
(EL, LT, RO, SI, UK), with the biggest decrease recorded in RO and SI (down by 2.8 and 2.5 years
respectively).
70
Figure 36: Healthy life years at 65 for females, 2008 and 2012
Source: Eurostat
The change in HLY at 65 for men in the years 2008 – 2012 has generally been even more positive
than that for women, with 15 Member States recording rises for men, although there were
significant falls in 5 (CY, DK, ES, RO and SI). Similar to the situation for females, the greatest
decreases were noted in RO and SI (both down 1.9 years). On the other hand, the greatest
increases were noted in MT (2 years) and PT (3.2 years, but with a break in the time series).
Figure 37: Healthy life years at 65 for males, 2008 and 2012
Source: Eurostat
71
The Eurofound study cited previously (Eurofound (2014b)) finds that while the crisis has been a
major factor influencing complex healthcare systems, there are significant differences between
countries and between services in the impact the crisis has had on healthcare access. Nevertheless,
even where a country‘s health services have hardly experienced any cuts (such as all services in
Luxembourg, and nursing home healthcare in Latvia), it has still been possible to identify impacts
of the crisis on access to healthcare.
The study also finds that difficulties in accessing healthcare have long been more common among
certain population groups, and that in some cases, measures facilitating access for these groups
have been cut. While there is great heterogeneity within these groups, they include people living in
countries with poor overall access or in remote areas; those with low health literacy, poor
education and low incomes; people with greater healthcare needs in general (such as people with
disabilities, elderly people and people with chronic illnesses); or those who belong to a specific
disadvantaged ethnic minority (such as Roma), as well as homeless people and migrants.
Moreover, it reports that the crisis has resulted in the emergence of new groups that were not
considered vulnerable previously due to increased unemployment, especially among young men,
and increased household debt problems, particularly for young couples facing housing and job
insecurity.
On average, 3.6 % of Europeans reported unmet need for medical care in 2013 (i.e. they had to
join a waiting list, or the care available was too expensive or too far away). There are significant
differences among Member States, with the rate as high as 13.8% in LV and 10.4% in RO, while in
AT, ES, LU, MT, NL and SI the reported rate of unmet need is below 1%. There is a clear income
gradient as those in the lowest income quintiles more often report an unmet need for medical
care.
Figure 38: Self-reported unmet need for medical care20, in %, and changes
(in pp) 2012-2013 and 2008-2013
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
2013
2012-2013
change in pp
2008-2013
change in pp
EU28
EU27
EA18
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
3.6
3.6
0.0
1.9
8.9
1.0
1.3
1.6
8.4
3.3
9.0
0.8
2.7
3.3
7.1
1.5
~
~
n.a.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1.0
~
~
~
n.a.
~
n.a.
n.a.
-6.4
~
~
~
1.1
1.5
3.6
~
~
n.a.
1.9
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
4.4
13.8
3.2
0.9
2.4
0.9
0.4
0.4
8.8
3.0
10.4
0.0
1.9
4.3
1.9
1.6
~
1.4
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1.6
4.1
-2.3
~
-1.0
~
~
~
2.8
1.9
~
~
~
3.5
~
~
Source: Eurostat
Note: i) Break in series in BE in 2011 means that evolutions between years before 2011 and years from 2011 on cannot
be interpreted; ii) Only statistically significant changes have been marked in green/red (positive/negative changes) with a
1pp threshold. "~" stands for stable performance (i.e. statistically insignificant change).
20
This indicator is defined on the basis on self-reported unmet need related to three reasons – too far to travel, waiting
list, too expensive
72
In the period 2008–2013, 9 countries recorded an increase of 1 percentage point or more in the
share of the population reporting unmet needs for care (CY, EE, EL, FI, IE, IT, LV, PL and PT). Only
3 countries registered significant improvements in access - BG (-6.4pp), LT (-2.3pp) and HU (1.0pp). In terms of the most recent changes for the period 2012-2013, there were only 3 countries
that noted an increase (EL, IT and LV), but with none showing an improvement. While in most
cases the share of this population has remained rather stable both in the latest available year
(2012-2013) as well as since 2008, in EL, IT and LV, increases seem to be consistent across time.
Box 7. Peer review on Health System Performance Assessment (HSPA)
Health system performance assessment (HSPA) can be an important instrument in the governance
of health systems for use at national level. Its main aims are to (i) set the goals and priorities for a
health system; (ii) act as a focus for policy-making and coordinating actions within the health
system; (iii) measure progress towards achievement of goals; (iv) promote efficient use of funds; (v)
check the sustainability of the system and (vi) promote transparency and accountability to citizens.
One of the most advanced countries in this field is Belgium, whose latest HSPA report covers five
main dimensions of performance: quality, accessibility, efficiency, sustainability, and equity,
featuring 74 indicators to assess the levels of performance. Thus, in May 2014, nine Member States
met in Brussels for a Peer Review to learn from each other about different national models of
HSPA: their underpinning methodologies, impact and governance process. The Peer Review
furthermore allowed for Member States to learn about HSPA-related developments at EU-level
and to indicate what support was required from the EU and international bodies.
As stressed in the Peer Review discussions, HSPA should be descriptive, although its findings may
lead to recommendations for improving a health system. The selection of indicators used in HSPA
will affect its outcome. Thus, concerns were expressed about approaches that strongly compress
the number of indicators. It was pointed out that the focus of HSPA is the use at national level.
International or regional comparisons might be made during HSPA exercises bearing in mind
restrictions due to different health systems and methodological problems regarding data
availability and comparability. Such comparisons might pinpoint problems and inefficiencies within
national or regional healthcare provision. It was however acknowledged that some constraints on
access to data exist. Privacy concerns have become a major issue in some countries, and health
data are particularly sensitive in this regard. Furthermore, accountability is key to the success of
HSPA. It was stressed that European and international action to support HSPA was desirable. While
participants did not see the need for a European HSPA model (due to the variety of national
health systems), they would welcome technical assistance for the development of national HSPA
and support from the EC for the improvement (especially better coordination and less duplication)
of international data collection that would allow them to carry out comparisons.
For further details consult the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1024&langId=en&newsId=1890&furtherNews=yes
73
2.14 Developments in access to housing and homelessness
Housing costs represent an important share of a household's income, especially for lower income
groups. An increasing burden of housing costs on a household's income as well as the overindebtedness of many households might result in the inability of households to pay mortgages,
rent or utility bills, increasing vulnerability for repossessions, foreclosures and evictions and in some
cases, homelessness. There is a growing need for locally available affordable housing, including
social housing and affordable private rentals, as well as a sufficient level of housing and heating
allowances21
In 2013, the average share of housing costs over disposable household income varied among
Member States, between a minimum of 2.6% in MT and a maximum of 36.9% in EL, with the
average for the EU28 at 11.0%. Other countries with a relatively high share (in excess of 15%) were
DE, DK, NL and RO.
Significant increases in the average share of housing costs in disposable household income have
been recorded in 13 Member States between 2008 and 2013. In a number of countries the
increase has been more prominent for people living below the poverty threshold, with increases of
around 10pp or more in DK, EE, ES, IE, LV and SK, and as high as 27.5pp in EL. For individuals with
higher incomes, the housing cost overburden rate has remained relatively stable with the
exception of EL where it also increased substantially.
21
Commission Staff Working Document (2013)42 final on Confronting homelessness in the European Union
74
Figure 39: Evolution of the housing cost overburden rate, 2008-2013 (in pp)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: 1) Evolution for IE is for the period 2008-2012; ii) Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EUSILC, so changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; iii) Evolutions for EU28, DE and HR are for the period
2010-2013; Iv) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends
since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious.
Apart from overall housing costs, as much as 11% of EU28 citizens cannot keep their homes
adequately warm, with above 20% in BG, EL, LT, MT, PT, LV and CY. The EU28 average is 24% for
those below the poverty line, and beyond BG (69.7%), CY (51%), EL (48.4%), PT (44.6%) and IT
(40.1%), figures also stand at over 30% in HU, LV, LT and MT22.
In several countries demand for housing allowances and social housing has grown in recent years
as reported by Member States and stakeholders. The number of people on waiting lists for social
housing keeps growing in many EU countries. According to UK government data, there were
about 1.37 million households waiting for social housing in England in April 201423. This is an
estimated increase by 30% since 1997. In France, the number of applicants for social housing
reached a total of around 1.7 million applicants in 201324. The need for local authority housing in
22
EU SILC data
23
Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) Live tables on rents, lettings and tenancies
(https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-rents-lettings-and-tenancies)
24
Data from the National registration system (Systeme national d'enregistrement - SNE) of the housing ministry, as
reported in Union Sociale pour l'Habitat (2013) Les demandeurs de logement social - fiche thematique. Note there is a
break for 2013 since the source is no longer the previously used ENL (Enquête Nationale Logement) but the SNE
(Système national d‘enregistrement).
75
Ireland has increased by 74% since 2008 (from about 56,000 applicants to 98,000) 25. The need
seems to be the most critical in capital and global cities where the housing markets are heated.
There were close to 540,000 households registered on the waiting lists in greater Paris (Ile-deFrance) in 2013, and 255,729 in greater London in April 201426.
In LT, the number of families entitled to social housing has been constantly increasing between
2008 and 2012 (in 2012 it was 33% higher than in 2008), and multiplied by 3.4 times between
2004 and 2012. However, only a small share of the demand is satisfied, so, in 2012 only a 3.4% of
the entitled families had access to renting in municipal social housing. In LV, the number of
housing benefits' recipients increased between 2009 and 2012, with the number of housing benefit
recipients 38% higher than in 2009. In FI, the number of recipients (households) of general housing
allowances has increased in the 2009-2013 period, so that in October 2013 it was 31.8% higher
than in January 2009. The rise between October 2012 and October 2013 was 6.9%. Also the
number of applicants for social rental housing increased between 2008 and 2012 in FI, reaching
over 100,000 applicants waiting for an apartment in 2012. In FR, the total number of beneficiaries
of housing allowances kept rather stable during the 2009-2011 period, and similar to the 2000
level. The amount of such benefits has however been increasing every year since 2006. The
highest annual increase during the 2000-2011 period was in 2008, when it grew by 7.2% with
respect to the previous year. Between 2010 and 2011, the total amount of housing benefits (in
euro) grew by 3.3%. In PL, the total number of housing allowances paid out in 2012 was 0.7%
higher than in 2011, while the total amount paid as housing allowances rose by 5.2% as compared
to the 2011 amount27.
Regarding the ability of households to pay back their mortgages, housing loans or pay their utility
bills, EU SILC data for 2013 shows an EU-28 average of 4.1% of the population in arrears on
mortgage and rent payments and 10% among the poorer segment of the population, with huge
differences among Member States. Among those with an income below 60% of the median
income, EL has the highest percentage (25.1%) in Europe of people in arrears on rents or
mortgage payment, followed by CZ, FR and HU with values above 16%, and this percentage has
been increasing. In 2013, arrears on utilities stood at 10.1% for the entire population and 22.9% for
the poorer segment of the population, with an average in the latter segment around 40% or more
in Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary and Romania28. However, a few countries (including
EE, FR) reported an improvement in recent years. In EE between 2012 and 2013, both the absolute
number of hopeless housing loan contracts and their share in the total volume of housing loan
contracts decreased. In particular, 0.6% of housing loan contracts were hopeless loans by the end
25
Housing Agency (2011) Housing Needs Assessment 2011 (www.housing.ie)
26
Orna Rosenfeld (2014) Social Housing in the UNECE: Models, Trends and Challenges. Presentation at the 75th session
of the Committee on Housing and Land Management, Geneva, 8 - 9 October 2014 (http://www.unece.org)
27
Central Statistical Office, Local Data Bank (http://www.stat.gov.pl/bdlen/app/strona.html?p_name=indeks)
28
EU SILC data
76
of August 201329 In FR, 2.7% of owners were unable to pay for their loans in 2010, 0.9 pp lower
than in 200930.
In PT, however, the percentage of borrowers with overdue loans for housing increased from 5.5%
of the total number of borrowers with credit granted in the second quarter of 2011 to 6.2% in the
second quarter of 2013. This share is nevertheless lower than the 8.3% reached in the first quarter
of 2009. In HU, 5.7% of the number of home loan contracts and 9.4% of the total credit value for
home loans were rated as subprime (July 2013). In total, 23.4% of the home loan contracts and
34.8% of the total credit value were rated as not problem free.
The 2012 European Quality of Life Survey shows a growing proportion of Europeans who report
that they are afraid of losing their home because they can no longer afford it (from 4% in 2007 to
6% in 2011). The bulk of the increase comes from households living in larger, mortgaged
accommodation31
Rising levels of evictions and foreclosures have negatively impacted on housing security.
Preliminary findings of an EU-wide study on evictions and linked homelessness32 confirmed that
very few Member States collect data on evictions on a regular basis, which makes analysis and
comparisons difficult. Besides, there seem to be no simple pattern between welfare systems, level
of crisis and trends of evictions. Nevertheless experts reported the following trends in evictions for
the period 2010-2013. Relative stability, or low levels of changes in eviction levels in the
observation period of plus/minus 10 %, were found in five countries (AT, BE, EE, FI, FR). A decrease
of more than 10 % was recorded in six Member States (HR, CZ, DK, LT, PT and SE). An increase of
more than 10 % was observed in five countries (BG, CY, IE, LV, NL), with a particularly sharp
increase of more than 100% in IE, NL and LV. In seven countries, however, the data show
opposing trends for different indicators (DE, EL, HU, PL, SI, ES and UK). In most of these latter
countries opposite trends were observed, and only in EL and IT did both available indicators show
an increase, although one was at a moderate level of less than 10 %.
The above eviction study33 also disclosed that more men than women are affected and that the
bulk of adults evicted were between 25 and 65 years old. There seems to be a high proportion of
single persons and lone parents (especially mothers) among those evicted and only a low
percentage of households have income from regular work. All Member States report
unemployment and household financial instability as major risk factors, but individual
29
Source: Bank of Estonia. (2013). Lending Review. February 2013. http://www.eestipank.ee/en/publication/lendingreview/2013/lending-review-february-2013
30
Source: Insee, SRCV 2007-2010, from Commissariat général au développement durable (2013), "L'état du logement
en 2011".
31
Source Eurofound (2012), Third European Quality of Life Survey – Quality of life in Europe: Overview Report.
32
VT/2013/056 EC Pilot Project on Promoting protection of the right to housing – Homelessness prevention in the
context of evictions. Final results are foreseen by mid-2015.
33
Idem
77
vulnerabilities, complex needs, family breakdown, often in combination with financial difficulties,
also trigger evictions and foreclosures. In Central and Eastern Europe, general poverty problems,
weak social protection systems, both amongst working poor and people on subsistence benefits,
the lack of savings and utility arrears seem to play a greater role.
There seems to be a clear pathway from evictions to homelessness. Where evidence exists, it
shows that 1 in 4 evicted people may be in a homelessness situation a while after an eviction –
such as couch surfing, shelter use or rough sleeping- and about 20-50 % of homeless people (in
different Member States) stated that an eviction was an important cause why they became
homeless over a longer period.
Box 8. Recent trends in homelessness in Europe
Though comparable data on homelessness at EU level are still scarce, general trends in
homelessness have been analysed in the Social Investment Package (SIP), notably in the SIP Staff
Working Document on Confronting Homelessness in the European Union34. Besides, data were
provided by the Social Protection Committee in 201235, and by the EU-level homelessness network
FEANTSA in a monitoring report from 201236 and in their very recent preliminary report on the
extent and profile of homelessness37. Some Member States also provided data on primary and
secondary homelessness through the 2011 census38, of varied quality, however.
Data confirmed a sharp increase in overall homelessness levels in the majority of Member States,
first and foremost impacting capitals and big cities. A higher risk of homelessness was identified
among young people, families, women or disadvantaged Roma or other ethnic minorities. Analysis
also revealed that homelessness is often triggered by a combination of disadvantages, such as
unemployment, poverty, family and relationship breakdowns, health and addiction problems, the
lack of integration support after leaving institutions and a lack of affordable housing.
In AT, the number of persons registered over the course of a year as homeless increased by 8%
between 2008 and 2010, reaching 12,266 people39. In DK, there has been a total increase in
homelessness of 16% over the past four years, rising from 4,998 in 2009 to 5,820 persons in
34
Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2013)42 final on Confronting Homelessness in the European Union, as
part of the Social Investment Package http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1061&langId=en
35
SPC (2012) Social Europe Current challenges and the way forward: Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee ,
available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=fr&pubId=7405
36
FEANTSA (2012) On the Way Home? FEANTSA Monitoring Report on Homelessness and Homeless Policies in Europe ,
available at: http://www.feantsa.org/spip.php?article854&lang=en
37
FEANTSA Report on "Extent and Profile of Homelessness in European Member States. A
statistical update". EOH Comparative Studies on Homelessness (to be published in 2015). The
report covers 15 Member States.
38
https://ec.europa.eu/CensusHub2/
39
Federal Ministry of Labour, Consumer Affairs and Social Protection Social Report 2011 - 2012: Analysis Section
(translated
into
English),
available
at:
http://www.bmask.gv.at/site/Soziales/Allgemeine_Sozialpolitik/Sozialberichte/Sozialbericht_2011_2012
78
201340. In FR, the national statistics institute (INSEE) reports that approximately 141 500 people
were homeless in metropolitan France in 2012. Compared to 2001 this represents an increase of
44% in cities of at least 20,000 inhabitants.41 In London, the number of households accepted as
being owed a main homelessness duty was 4,340 – a decrease of 2% from 4,420 during the same
quarter a year earlier42. However, in England, between 1 July and 30 September 2014, local
authorities accepted 13,900 households as being owed a main homelessness duty. This is a 4%
increase compared to the same quarter last year.
Statistics produced by Caritas Spain show that the number of homeless people using their services
increased by 24% in the period between 2007 and 201143. According to the Spanish National
Statistics Institute (INE) spending in centres which work with homeless people rose by 39% in the
period 2006-201244. Besides, another survey from INE shows that centres for homeless persons
received 22,930 homeless persons in 2012. This compared to 21,900 homeless persons in 2005,
representing an increase of 4.8%. In LV, the number of clients in municipal shelters increased
between 2009 and 2011, and then reduced in the last year (between 2011 and 2012). In 2012, the
number of clients in municipal shelters was a 65.8% higher than in 2009.
In LT, the total number of occupiers of shelters for homeless has increased by 16% between 2009
and 2011. In EE, the lack of proper housing was the main reason for using shelter services for 38%
of its users in 2012, 8pp higher than the percentage of users reporting lack of proper housing as
their main reason to use such services in 200845. In FI, the number of homeless families has
increased in the 2008-2012 period, so that in 2012 there were 49.2% more homeless families than
in 2008. At the same time, the number of homeless individuals living outdoors, in overnight
shelters, temporary accommodation or in institutions has decreased, so that in 2012 there were
35% less individuals in this situation, compared to their number in 200846.
In 2011, 0.4% of the population in CY lived in either improvised housing units or other housing
units not built for habitation purposes47. In NL, a total of 17,500 homeless people were estimated
at the reference date of 1 January 2009 by the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics and national
estimates confirmed a 17 % increase of homelessness between 2010 and 2012. In RO, a total of
2,429 persons in 2012 were assisted in day or night shelters, either public or managed by NGOs. In
40
Benjaminsen, L. & Lauritzen, H. (2013), Hjemløshed i Danmark 2013. National kortlægning. [Homelessness in Denmark
2013. National mapping], Copenhagen, SFI.
41
Insee (2013) L‘hébergement des sans-domicile en 2012 Des modes d‘hébergement différents selon les situations
familiales, available at : http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/ipweb/ip1455/ip1455.pdf
42
Department for Communities and Local Government, Statutory Homelessness: July to September 2014 England,
Ref:ISBN: 978-1-4098-4424-2, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statutory-homelessness-inengland-july-to-september-2014Department
43
Caritas Española (2012) ―Acompañándo…nos‖. Mirada, acción y propuestas de Cáritas con personas que están sin
hogar.
44
INE
(2013), Survey
on
Homeless
http://www.ine.es/en/prensa/np761_en.pdf
Persons
45
Source: Ministry of Social Affairs
46
Source: Housing Finance and Development Centre of Finland
47
Source: Population Census 2011, CYSTAT
79
Results
preview.
Year
2012 ,
available
at:
SE, homelessness has grown by 29 % among rough sleepers, shelter users, hostels and homeless
people in institutions between 2005 (6,600) and 2011 (8,500).
The particularly dramatic social impact of the crisis in some countries, such as EL, means that levels
of homelessness have risen very dramatically. Service providers estimate that Greece‘s homeless
population rose by 25% between 2009 and 2011 when it reached 20,000 48 The large number of
households threatened by foreclosure or eviction means that the proportion of the population at
risk of homelessness has increased. It is estimated that approximately 300.000 families risk losing
their homes if the moratorium on repossessions would be lifted next year.
Most homeless people are not in employment, as confirmed by experts49, though the extent to
which homeless people are engaged in paid work varies considerably across Member States, from
less than 5% in some countries to as much as 25% in others. 35% of homeless people in HU were
in casual or regular work, as were 28% of homeless people in IT and 24% in FR 50. By contrast, in IE,
only 8% of homeless people were employed, with only 5% working in PL and SE.
The largest cohort of homeless people is between 30 and 49 years old, but an estimated 20-30%
of the whole homeless population is composed of younger people between 18 and 29 years old
(e.g. FR: 26%50, NL: 23%). Increasing homelessness amongst young people is emerging as a cause
for concern in several Member States. For example, in DK, there has been an increase in youth
homelessness of 80% or from 633 persons in 2009 to 1,138 persons in 201351. Similarly, there is a
trend of increased homelessness amongst families in various Member States. According to INSEE,
25% of homeless people in France are accompanied by children52. In HU and PL, older people are
found to be a considerable part of the homeless population (17% and 22% aged 60 or over
respectively), but they were unlikely to be homeless in some other Member States, such as IE and
DK (3% over 65 and 5% over 60 respectively). These variations may be linked to differences in the
levels of social protection and pensions for poor and vulnerable people over retirement age in
different welfare systems.
In most Member States, men predominate among homeless people, accounting for about 75-85%
of the whole homeless population against the proportion of women which stands at only about
15-25%. Some evidence suggests that homeless women may have a greater tendency to use
informal arrangements with friends, family and acquaintances, avoiding living rough and entering
homelessness services. This may mean that homeless women are less likely to be represented in
the population recorded by homelessness services‘ administrative data. Women whose
homelessness is linked to domestic/gender based violence, using refuges, shelters and other
domestic violence services, may not be classified as using ‗homeless‘ services, which may again
mean the extent of women‘s homelessness is undercounted. In some Member States, including
for example CZ, DK, IE or UK, women account for a larger share among the young homeless.
48
FEANTSA (2012) Op Cit.
49
FEANTSA (2015) Op Cit.
50
Based on figures for cities with 20,000 inhabitants or more.
51
Benjaminsen, L. & Lauritzen, H. (2013), Hjemløshed i Danmark 2013. National kortlægning. [Homelessness in Denmark
2013. National mapping], Copenhagen, SFI.
52
INSEE Op Cit.
80
Though evidence is variable in the EU, it seems that repeated and long-term homeless people,
with high rates of severe mental illness and problematic drug and alcohol use, account for only a
relatively small portion of the homeless population, as was reported in DK, FI, IE and, based on
partial data, in the UK53.
A recent EU-study highlighted the impact of migration on destitution and homelessness54, calling
attention to the fact that EU mobile workers may face obstacles in accessing housing or social
services/benefits due to not having an address. Experts55 found that in DK, 17% of homeless
people had migrated to Denmark or had parents who were migrants. Black British people are
overrepresented among homeless people helped under English homelessness laws (14.5% of the
people in the system, 3.5% of the population). New migrants, including economic migrants from
the Eastern EU, sometimes appeared to be heavily represented among people living rough in the
Northern EU, e.g. in Berlin, Dublin, London or Paris. An increased number of homeless immigrants
were reported, particularly in France and Spain. In a number of Central and Eastern European
countries, Roma people are overrepresented among populations who are very badly housed and
in living situations that might be defined as homeless, but are not always counted as being
homeless. This administrative distinction occurs elsewhere in the EU; the UK is also not recording
‗traveller‘ populations, including Roma, who live permanently in mobile homes as being homeless
on the basis that it is a chosen lifestyle.
A particular challenge is to provide for undocumented migrants, who usually do not have legal
access to homelessness services.
The SPC highlighted in 2012 that integrated strategies to tackle homelessness, whilst lacking in
many instances, had been developed by a growing number of Member States and regions. This
trend seems to continue. Several new strategies have been announced (e.g. LU, CZ and ES).
Besides, for the permanent re-housing of long-term homeless people with complex needs,
Housing First56 programmes have been launched e.g. in BE, DK and FI. Some national/regional
strategies have achieved impressive results in reducing homelessness (e.g. Scotland, Netherlands,
Finland (long-term homelessness)). Robust homelessness strategies may also have helped to limit
increases in homelessness due to structural factors (e.g. Ireland, Denmark (where those
municipalities implementing the national strategy experienced much lower increases than others).
Full implementation, monitoring and the allocation of adequate resources are required for
integrated homeless strategies to succeed. Some of the strategies which have been announced in
recent years have yet to be implemented and are therefore unable to support progress to date.
Among the factors influencing access to housing are credit availability and price levels. During the
last years, trends in housing credit seem to vary between countries. In some countries (HU, CY, PT,
HR), availability of housing credit has decreased. For example, in HU, both the number of
53
54
FEANTSA (2015) Op. Cit.
European Commission study on "Mobility, Migration and Destitution in the European Union".
Regioplan, March 2014
55
FEANTSA Report on "Extent and Profile of Homelessness in European Member States. A statistical update". EOH
Comparative Studies on Homelessness (to be published in 2015). The report covers 15 Member States.
56
"Housing First Europe" project, financed from PROGRESS http://www.socialstyrelsen.dk/housingfirsteurope
81
permitted housing credits (contracts) and its volume (in HUF) decreased dramatically between
2008 and 2009, by 61.5% and 66.1% respectively. In 2012, the number of permitted housing
credits was a further 3.6% lower than in 2009, and the volume of housing credits was 35.8% lower
than in 2009. In CY, bank loans to households for house purchase rose annually in the Q1 2008 to
February 2013 period, and then started to reduce as from Q1 2013. In Q3 2013 they were 4.5%
lower than in the previous one-year period.57According to the latest CBC Bank Lending Survey
(July 2013), banks have tightened credit standards concerning loans to households for house
purchase. In Q3 2013, 53.4% of total loans to the household sector were housing loans, a share
rather stable since Q4 201058. In PT, the increasing trend in housing credit since 2009 reversed as
from 2011. Between Q1 2011 and Q2 2013, the nominal amount of loans granted to private
individuals for housing declined by 6.6%. At the same time, the number of private borrowers for
housing decreased by 3.8% between Q2 2011 and Q2 2013. In FR, loans for housing decreased
between 2011 and 2012 (22.8% less for old housing, and a 17% reduction for new housing). The
evolution of households' rate of property indebtedness slowed in 2011, increasing by 3.4% with
respect to the 2010 indebtedness rate, after having doubled in the 2000-2011 period (it was at
64% of households' disposable income in 2011)59. In HR, housing loans dropped slightly at a rate
of about 1% a year. An opposite upward trend is observed in EE, where, after almost four years of
decline, the volume of new housing loans increased by 16% in 2012, as compared to their volume
in 201160. In PL, 17% of households used financing for the purchase of a house or apartment in
2013, compared to 14% in 201161.
As regards price evolution, data from the European Mortgage Federation62 show considerable
changes in housing prices between 2009 and 2012. In some domestic markets, nominal house
prices have followed a positive trend, while in some others prices have moved along a downward
path. As a result, in Q4 2012, prices were above their Q2 2009 levels in Belgium (+15%), the UK
(+11.5%), Sweden (+9.1%) and Germany (+7.9%); by contrast, they had declined in Portugal (1.5%), Denmark (-6.4%), the Netherlands (-13.4%), Hungary (-15.9%), Spain (-20.3%) and Ireland
(-33.7%). In real terms, compared with Q2 2009, house prices increased by 7.0% in Belgium, 5.3%
in France, 4.4%, in Sweden, 1.3% in Germany and remained stable in the UK. They contracted by
7.2% in Portugal, 11.6% in Denmark, 18.2% in the Netherlands, 26.0% in Spain, 26.5% in Hungary
and 33.7% in Ireland.
57
Source: Central Bank of Cyprus
58
Source: Central Bank of Cyprus
59
Source: Insee, Banque de France, from Commissariat général au développement durable (2013), "L'état du logement
en 2011"
60
Bank of Estonia. (2013). Lending Review. February 2013. http://www.eestipank.ee/en/publication/lendingreview/2013/lending-review-february-2013
61
Source: Social Diagnosis 2013
62
Data in the paragraph are based on the Hypostat 2013 report of the European Mortgage Federation
http://www.hypo.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=524
82
Among the factors behind the national housing price dynamics, disposable income per capita and
the average construction cost for a new dwelling seem to have played a significant role between
2002 and 2012. The former relates to demand and tends to be significantly correlated with the
observed house price variations in the EU. On the supply side, construction costs might have also
influenced nominal house prices, through the new housing segment.
Member States reported that in FR, house prices doubled between 2000 and 2008, reduced
during the year 2008-beginning of 2009, but grew again during 2009 and 2010 to reach the price
levels before the start of the decline in 200863. House prices in France continued to rise to the third
quarter of 2011, but decreased afterwards. At the last quarter of 2013, house prices had come
back to approximately the same level as the last quarter of 2010 (INSEE). In PL, the average price
per square metre increased sharply between 2005 and 2007, and continued an upward trend until
2010, when it seemed to stabilise, and then started reducing as from 2011. Hence, the average
price of one square metre in Q2 2013 was 12.3% lower than its Q1 2010 level, which was, in turn,
2.3 times the Q1 2005 average price64. Real interest rates on loans are also rising, and reached 5%
in 2013 Q1, the highest level since 200565. Prices of old sold apartments have also been increasing
in FI during the 2009-2013 period, so that in Q2 2013 prices per square meter in the capital region
were 22.8% higher than in Q2 2009, while in other parts of FI they were a 12.8% higher than in Q2
2009. The rents for apartments have also increased in the 2009-2012 period. In the capital region,
the rents for new tenancies increased by about 4% per year and elsewhere in FI by about 3% per
year66. However, in CY, following the high increases in housing prices that were recorded during
the previous decade due to the real estate sector bubble, a gradual correction has been in
progress since 2009. In particular, the residential property price index has been continuously
declining since Q1 2009 (except for a period of stagnation in the first two quarters of 2010). In Q3
2013 it had declined at an annual rate of 7.2%. At the same time, interest rates for housing loans
remained relatively high, between 5-5.5% in the Q3 2010-Q3 2013 period67.
As regards to other indicators of activity in the housing market, in EE, the construction sector
started showing signs of recovery in 201168. The number of transactions in the apartment market
increased by 15% in Q2 2013, as compared to the previous year69. And while the number of use
permits for new residential housing issued in Q2 2013 was at the same level as in 2012, the
63
Source: indice Insee-Notaires, from Clévenot M (2011) "Les prix immobiliers en France: une évolution singulière".
64
Source: ZBP (the Polish Bank Association)
65
Source: National Polish Bank
66
Source: Statistics Finland
67
Source: Central Bank of Cyprus
68
Source: Statistics Estonia. (2012). Economic and Social Overview. Statistical Yearbook of Estonia, 2012.
http://www.stat.ee/publication-download-pdf?publication_id=29873
69
Source: Bank of Estonia. (2013). Financial Stability Review 2/2013. http://www.eestipank.ee/en/publication/financialstability-review/2013/financial-stability-review-22013
83
number of building permits issued in Q2 2013 was 13% higher than in the previous year70. In SE, a
housing shortage is reported in 126 of the 290 municipalities, especially within the rental market71.
2.15 Trends in the take-up of selected social benefits
The prolonged crisis has led to an increased dependence on social transfers in some Member
States. The SPC started an ad-hoc collection of administrative data on benefit recipients for
different social schemes (unemployment, social assistance, early retirement and disability) in order
to get timelier information on the pressure on social protection systems in the context of the
economic crisis. In 2014 the SPC continued with this data collection which is very valuable for its
timeliness, but needs to be assessed with due caution as it does not offer cross-country
comparability due to the diversity of concepts and underlying definitions.
The following sections analyse the major trends registered in the year 2014 comparing to 2013
and also the general developments since the beginning of the crisis (2008). (Individual country
trends regarding the number of benefit recipients can be found in the country profiles section of
this report.) Contrary to last year, and although only indicative, the trends observed illustrate that
the pressure on social security systems has eased somewhat in 2014 across many EU Member
States, although the number of benefit recipients nevertheless remains historically high in many
countries.
2.16 Signs of more positive trends emerging regarding the number
of unemployment benefit recipients
With the slight improvement in the labour market situation in the EU and declines in
unemployment levels in many Member States over the last year or so, there has been a slight
easing in the pressure on unemployment benefit schemes across much of the EU. In 2014 around
2/3 of Member States recorded a persistent decrease in the number of unemployment benefit
recipients as compared to 2013, generally mirroring the positive developments in the
unemployment rate. Persistent increases were only registered in 4 countries (AT, FI, LV and NL).
70
Source: Bank of Estonia. (2013). Financial Stability Review 2/2013. http://www.eestipank.ee/en/publication/financialstability-review/2013/financial-stability-review-22013
71
Source: National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, 2013 (http://www.boverket.se/Boende/Analys-avbostadsmarknaden/Bostadsmarknadsenkaten-2013/Laget-pa-bostadsmarknaden/Vilken-typ-av-bostader-ar-det-bristpa/
84
2.17 Countries with downward trends in both unemployment
benefit recipients and social assistance benefit recipients
Overall, nine countries reported decreasing numbers of beneficiaries on both unemployment
benefit and social assistance schemes. These included countries which have seen relatively
stronger recoveries in their labour markets over 2014, including EE, ES, IE, PT, SK and the UK, as
well as DK, LT and SE.
Figure 40: Evolution of the number of benefit recipients and number of
unemployed (in 1000) – the example of the UK
Source: Data on number of unemployed from Eurostat (ILO definition, in 1000 persons, seasonally adjusted); data on
number of benefit recipients collected from Member States through the SPC delegates
85
Figure 41: Evolution of the number of benefit recipients and number of
unemployed (in 1000) – the example of IE
Source: Data on number of unemployed from Eurostat (ILO definition, in 1000 persons, seasonally adjusted); data on
number of benefit recipients collected from Member States through the SPC delegates
2.18 Potential continued gaps in social benefits' coverage in some
Member States
Notwithstanding the very latest developments, with the deterioration in the employment situation
in many Member States in the years since the crisis hit and the growing number of unemployed
and their longer stay in unemployment, more people are in need of social transfers. In some
Member States, the growth in unemployment has not always been matched by similar trends in
benefit recipients which may lead to a potential lack of social benefits coverage. This has especially
been the case in countries such as EL and CY, and the mis-match remains substantial despite the
recent slight easing in unemployment levels in these Member States. (However, in CY the decrease
in take up of public assistance can be to some extent explained by a change in legislation for the
creation of a lone parent benefit which are given by another service and as such are not shown in
the figures of public assistance.) Similar mismatches between rising unemployment trends and
benefit recipient levels since the crisis also seem to be present in BG, HR, SI, and to some extent in
PT.
86
Figure 42: Evolution of the number of benefit recipients and number of
unemployed (in 1000) – the example of EL
Source: Data on number of unemployed from Eurostat (ILO definition, in 1000 persons, seasonally adjusted); data on
number of benefit recipients collected from Member States through the SPC delegates
Figure 43: Evolution of the number of benefit recipients and number of
unemployed (in 1000) – the example of CY
Source: Data on number of unemployed from Eurostat (ILO definition, in 1000 persons, seasonally adjusted); data on
number of benefit recipients collected from Member States through the SPC delegates
87
2.19 More mixed developments in terms of the number of benefit
recipients from social assistance schemes
While a large majority of Member States recorded a persistent decrease in the number of
unemployment benefit recipients as compared to 2013, the picture with regard to the number of
recipients of social assistance was more mixed. In 2014 around half of Member States recorded a
persistent decrease in the number of social assistance benefit recipients as compared to 2013,
while around a third recorded continued increases.
Among the latter, some countries are showing a shift from the use of unemployment benefit
towards increasing social assistance. For example, despite little change in the level of
unemployment over the last year, Romania saw a decrease in unemployment beneficiaries
together with an increase in social assistance recipients. This could suggest there is movement
from unemployment benefits to social assistance schemes perhaps due to rising long-term
unemployment or shortened lengths of unemployment benefit receipt. This movement increases
pressure on social protection systems.
Figure 44: Evolution of the number of benefit recipients and number of
unemployed (in 1000) – the example of RO
Source: Data on number of unemployed from Eurostat (ILO definition, in 1000 persons, seasonally adjusted); data on
number of benefit recipients collected from Member States through the SPC delegates
88
3. Examining the 2013 social trends to watch
In last year‘s annual report, the Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM) identified four main
trends to watch for 2013 – the rise in income inequality, the increase in the depth of poverty, the
worsening situation in long-term labour market exclusion and the rising exclusion of youth (SPC,
2013). The SPC undertook in-depth thematic reviews on the situation and policy measures tackling
depth of poverty, youth exclusion and long-term labour market exclusion in the second half of
2014 and early 2015. The following thematic sections give a summary of these reviews and
provide some key conclusions in terms of the effectiveness of policy measures in addressing these
challenges. The thematic review on the trend to watch regarding income inequality will be
conducted in 2015.
3.1 Key messages from the thematic in-depth reviews
Based on the thematic reviews which the SPC undertook on the 2013 social trends to watch –
youth exclusion, long-term exclusion from the labour markets, and depth of poverty, the following
main policy conclusions are to be considered:

In the context of high and persistent unemployment among young people and the related
risks of youth exclusion, social protection systems have an important role to play in
supporting labour market integration and helping young people to bridge difficult periods
of transition from education and training to work and employment of progressively higher
quality. The in-depth review made clear that further exchange on the efficiency and
effectiveness of the different approaches is needed.

The long-term unemployed form a heterogeneous group with specific and different
obstacles such as health concerns, difficulty in reconciling work and family life, social
problems, or lack of skills. Alongside labour supply measures, understanding the profile of
the target population is crucial to effectively implement policies and support their
sustainable re-integration into the labour market. Measures need to take a comprehensive
approach, tailored around individual needs in order to be effective, including targeted
activation, adequate income support and enabling services.

Drivers behind severe poverty and social exclusion are multiple. They can vary across an
individual's life-cycle and are closely related to the wider economic and labour market
context. Comprehensive, needs-driven, preventive and individualised approaches can
contribute to avoiding and alleviating poverty and social exclusion in an effective and
sustainable manner. Social investments are part and parcel of such approaches by
targeting specific needs arising across the life-cycle, ensuring adequate income support
and providing access to quality enabling services, supporting individuals in critical
transitions.
89
3.2 Social protection and youth exclusion in the EU
3.2.1 Introduction
The social and economic situation of young people in Europe has worsened during the last years:
youth unemployment reached record high levels in 2013, the number of young people
disengaged from employment, education and training has increased and more young people
experience poverty and social exclusion. While unemployment rates in Europe start to decrease,
youth unemployment remains high and many young people remain in low paid, low quality jobs
often of involuntary temporary nature. Young people seem not to profit from first signs of
economic recovery.
Young people are among those most severely affected by the crisis. Already pre-existing structural
disadvantages on the labour market and changed patterns of transitions from education to work
have weakened the social situation of young people and increased their vulnerability. Nowadays,
the risk-of-poverty rate of young people is the highest among all age groups; the crisis
accelerated trends which were visible already before 2008.
Youth exclusion was identified by the SPC as one of the social trends to watch for 2013 and as
such was chosen as a subject to a thematic review in the course of the second half of 201472. While
the major focus of the discussion related to the youth unemployment problem in Europe has been
on what employment policies can do, the implications for social protection systems are also
considerable and need due attention. This thematic review is an exploratory discussion on this
subject, building on the thematic focus of the 2014 National Social Reports, and considering the
fact that only few Member States have started to experiment with comprehensive approaches to
address the challenges of young people nowadays.
The present note aims at providing a brief overview of the current situation, focusing on young
people between 15 and 29 years old in order to cover the period marked by the transition from
education to work, finding a first more permanent employment and gaining independence from
parents. As far as possible, it will outline policy responses in Member States and raise attention to
the existing gaps in the social protection of young people, using the information received through
the thematic reporting in the context of the 2014 National Social Reports.
72
We would like to especially thank Eurofound for their contribution to this background paper. SPC (2014) Social Europe:
Many ways, one objective. Annual report of the Social Protection Committee on the social situation in the European
Union (2013) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7695&type=2&furtherPubs=yes
90
3.2.2 Recent trends and future challenges
Looking at a set of key social and employment indicators (including SPPM indicators)73 for young
people provides a rather daunting picture:

The unemployment rate of young people between 15 and 29 years in the EU increased
from 12 % in 2008 to 18.7 % in 2013. The unemployment rate for the 18-24 year olds was
with 23.3 % in 2013 even higher. The youth unemployment ratio increased from 7.0 % in
2008 to 10.6 % in 2013 (age group 15-29)74. Overall, there are nearly 7 million young
people less in employment today compared to 200875.

The number of young people (15-29) not in employment, education or training increased
from 13 % in 2008 to 15.9 % in 2013.

The rates of early school leavers76 decreased at the same time from 14.7 % in 2008 to
11.9 % in 2013, but although it represents good progress compared to 17% in the early
2000s, there is much reason to assume that the reduction of early school leaving is at least
partly an effect of the lack of employment opportunities for young people. The OECD
estimates that 30-40% of early school leavers risk facing persistent difficulties in accessing
stable employment, with risks of marginalisation over time.

29.7 % of young people aged 15-29 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2012,
compared with 26.2 % in 200877. Poverty rates for young people are higher than poverty
rates for the total population (24.5 % in 2013). They also depend on the living situation of
young people: young people not living anymore with their parents are more exposed to
the risk of poverty and social exclusion (27.6 % vs. 33.1 % in 2012).78
The deterioration of their social and employment situation is perceived as an overall
marginalisation of young people. Independently from their own personal social and economic
73
Please note that the SPPM focusses on young people from 18-24; this paper has widened the perspective to provide a
more comprehensive view on the situation of young people in Europe. More detailed data are annexed to this paper.
74
The youth unemployment rate is the number of those unemployed (15-29) divided by the total number of young
people (15-29) in the labour market (employed plus unemployed). The youth unemployment ratio divides the number of
unemployed young people (15-29) by the total population aged 15 to 29. It thus gives an unemployment-to-population
measure. The size of the youth labour market (i.e. the size of the young labour force) does not trigger effects in the
youth unemployment ratio, contrary to the unemployment rate.
75
Eurostat, yth_empl_010, accessed 04.09.2014
76
Early school leavers are defined as persons aged 18 to 24 fulfilling the following two conditions: (1) the highest level of
education or training attained is ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short, (2) no education or training has been received in the four
weeks preceding the survey. The reference group to calculate the early school leaving rate consists of the total
population of the same age group (18 to 24). All measurements come from the EU Labour Force Survey (LFS).
77
Data available for EU27 only
78
Eurostat, yth_incl_010 and yth_incl_030, accessed 23.10.2014; no data available for 2013
91
situation, more than 50 % of young people, aged 16 to 30, in the EU have the feeling that young
people have been marginalised in their country as a result of the economic crisis79.
Before looking at social protection of young people in more detail, the paper will summarise the
main factors contributing to the vulnerability of young people and hinting to the underlying
structural challenges in the social protection of young people.
Figure 45: EU 28 trends in key youth exclusion indicators,
15-29 age-group
Source: Eurostat (accessed 21.02.2014), indicators: yth_incl_010, yth_empl_100, yth_empl_120, yth_empl_150, age group
15-29; Eurofound calculations
3.2.3 Youth employment
Country differences in youth unemployment are large, ranging from 48.7 % in Greece and 42.4 %
in Spain to 7.3 % in Germany or 8 % in Austria. Many countries with high youth unemployment
rates face also above average long-term unemployment rates among young people and a high
number of young people being neither in employment, nor education or training (NEET). Both
indicators underline the degree to which labour markets are under pressure and cannot provide
employment to young people. Nevertheless, also structural factors may contribute to high longterm unemployment or inactivity of young people.

Long-term unemployment: 7.1 % of the 15 to 29 year olds in the EU were unemployed for
more than one year. Rates were particularly high in Greece (29.1 %), Croatia (18.4 %), and
Spain (17.8 %). The countries facing high rates of long-term unemployment among young
people were also confronted with high rates of long-term unemployment for other age
79
Flash barometer of the European Parliament (EP EB 395), European Youth in 2014, analytical synthesis, p.7
92
groups. But across all European countries, young people are significantly more affected by
spells of long-term unemployment than the average population (5.1 % in 2013).

Long-term unemployment for young people is often linked to the lack of qualifications and
skills, especially for those below 18 years old80. But also young people aged 25-29 years
(6.3% were long-term unemployed in 2013) are more affected by long-term
unemployment than the overall population in working age. Variations between countries
can be expected with increasing long-term unemployment rates also for better qualified
young people in some European countries.
Figure 46: Comparison of unemployment rates for youth and the total
population
Source: Eurostat (LFS)

Not in employment, education or training: 15.9 % of all young people aged 15 to 29 were
in 2013 neither in employment, education nor training. Highest rates were recorded by
Greece (28.5 %), Bulgaria (25.7 %) and Spain (22.5 %). With regard to gender, education
level, previous work experiences and skills, there are big variations between countries.
These differences are strongly linked to the specific labour market conditions of young
people.
A recent Eurofound study on NEETs pointed out that "young people with low levels of education
are three times more likely to be NEET than those with tertiary education. Young people with
immigration background are 70% more likely to become NEET than nationals. And young people
suffering from some kind of disability or health issue are 40% more likely to be NEET than those in
80
See: Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012, p.84
93
good health." In addition, females are more likely than males to be NEET (in 2013 13.9% for males
vs. 17.7 % for females).81
Figure 47: NEETs rates by gender, 2013
35
Males
30
Females
Total
% of 15-29 year olds
25
20
15
10
IT
EL
ES
BG
HR
CY
SK
RO
IE
PT
PL
LV
EU28
BE
EE
UK
FR
SI
LT
CZ
FI
MT
AT
DE
SE
LU
DK
NL
0
HU
5
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Young people are over-represented in temporary and part-time work with less on-the-job
training, lower wage levels and poorer long-term employment and career prospects. In 2013, 31.5
% of young employees (15 to 29) were working on a temporary contract and 32.4 % part-time.

Countries with the highest levels of temporary work among young people were in 2013
Poland (50.6 %), Spain (49.3 %) and Slovenia (48.6 %). But also in Portugal, the
Netherlands, Germany and France more than one third of the 15 to 29 years old have only
temporary work contracts. While this might be less problematic in periods of transition
from education or training to work, temporary work is also prominent among young
people above 24 years old. In Spain, Poland, and Portugal, more than 40% of all 25 – 29
year olds work on a temporary contract, affecting also those having finished their
education since several years and wanting to start an independent life.82

Countries with the highest level of part-time work among young people in 2013 were the
Netherlands (63.2%), Germany (51.2 %), and Sweden (36.7 %). Here many young people
combine education or training with employment and work voluntarily part-time. In the
81
Eurofound (2012) NEETS – Young people not in employment, education or training, Luxembourg.
82
Eurostat, yth_empl_050, accessed 23.10.2014
94
Netherlands, Germany and Denmark more than 50 % of the young people working parttime indicated in 2013 that they are still in education or training.
Nevertheless, one third of all young people in the EU working part-time indicated in 2013 that they
work part-time involuntarily. Overall there is a worrying trend of more young people working parttime because of the unavailability of full-time employment: in 2008 29.6 % indicated this as a
reason for working part-time, in 2013 already 34.2%.83
Recent data from OECD indicate that non-standard work can be a stepping stone to standard
work contracts but young people seem to profit less from that than older employees, independent
from their education level.84 Young people experience both structural and cyclical difficulties in
entering the labour market. Structural difficulties are especially pronounced for those lacking
sufficient qualifications and not having completed upper secondary education. But the crisis also
increased the difficulties of those with medium or high level of qualifications. And it prolonged the
time until young people can hope to enter into permanent or at least longer-term work contracts
with wages sufficient to start an independent life.
3.2.4 Poverty and social exclusion of young people
As a consequence of the precarious work situation of young people and the often difficult socioeconomic situation of their families, youth is nowadays the group most at risk of poverty and social
exclusion (closely followed by children under 16 years of age). The contrast with older people aged
65 and older is particularly stark and the gap between both groups has increased in the majority
of countries in recent years. Across the EU 27, the gap has widened from a 2.9 percentage point
difference in 2008 to a 10.5 percentage point difference in 2012.
Structural challenges such as limited access to the labour market and to social protection seem to
determine the situation of young people and be responsible for the growing gap on risk of
poverty and social exclusion as compared to other age groups. The concrete situation of young
people varies strongly in relation to their access to labour market, level of education, living
conditions and access to different types of benefits and services. OECD data show that the large
majority of poor youth is in education or in employment. Youth poverty rates across countries are
strongly associated with household composition and if young people live alone or with their
parents85. More research is needed to identify the main triggers for increasing poverty rates
especially among young people and in comparison to other age groups.
83
Eurostat, yth_empl_070, accessed 23.10.2014
84
Joint OECD-EU project: Jobs, inequalities and wages,
85
OECD (2013) Social policies for youth: Bridging the gap to independence, p.10.
95
Figure 48: Share of young people at risk of poverty or exclusion, 15-29
Source: Eurostat (accessed 04.09.2014), indicators: yth_incl_010, no data for HR for 2008.
In-work poverty of young people has increased from 8.6% in 2008 to 9.5 in 2012; countries with
highest rate of in-work poverty among young people were in 2012 Romania (20.9 %), Denmark
(17.1 %) and Greece (14.4 %). These and also other countries faced increases in the in-work risk of
poverty of young people during the last years due to the overall deterioration of working
conditions of this age group.
Figure 49: In-work at-risk-of-poverty-rate of young people (18-24 years old)
35
30
25
20
2008
15
2013
10
5
EU28
EU27
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
0
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
In addition, projects and measures targeted at the social inclusion of young people and especially
of young people with multiple problems were affected by austerity measures. 16 Member States
96
reduced expenditure in education during 2008 and 2011, including cuts on the average
investment in education per school student86. Also youth work was affected by budget cuts in
many Member States. Cuts in public spending for youth work have often been accompanied by
attempts to target it more to the needs of disadvantaged young people, in order to tackle the
negative impacts of the crisis. This had a strong impact on the character of youth work with an
increasing focus on fostering the employability of young people. More universal youth work, for all
young people and looking more broadly at youth participation and civic engagement, struggles
increasingly to get public funding87.
Looking at the perceived social exclusion among young people completes this picture. The
perceived social exclusion index is based on Eurofound‘s European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS).
The index measures the extent to which young people actually feel excluded, based on responses
to several questions88. In 2011, the lowest levels of perceived social exclusion were found among
young people in Denmark, Germany, Austria and Finland and the highest in Cyprus, Greece,
Bulgaria and Romania. In most Member States young people did not feel on average more socially
excluded in 2011 than in 2007, but in some countries such as Cyprus, Sweden and Greece there
has been a significant increase (see Figure 50).
86
Cuts in education expenditure were significant during this period in EE, IE, LV and HU as well as in BG, EL, IT and RO
where spending levels in relation to the GDP were already low and have been cut further. DK, ES, CY, LT, PL, PT, SK and
UK made cuts at some stage between 2008 and 2011 which is reflected in a reduction of education spending as a
percentage of GDP in 2011. Education and Training Monitor 2013, p.14 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelonglearningpolicy/progress_en.htm).
87
Working with young people: the value of youth work in the European Union, study commissioned by the European
Commission 2014, p.102f (http://ec.europa.eu/youth/library/study/youth-work-report_en.pdf)
88
The perceived social exclusion index refers to the overall average score from responses to the four statements: ‗I feel
left out of society‘, ‗Life has become so complicated today that I almost can‘t find my way‘, ‗I don‘t feel that the value of
what I do is recognised by others‘, ‗Some people look down on me because of my job situation or income‘, where 1 =
‗strongly disagree‘ and 5 = ‗strongly agree‘.
97
Figure 50: Perceived social exclusion of young people by country, 2007 and
2011
Source: Eurofound, based on the EQLS social exclusion index
Unemployment, poverty and social exclusion impact on the life of young people in many ways and
often long-term. They limit access to education and training, to quality services and to housing.
They reduce young people's opportunities to participate in public life, reduce self-esteem and
subjective well-being and can lead to stigmatisation
3.2.5 RISK FACTORS
Factors that increase the risk of poverty and social exclusion are multiple and some young people
are more vulnerable than others. Amongst them are young people with migration background or
from ethnic minority groups; Roma; those with lower educational levels; homeless or those at risk
of homelessness and young people with health conditions or disabilities89.
Migration: In 2012, 44% of the young people between 16 and 29, which were born abroad, were
at risk of poverty and social exclusion, compared to 28.3 % among native young people 90. Young
migrants face more difficulties and discrimination on the labour market; their unemployment rate
89
See EACEA (2013), Youth Social Exclusion and Lessons from Youth Work, Evidence from Literature and Survey,
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/youth/tools/documents/social_exclusion_and_youth_work.pdf accessed 22.02.2014) and EC
(2012), Social Inclusion of youth on the margins of society, policy review and research results, Luxembourg, Publication
Office of the European Union, http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/social-inclusion-of-youth_en.pdf
(accessed 22.02.2014).
90
Eurostat, yth_incl_020, accessed 23.10.2014
98
is higher. In most countries they also have higher early school leaving rates; in some countries the
rate of early school leavers among migrant youth is more than double the rate of native youth.91
Gender: In 2012, also the rate of young people at risk of poverty and social exclusion differed
according to gender with more females at risk of poverty and social exclusion 92. It coincides also
with the higher NEET rates for females compared to males (in 2013 13.9% for males vs. 17.7 % for
females). The reasons for these differences are manifold (e.g. including care responsibilities for
siblings or own children) and the diversity of NEETS has been reported frequently. In general,
transition from education to work appears to be more complicated for young women than for
young men, despite the fact that young women are often better educated, have lower rates of
early school leaving and achieve better results in tests such as PISA.
With regard to employment, trends have been partly reversed during the crisis, which affected
men to a greater degree and the unemployment rates among men rose to a higher level than
among women. This is most likely an illustration of the recession which had a biggest impact on
sectors with predominantly male workforce. In November 2013 the EU 28 male youth
unemployment reached 23.9% compared to female youth unemployment rate of 22.8% (Eurostat)
Again there are some country difference with male unemployment rates higher in UK or Ireland
and Mediterranean countries (except Spain) where females are more exposed to unemployment.
Belgium, Malta or Netherlands present a more balanced situation.
Education level and skills: Low levels of education (maximum lower secondary education93)
correspond generally with higher unemployment rates. The unemployment rate for young people
with only lower secondary education was of 30% in 2008, since 2008 it has increased by 10.5
percentage points. The unemployment rate for young people with upper secondary or higher
education increased from 2008 till 2013 by 7.4 percentage points to 17.1%.
However, since the onset of the crisis the higher level of education can no longer be seen as a
protection against unemployment even though those with lowest education (primary education)
were most hit, with most pronounced increases observed in Ireland, Greece and Spain. The
unemployment rates of those with tertiary education are high in Greece, Spain, Romania, Portugal
and Italy with the situation worsening during the crisis. In addition, the number of those with
tertiary education that became unemployed increased from 5.5% in 2007 to 18% in Ireland. Rates
remained stable in Belgium and France. It seems that the tertiary education is a strong protector
against unemployment in Netherlands, but also Czech Republic, France and UK (Eurofound 2012).
91
Education and Training Monitor 2013 p.27 (http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learningpolicy/progress_en.htm).
See also: Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support. Final Report of the Thematic Working Group
on Early School Leaving
(in the context of Education and Training 2020), November 2013,
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/doc/esl-group-report_en.pdf
92
2012 AROPE for 15-29 years old: 29.7 % in total; 28.9% for males, 30.5 for females.
93
ISCED 1997 0-2
99
Skills mismatches account partly for the difficulties of highly educated young people to enter the
labour market. Overall, vocational education systems with a strong component of work-based
learning have been more successful in supporting young people in their transition from education
and training to work.
Furthermore participation in lifelong non-formal learning activities can also be an indicator of
inclusion. 8.8% of young people aged 15-29 reported to take part in them in 2012. Again here,
vast country differences exist. While around a third of young people took part in non-formal
learning activities in Denmark (33.1%) and Sweden (28.6%), less than one per cent reported to take
part in them in Romania and Bulgaria94.
Health: Bad health is increasingly seen as a factor in social exclusion. In addition, inactivity and
unemployment, especially long spells of unemployment have detrimental effects on people‘s
health including mental wellbeing. When it comes to the health status of young people (16-29),
8.1% reported to perceive their overall health as fair, bad or very bad in 2011 across the EU28.
While cross-country differences of self-perceived health status are difficult to interpret due to
social and cultural factors influencing the response95, analysing differences within countries is more
meaningful. The health status of young people within the lowest income quintile is lower than
those in the highest quintile in all EU Member States, with the exception of Greece and Ireland.
The gap between these two groups with regards to reporting fair, bad or very bad health status
can be larger than 10% (in 2011: Portugal and Slovenia). According to the European Quality of Life
Survey (EQLS), although the level of psychological well-being of young people is generally higher
than in the total population, unemployed and inactive young people give a comparatively low
rating for their subjective well-being96. Young people have significantly better-than-average
mental well-being everywhere in Eastern Europe and in some southern European countries
(especially Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Slovenia) but for instance in Sweden young people
score six points lower than the average population on the WHO scale97.
3.2.6 Future challenges
Experiencing unemployment and poverty has long-term consequences for young people.
Especially young people with only lower secondary education might be confronted with recurring
spells of unemployment due to their lack of skills and work experience and their limited chances to
94
Eurofound, Social inclusion of young people, forthcoming
95
OECD (2010). Health at a Glance: Europe 2010, OECD Publishing: p. 44, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance2010-en (accessed 24.02.2014).
96
Eurofound, op.cit.
97
Ibidem
100
improve skills on-the-job98. Studies show that the experience of unemployment has more negative
consequences for young people than for people in later phases of their careers 99. Long-term
unemployment and detachment from the labour market and education and training increase the
risk of poverty and social exclusion in later life. Gaps in employment and limited work experience
can lead to a lower rate of pay, a reduced number of accrued social entitlements and in
consequence long-term pay losses100.
Accelerated by the crisis, many young people find themselves more often and involuntarily in nonstandard work contracts. They are more often than in the past confronted with interruptions in
their career or forced to change career paths. This influences their contribution history to social
security systems and pension schemes. They risk facing lower pension entitlements and an
increased poverty risk at later age.
For the individual, but also for the social security systems and for society as a whole these
developments will create challenges for the future. More research on this is needed. While many of
the current challenges are a consequence of the crisis and its direct impact on youth
unemployment, long- term changes in career patterns with extended periods of education and
training, more complex transition periods and less predictable career paths also play a role.
Policies might need to respond not only to the short-term impact of the crisis and its effects on
young people, but also address the structural challenges behind the current peak in youth
unemployment and youth exclusion and the societal consequences of prolonged education
periods and prolonged and more diversified transitions from education and training into
employment and an increase of part time, temporary work.
3.2.7 Social inclusion and social protection of young people – policies and
practices
Most Member States have policies and initiatives in place to prevent and address youth
unemployment, low educational achievement and early leaving from education and training and
also particularly difficult situations of individual young people. Countries also try to create
comprehensive approaches in addressing the often multiple problems of young people and trying
to break the vicious circle of social disadvantage, low educational achievements and limited
opportunities to find employment.
98
Eurofound (2012), NEETs – Young people not in employment, education or training: characteristics, costs and policy
responses in Europe, OPOCE, Luxembourg. See also: Overview and examples of costs of early school leaving in Europe.
Report of the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategicframework/doc/europe-esl-costs_en.pdf
99
David
N.F.
Bell,
David
G.
Blanchflower
(2010):
(http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/Youth%209-1.pdf)
100
Youth
Unemployment:
Déjà
Vu?
Eurofound (2012), NEETs; SPC (2013), Social Europe-Many ways, one objective. Annual Report of the Social
Protection Committee on the social situation in the European Union, p.41.
101
If education and training of young people takes longer, transition from education to work
becomes increasingly difficult, people change jobs and careers more often, work more on
temporary jobs, and experience more often spells of unemployment, this has implications for the
social protection of young people, which deserve due attention.
3.2.7.1 Individual support and structure-related measures
A review and analysis of policies and initiatives for the social inclusion of young people, conducted
by Eurofound in the context of its project on the "Social inclusion of young people", distinguished
existing measures into 'individualising measures' and 'structure-related measures'101. Currently the
majority of measures taken by Member States are individualising measures, addressing the
individual capacities of young people to cope with labour market and societal demands. Structurerelated measures, addressing either socio-economic aspects or institutional set-up of youth
transition are less frequent.
A wide range of actors is involved in policies and initiatives for young people including public
organisations at national, regional or local level, but also often private non-profit organisations.
Especially the individualising measures and initiatives are often funded on a project-basis, lacking
permanent structures and stable financing. They are normally addressed to specific groups of
young people (e.g. NEETs), providing them with targeted individual support. Many of them
respond well to the needs of young people facing multiple challenges and requiring
comprehensive support to enter the labour market, but also concrete support in dealing for
example with dysfunctional family settings, social and financial problems.
At the same time, project-based individualising measures and initiatives do not respond to the
structural disadvantages young people face on the labour market. They do not address the longterm consequences of youth unemployment and changed patterns in transition from education
and training.
The crisis and its substantial impact on the social situation of young people has presented us with
the question of whether the European social protection systems are well prepared to address the
specific needs of young people. Besides providing sufficient assistance to individual young people,
they need to compensate for a possibly prolonged youth exclusion from the labour market and its
long-term consequences such as lack of investment in skills development, foregone contribution
periods to social security and limited benefit entitlements.
101
'Individualising measures' address individual capabilities to cope with labour market and societal demands such as
coaching programmes or training courses for low skilled young people. 'Structure related measures' address either
socio-economic aspects or the institutional set-up of youth transitions. They might develop infrastructures for young
people or unlock barriers to the social inclusion of young people with the help of financial assistance. Eurofound (2014),
Review and analysis of policies and initiatives for the social inclusion of young people, p.57.
102
Young people can receive different types of benefits, depending on their circumstances. Besides
minimum income support and unemployment benefits, as described in more detail below, they
might be entitled to disability benefits, housing benefits or family benefits and child care
allowances. For the OECD countries, data indicate that for young people living in low- income
households and for those with no work experience, social assistance, housing and family benefits
play a key role. In 2011 it was estimated that for all young people, independent from their working
status or involvement in education and training, family benefits played a crucial role in income
support.102
This focus here is primarily on minimum income and unemployment benefits. The role of the
different types of benefits in preventing the risk of poverty and social exclusion and in reacting to
the impact of the crisis on young people in the EU would require further research.
3.2.7.2 Inclusive approaches to the Youth Guarantee
The Youth Guarantee is an important policy initiative for addressing youth unemployment, aiming
to provide all young people with a job or training opportunity within four months following their
registration to the PES. In its character, it is both an 'individualising measure' addressing the
individual capacities of young people and a 'structure-related measure' by re-organising the
employment and other services for young people and providing better support to all young
people.
Some countries placed the Youth Guarantee already at the core of their strategies (PT, AT, BG, HR,
LT, PL and RO among others). Looking at Youth Guarantee Implementation Plans in Member
States confirms also that the concept of the Youth Guarantee has the potential to foster
comprehensive approaches in addressing young people, including outreach activities to those
furthest away from the labour market and not yet registered with the PES or any other service. An
inclusive Youth Guarantee concept can address the needs of young people with multiple
disadvantages and combine social support, targeted education and training measures and
assistance in finding employment. It can be understood as a social investment approach by
addressing the specific problems of individual young people at a decisive phase in their life,
preventing or at least reducing the risk of social exclusion in future and shaping social services
accordingly.
Outreach activities and easy access to services are key. One-stop-shops for young people can
avoid that services are scattered, have conflicting requirements on young people and are
inefficient in their results. E.g. the Youth Employment Agency in Hamburg, Germany103 combines
the public employment service, social services, educational authorities and local authorities.
102
OECD (2013), Working Party on Social Policy, "Social Policies for Youth: Bridging the Gap to Independence", p77ff.
103
Jugendberufsagentur; http://www.hamburg.de/jugendberufsagentur/ueber-uns/
103
3.2.7.3 Access to minimum income support
In most Member States, access to income support is granted to all people fulfilling the basic
eligibility criteria. The aim is guaranteeing a minimum decent living standard for people on low or
no income. In general, there is no conditionality related to age or previous attachment to the
labour market. With sometimes important exceptions, young people who are outside the labour
market have access to this type of benefit.
In several countries (IE,UK, NL), the amount of income support depends on age and/ or living
conditions, making a difference between different age groups and between different family
situations such as living in the parents' household or having responsibility for a child.
Link between income support and activation measures: In Ireland young people engaged in
training programmes can receive higher rates of income support. In the Netherlands, young
people have to proof that they tried to find work before they are entitled to receive income
support. In Sweden, municipalities may require young people to participate in activation measures
when receiving benefits. In Austria, specific emphasis is given on social integration, training and
integration into the labour market of young people.
3.2.7.4 Access to unemployment benefits
The insurance-based nature of unemployment benefits linking them to previous work history
makes it difficult if not impossible for young unemployed people with very little or no work
experience to get access. In a number of Member States (SK, HU, IE, CZ, PT, CY, DK, UK, FI, NL) the
legislation is unified for all insured people, including young unemployed people. In order to be
entitled to unemployment benefits, an insured person must have paid insurance contributions for
a given period of time prior to registration as a job seeker. Minimum contribution periods vary
between four months and 24 months; the maximum duration for receiving unemployment benefits
can in some countries be longer than the contribution period, in most cases this period is
shorter.104 Receipt of unemployment benefits is often also linked to being available for, capable of
and genuinely seeking full-time employment.
Confronted with high youth unemployment rates, some MSs (PT, SI, AT) have modified the
eligibility criteria for young people e.g. by shortening or re-defining the minimum contribution
periods for young people. Other countries such as Luxembourg and Romania provide
unemployment benefits after a waiting period of several months; benefits are then not paid in full,
but as a percentage of the minimum wage or with reference to social indicators.
Another approach to address the problem exists e.g. in Slovakia: All people above 16 can
contribute voluntary to the unemployment insurance, regardless of their work situation. This gives
104
OECD (2013) p. 80
104
them additional rights to access this type of benefit and is especially interesting for young people
with long education and training periods.
The level of coverage and access to benefits, both minimum income and unemployment benefits,
differs across Europe. Overall, young people not in employment, education or training, in South
Europe are less covered by income support than in Northern or Central Europe.105 Linked to the
very nature of individually awarded benefits such as unemployment allowances, young people are
more often covered by benefits awarded at household level such as social assistance, housing or
family benefits. The access to all type of benefits and in relation to this the risk of poverty differs
according to the living situation of young people, e.g. living with their parents or on their own.
Nevertheless, the difference in receipt can be small if the parents are receiving income support as
well.
In terms of maximum duration of coverage, in many MSs, the period for which it is possible to
claim unemployment benefit is linked to the amount of time over which contributions have been
paid. Accordingly, in these cases, younger people eligible for benefits tend to receive them for a
shorter period than older workers because they have not been in employment long enough to
build up a lengthy contributions‘ record. In addition, because young people are likely to earn
significantly lower wages than their older counterparts, especially if they are employed on
probationary or training contracts, and more likely to work part-time, the benefits they receive can
be considerably lower. This is particularly so for young women, who typically earn less than young
men and are more likely to be employed part-time.
There is also a group of young people not getting any kind of income support. Reasons for this
lack of coverage might be rooted in the structure and accessibility of the different forms of income
support and in the low level of registration of young people, especially NEETS, with public
employment services or social services/ local authorities. OECD estimates for 2011 that more than
50% of NEETs did not receive any type of income support in ES, IT, PL and PT. In Northern Europe
and most Continental Europe the rate is about 30% (except SE 40% and FI 20%).106
Not only the level of services and income support available for young people are relevant, but also
the quality of services. As a project from the Council of Europe pointed out107, young people often
perceive social services as not youth-user friendly, too complicated or contradictory in
requirements. Training of staff in social services targeted to young people is relevant, but also the
design of services, their transparency, availability and outreach.
105
OECD (2013) p. 78
106
OECD (2013) p.89
107
www.coe.int/enter
105
3.2.7.5 Access to health care services
Investing in the health of young people is not only important for the individual young person, but
also crucial in a life course perspective as it lowers the risk of health costs later on. The health of
young people is influenced by health related behaviours such as tobacco and alcohol use, diet and
exercise patterns, overweight and obesity, but also by wider social and economic factors. Healthy
behaviours and conditions that arise during adolescence impact on health across the life course.
Access to quality health care is determined by basically the costs of health care services and the
availability of the right services at the right time; services targeted at young people as well as
health education are important to improve coverage and out-reach.
In countries where health care services are provided through public health insurance with universal
coverage (UK, CZ, PT, SE, DK, FI), all young people have access to health care services. In UK,
where treatment in general is free but there can be charges for some treatments, young people
who receive (or are included in an award of) certain income-related benefits are entitled to full
help with health costs. In some countries, access to health care services is granted linked to the
receipt of social benefits or registration as job seekers (SK, HU, IE, AT, BE).
While young people in Europe seem to be largely covered by either a health insurance scheme or
public health care services, only few countries report on initiatives to address the specific needs of
young people in health care. Their needs are strongly related to the rapid biological and
psychosocial changes during adolescence and the resulting vulnerability of young people. This
vulnerability can be especially high as a result of individual and environmental factors such as
marginalisation, social exclusion or lack of parental support108. Data show that 15 to 20% of the
adolescents in Europe suffer from one or more psychological or behavioural problems such as
phobias, post-traumatic stress, depression, eating or learning disorders, substance abuse, juvenile
delinquency, school absenteeism, and suicide109.
In this context also the growing number of NEETs might raise concern: Young people not being in
employment, education or training are more likely to develop mental and physical health
problems. The increase in youth unemployment might also lead to subsequently higher demand
for health services to cope with growing needs from young people.
Difficulties in accessing health care by young people also emerge in the European Quality of Life
Survey (EQLS). 44% of young respondents indicated that waiting time has made access to medical
care at least a little difficult, while 37% indicate that they experienced a delay in getting an
appointment. Finding time to go to the doctor (due to work or care responsibilities) is an issue for
32% of young people, and cost of medical care is a problem for 31%. The distance to travel to the
doctor or hospital is a less frequent problem, experienced by 18%. There is variation between MSs
108
WHO 2014, Health for the World's Adolescents, Summary, p.6
109
http://adocare.eu/
106
in the importance of these barriers: cost is a major barrier in CY and IE but not so much in UK and
DK. In some countries multiple barriers to access exist, for example in EL and IT delay, waiting time
and cost all seem to be an issue experienced by a significant proportion of young people.
Compared to 2007, barriers in accessing health care, especially cost, have become more prevalent
in some countries, especially EL, MT, NL, IE and SK.
Table 5: Reasons for difficulty accessing healthcare,
as reported by young people, 2011
Distance
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
UK
Croatia
EU28
7%
10%
22%
15%
19%
19%
17%
21%
38%
11%
18%
11%
17%
12%
36%
8%
4%
19%
16%
13%
24%
24%
22%
12%
25%
30%
12%
22%
18%
Delay in
getting an
appointment
29%
20%
23%
20%
35%
41%
22%
43%
65%
26%
32%
26%
37%
21%
55%
28%
14%
25%
41%
20%
47%
45%
39%
32%
35%
33%
36%
42%
37%
Waiting time
Cost
Finding time
31%
33%
39%
36%
53%
52%
24%
36%
68%
37%
29%
34%
42%
43%
61%
36%
34%
37%
65%
26%
42%
48%
56%
24%
38%
55%
42%
48%
44%
14%
26%
30%
51%
22%
27%
7%
23%
64%
10%
22%
32%
19%
51%
53%
30%
29%
29%
58%
25%
39%
37%
46%
16%
11%
50%
7%
18%
30%
21%
31%
20%
19%
25%
37%
34%
19%
39%
14%
19%
37%
18%
30%
36%
30%
30%
23%
38%
19%
26%
38%
34%
21%
13%
31%
36%
19%
31%
Source: European Quality of Life Survey, 2011
Note: red shading indicates greater difficulty in accessing healthcare, green shading indicates less
Data from EU-SILC indicate that for the EU average, young people (16-29) in 2012 do not report
more unmet health needs compared to 2008, but in some MSs the percentage of young people
107
reporting on unmet health needs due to the fact that health services were too expensive, too far
away or had long waiting increased (e.g. Estonia, Ireland, Greece)110.
In order to improve the access to health services, several countries started to develop youth
friendly health services which are responsive to the needs of young people and combine targeted
services for young people with outreach activities (SE, UK). Outreach activities are especially
relevant for NEETs; and also for young men, who are often recognised as the most under-served
group when it comes to health services. Despite the fact that they are often in need for treatment,
they address themselves less often to health services. Youth Health Centres like in SE, offering free
of charge services for those under 20 and linked to youth centres, can be a solution to reach out
to those hardest to reach111. Also disseminating relevant information on health issues via Internet
could be a means for reaching out to young people.
3.2.7.6 Acquisition of pension rights
One of the potentially more significant long-term effects of prolonged youth unemployment is the
loss of pension contributions with all the consequences this can have on acquiring pension rights
as well as on the level of pension income.
Member States have different approaches in terms of counting or not years in unemployment for
pension insurance and the way periods of unemployment are factored in terms of the acquisition
of pension rights. Some countries also have time limits to pension coverage in case of prolonged
periods of unemployment.
In some Member States, basic unemployment allowances do not add to earnings-related pensions
(FI, SK) and a period of unemployment is not considered as period of pension insurance (SK), but
in SK and AT, for example, it is possible to pay a voluntary pension insurance during
unemployment.
In other Member States pension contributions are provided by the state if young people are on
social benefits (CZ, IE, UK, PT, BE, AT), insurance-based social benefits are considered as income
and thus, compulsory insurable (DE) in order to protect entitlements, or receipt of social benefits
confers pension rights (SE). However, in some countries this is conditional upon having previous
social insurance record (IE).
Basic state pensions as in Denmark or the Netherlands give basic pension rights to everyone
independent from his or her contribution history. Entitlement is based on the residence in the
country.
110
Eurostat, yth_hlth_060
111
WHO (2010) Youth-friendly health policies and services in the European Region, p.151
108
One important and rather under-researched issue is related to the social long-term consequences
of large shares of long-term youth unemployment leading to young people having (significantly)
reduced contribution histories and the implications for future pension adequacy and the pension
systems overall. Estimations of the average loss in pension right due to unemployment can provide
first hints on the difficulties young people might face at retirement age. While there is a
considerable protection of pension entitlements in the unemployment benefit system in most
Member States for unemployment spells of up to 3 years, the loss in entitlement increases with the
duration of career breaks. Especially in pay-as-you-go pension schemes, extended periods of
unemployment or non-linear transitions to the labour market with recurring periods of
unemployment and education and training, can have a great impact on pension entitlements and
increase the risk of poverty at later age.112 In addition, it appears to be particularly difficult for
people to recoup the drop in entitlement, if they are without pension coverage in the first three to
five years of their working career. Measures such as re-defining contribution periods during
extended periods of education and training, transition periods from education to work or recurring
unemployment spells; or strengthening basic pension schemes, are examples of possible
adjustments to the pension system.
The European Quality of Life Survey113 shows that young people‘s views on the quality of the state
pensions system has decreased in many Member States between 2003 and 2011 (most negative
changes can be observed in Czech Republic, Bulgaria, UK, Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland). As
shown in Figure 51, in several countries young people rate the quality of the pension system lower
than other age groups. Only in Lithuania, Croatia, Czech Republic and Luxembourg have youth
rated the pension system better than other age groups. In Latvia, Sweden, Poland and Finland
youth rated pension system worse than other age groups.
112
Joint Report on Pensions: Progress and key challenges in the delivery of adequate and sustainable pensions in
Europe, p.55
113
Managed by Eurofound and carried out every four years, this pan-European survey examines both the objective
circumstances of European citizens' lives and how they feel about those circumstances and their lives in general.
http://eurofound.europa.eu/surveys/eqls
109
Figure 51: In general how would you rate the quality of the following public
services: state pension system – difference in judgement between youth and
other age groups (country mean – scale 0 – 10)
Source: EQLS data 2011
*differences statistically significant p<0.05;
3.2.8 Results of the in-depth thematic review
Experiences among MS show the need to balance carefully social protection measures and
activation measures for young people. In Belgium young unemployed people, who do not yet
qualify for unemployment benefit due to insufficient work history, can receive a benefit while
engaging in job-seeking activities. This means that there is an incentive for them to establish a
connection with the Public Employment Services, early after graduation. Belgium reported on a
recent reform of the benefit (integration allowance) that includes the extension of the waiting time
to one year, a stronger obligation to take part in activation measures and to look actively for work
and the limitation of the duration to three years. Ireland and Spain stressed especially the need to
develop comprehensive strategies in supporting young people, to ensure cross-sectoral
cooperation and to improve transition from school or vocational training to work and tackle early
school leaving.
Based on an exploratory discussion on youth exclusion from the social protection point of view
and building on the thematic focus of the 2014 National Social Reports, the SPC identified the
following issues which need to be taken into account in further developing policy guidance on
addressing youth exclusion.
Overall, social protection systems should provide sufficient social protection for all young people
taking into account their individual social and employment situation and at the same time avoiding
dependency traps. To ensure the right balance, a close monitoring of the specific measures for
young people and their social protection is therefore necessary. Conditionality and waiting times
can, when designed carefully and taking into account the overall labour market situation and the
employability of a young person, help to motivate young people to pick up employment or to
110
continue or re-enter education and training. Too limited or lack of access to benefits combined
with lack of or limited access to enabling services risks to create prolonged dependency on
parents‘ and/or family support and delays financial and effective independency. Long periods of
unemployment, inactivity or precarious employment might increase the risk of long-term salary
losses, limited pension rights and poverty in retirement. Thus, focus should be put on increasing
employability and income benefits, relevant for young people, should be better linked to activation
measures and to a tailor-made approach to training.
Integrated and multidimensional approaches are necessary to answer to the needs of young
people especially during transition periods and when confronted with unemployment or
precarious employment. They combine different perspectives and policy approaches in addressing
young people and allow for using the different resources available to help young people in need.
This includes close cooperation between different policy areas and providers of social support,
health services, education and employment services. Youth organisations can also play a crucial
role in integrating young people in society and in reaching out to those furthest away from the
labour market addressing young people in a different way than employment and social services
and using different communication channels. Comprehensive government strategies to address
the social, educational and employment situation of young people can form the framework to
bring different stakeholders at local, regional and national level together and design efficient and
effective policy interventions. Attention needs to be paid to the situation of young people with
migration background, especially newly arriving young migrants.
Municipalities/ local governments are an important actor in providing targeted support for young
people. Municipalities/ local governments could be better placed to know the concrete difficulties
young people face in their region, know their labour market situation and can combine the
different services to support young people. Depending on the structure of social support systems,
municipalities can create one-stop-shops for young people including a wide range of employment
and social services, youth coaching and access to further education and training, reach out to
young people and cooperate with local stakeholders, including youth workers, education and
training institutes, but also local employers. Important are early interventions and an early
detection of potential problems of young people to provide targeted support before young
people become disengaged, inactive and consequently further excluded from the labour market.
Mobility can help young people to gain first work experiences and to improve their skills;
supporting the mobility can therefore be one possibility to help young people in regions with high
youth unemployment. At the same time it can create the risk of brain drain; balance needs to be
kept between promoting mobility of young people, strengthening access to local labour markets
and offering young people realistic chances to return to their region after having spent some time
abroad.
The Youth Guarantee is recognized by Member States as a very important comprehensive and
strategic instrument for addressing youth unemployment in Europe. They can bring together
initiatives such as Youth Coaching programmes, programmes focussing on the skills and
111
employability of young people, and outreach activities to sustainably improve the social situation
of young people.
Social protection systems have an important role to play in supporting labour market integration
and helping young people to bridge difficult periods of transition from education and training to
work and to employment of progressively higher quality. They are also relevant in avoiding the risk
of long-term social exclusion, providing young people with multiple difficulties with support to
increase their employability and bring them closer to the labour market. The in-depth review made
clear that further exchange on the efficiency and effectiveness of the different approaches is
needed.
3.3 Depth of poverty
3.3.1 Introduction
The depth of poverty has been identified as a social trend to watch in 2013114 by the SPC, and as
such, chosen as subject for a thematic review in the beginning of 2015. The 2013 SPC report on
the social situation in Europe highlighted that there has been a substantial increase in the poverty
gap and in the severe material deprivation rate in more than one third of Member States between
2011 and 2012, leading to a deterioration in living standards in these countries. Between 2008 and
2012, the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap increased in more than two thirds of Member
States. It should be noted however that even in the decade before the crisis, despite economic and
employment growth, poverty and social exclusion remained major issues in most EU countries and
income inequalities often grew. This paper provides a background for discussion on effective and
efficient social policy responses to address the challenge of increasing depth of poverty in several
Member States.
The risks of falling into and the chances of getting out of poverty vary across Member States, and
have changed over time. The macro-economic environment, the labour market situation, and the
policy mix in place (economic, fiscal, employment, and social) have a crucial impact on social
outcomes. Further, countries with robust social protection systems characterised by stronger social
investment have weathered much better the crisis, in terms of economic, as well as employment
and social outcomes. These systems help through investing in human capital to prevent poverty
from happening in the first place and to get people back on their own feet as quickly as possible.
For this purpose, a comprehensive policy approach, adapted to the individual's needs, is needed.
This review will look at options for increasing the effectiveness of social protection systems in
avoiding that people fall into severe poverty and ensuring adequate livelihoods, through the right
social policy mix of benefits and services that both activate and enable. We will pay particular
114
SPC (2014) Social Europe: Many ways, one objective. Annual report of the Social Protection Committee on the social
situation in the European Union (2013)
112
attention to some characteristics of the social protection system, such as the coverage and
adequacy of income support, and the role of enabling services.
The Social Investment Package, adopted by the European Commission in 2013, addressed these
issues, calling for specific policy actions such as one-stop-shops, the increase in take-up and
coverage of social benefits, ensuring adequate income support (which can be supported by setting
reference budgets), and promoting activation, including through the use of conditionality. The
distribution in the access to quality services, such as healthcare, childcare, housing, life-long
learning, or social services also needs to be considered when ensuring adequate livelihoods and
social investment across society and an individual's lifecycle.
Through the European Semester, the European Commission supports Member States in their
efforts to improving the effectiveness of social protection and social investment in addressing
poverty and social exclusion challenges. In particular, since 2011, the Council has adopted several
country specific recommendations (CSRs) on the improvement of social transfers, the adequacy
and coverage of unemployment benefits and social assistance, the link to activation, and access to
enabling services (see Table 6 below).
Table 6: Council CSRs on enabling and activating benefits and services per
MS, 2011-2014

Adequacy and coverage of unemployment benefits and social assistance (BG, ES, HR, HU,
IT, LT, LV, PT, UK);

Strengthen the links between benefits and activation policies (BG, ES, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT,
NL, PT, RO, SK);

Increase ALMPs for specific profiles such as migrants, long-term unemployed, Roma (BE,
BG, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, LU, LT, PT, SE, SI, SK);

Improve the coverage and adequacy of ALMPs as well as ensure cost efficiency of the
ALMPs (BE, BG, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LT, LV, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK);

Improve the quality and out-reach of activation services and PES (CZ, DE, ES, IE, IT);

Improve the quality, accessibility and coverage of services complementing activation
services (BG, EE, ES, FI, HR, IE, LV, UK);

Develop individualised services (CZ, DK, ES, FR, SI, SK).
113
3.3.2 Recent trends
Since 2008 poverty and social exclusion have increased, pulling the EU further away from the
Europe 2020 target to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by at
least 20 million in 2020. There are 7.8 million more people living in poverty or social exclusion,
totalling 122.6 million people in 2013. Poverty and social exclusion has increased in more than one
third of the Member States in 2011 and 2012, and the poverty and social exclusion of children has
increased in 18 Member States since 2008. The overall trends mask growing divergence between
Member States.
The poverty gap is a way of looking at the depth of poverty. It indicates the extent to which the
incomes of those at risk of poverty fall below the poverty threshold on average. In 2013, the
relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap115 in the EU27 was 23.8% lower than the at-risk-of-poverty
threshold. This has increased by 2 pp since 2008, although broadly remaining stable since 2012. In
2013, the poverty gap in the EU27 countries varied between 15% (in FI) to over 30% (BG, EL, ES
and RO). It is especially concerning that the poverty gap has increased in two-thirds of all Member
States since 2008, and in some countries quite substantially (by around 4 pp or more in BG, PT,
HU, IT, DK, SK and EL).
Trends in the severe material deprivation rate also show substantial increases in some Member
States and clear signs of worsening living standards, not only in countries with historically high
rates. In the period 2012-2013, 8 Member States saw statistically significant increases in the share
of their population living in severe material deprivation (with the highest increases in PT (2.3pp),
CY (1.1 pp) and DK (1.0 pp)). However, the overall picture was more balanced than in the
preceding years since there were also 11 Member States that recorded a statistically significant
reduction in severe material deprivation, with particularly notable improvements in the Baltic States
(LT (-3.8 pp), EE (-1.8 pp), and LV (-1.6 pp)) as well as IT (-2.1 pp) and PL (-1.6 pp).
Nevertheless, the longer term trend remains mainly negative overall, with the rate of severe
material deprivation having increased since 2008 in more than half of Member States. The
countries seeing the worst increases – EL (9.1 pp), HU (8.9 pp) and CY (7.0 pp), but also IT, LV, LT
and MT – are among those most affected by the economic crisis, although LV and LT have
experienced a very sharp improvement in the situation over the last year or two. PL and RO are
the countries with the most important improvements since 2008.
115
The relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap is calculated as the difference between the median equivalised disposable
income of people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, expressed as a
percentage of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (cut-off point: 60 % of national median equivalised disposable income).
114
3.3.3 Policy responses
When assessing the policy responses to the depth of poverty challenge, the wider macroeconomic
and institutional set-up needs to be taken into account. Fiscal, economic and employment policies
influence social outcomes and interact with social policies, strengthening or limiting their
effectiveness. For instance, fiscal policies interact with labour market policies and institutions,
providing incentives/disincentives to work, and thus influencing the performance of social policies.
The labour market situation in turn impacts on the returns from social investment, since the
benefits in terms of economic growth from a higher labour supply and improved human capital
depend on jobs being available in the labour market.
As stressed by the Social Investment Package, social protection systems that provide activating and
enabling benefits and services contribute to higher labour force participation and human capital
development, positively influencing labour market and economic outcomes. As a consequence, an
integrated policy-making approach, which considers the complementary functions of economic,
employment and social policies, is needed.
The Social Investment Package sets out the European Commission's long-term vision on the future
of social policies. The social investment approach calls for social protection systems that prevent
against risks across the lifecycle and support activation, as well as for improved effectiveness and
efficiency of social expenditure. Such an approach reconciles social, employment and economic
objectives. The Social Investment Package emphasises the need for well-targeted, comprehensive
and enabling benefits and services. It highlights the importance of preventative approaches.
Policies should facilitate the integration into sustainable, quality employment of those who can
work and provide resources which are sufficient to live in dignity, together with support for social
participation, for those who cannot. The complementary role of different social policies needs to
be taken into account. This requires a comprehensive assessment of the policy mix in each
Member State.
In this background paper we will particularly focus on a few characteristics of the social protection
systems, which play an essential role in tackling the depth of poverty challenge. Other thematic
reviews have dealt with other aspects of social policies.
Adequate and activating income support is key in reducing the poverty gap and severe poverty.
Social protection systems should provide adequate and activating income support to empower
people across all stages of their lives and enhance their opportunities to participate in the labour
market and society. The role of social transfers such as unemployment benefits and minimum
income schemes, as well as family and children benefits is therefore highly relevant. The schemes
should help people to be able, motivated and activated to work. Some of the main challenges
identified by the European Commission regarding minimum income schemes relate to their
adequacy, coverage, simplification and their effective linking to activation and enabling services. In
this background paper we will mainly focus on the adequacy and coverage challenges, as other
SPC thematic reviews have already dealt with other aspects of income support.
115
In addition to income support access to enabling services such as early childhood education and
care, education and training, transport, housing, job assistance, debt-counselling, health care, or
long-term care, also plays an essential role in reducing depth of poverty and supporting people to
improve their living conditions and employment prospects.
Efforts to address severe poverty and reduce the poverty gap should also comprise simplifying
services and benefits and their administration, reducing administrative burdens and increasing
take-up. This could be achieved through for instance setting up one-stop-shops and improving
targeting through progressive universalism.
These issues are reflected in the 2015 AGS call for simplified and better targeted social policies
complemented by affordable quality childcare and education, prevention of early school leaving,
training and job assistance, housing support and accessible health care.
3.3.3.1 Adequate income support
When assessing the adequacy of income support through unemployment benefits and social
assistance, two indicators can be used: the net replacement rates of unemployment benefits, and
the net income of people on social assistance relative to the poverty threshold.
The average net replacement of unemployment benefits ranges from 45 % in Greece and Slovakia,
to over 75 % in Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal. This shows that the overall generosity of
unemployment benefit systems exhibits a high degree of variation across EU countries. In most
Member States the theoretical adequacy of unemployment benefits is improved by the presence
of the children in the household and decreases with unemployment spells. The provision of cash
housing assistance or social assistance improves the net replacements rates significantly in some
Member States, especially in Czech Republic, Latvia, and the UK.
Figure 52: Average net replacements of unemployment benefits, 2010
Source: DG EMPL calculations based on OECD-EC tax-benefit model
The adequacy of social assistance can be measured by the net income of people on social
assistance relative to the median equivalised income. Countries differ substantially in terms of the
116
minimum safety nets they provide to jobless households, even when they are compared to the atrisk-of-poverty threshold which depends on the living standards within each country. Only a few
countries provide households with a minimum income and related benefits (for example housing)
that are sufficient to lift them close to, or above, the 60 % median income threshold, and this only
for some family types.
Figure 53: Net income of people living on social assistance relative to
median equivalised income, 2010
Source: OECD-EC tax-benefit model.
3.3.3.2 Coverage of social transfers
The effectiveness of a benefit system also depends on its coverage, i.e. the extent to which the
population at risk is covered by the system and actually receives benefits when the risk occurs. The
characteristics of benefit systems vary considerably across Member States, from those with wide
coverage and high levels of adequacy in the Nordic countries and Continental Europe, to low
coverage and low adequacy in Eastern Europe and some of the Southern Member States. There is
also a variance in terms of the composition of policy instruments (unemployment insurance v.
unemployment assistance) and their design (adjustment of benefits over the unemployment spell,
link to past earnings). On average in the EU, 20 % of adults living in poor and jobless households
receive less than 10 % of their income from social benefits when child benefits are included. The
rate increases to nearly 30 % when child benefits are excluded. The non-coverage rate varies
greatly between Member States. It ranges from less than 10 % in the North and Centre of Europe,
while it exceeds 20 % in the Southern countries and Poland (Figure 54).
117
Figure 54 : Proportion of 18–59 individuals living in jobless households at
risk of poverty, whose total benefits received is less than 10 % of total net
disposable household income, 2010
Source: DG EMPL calculations based on Eurostat, EU-SILC (2011, IE 2010).
A number of countries (Bulgaria, Poland and Portugal) combine a limited coverage of both
unemployment benefits and social assistance. This raises issues about the alternative sources of
income on which these people may live, such as family solidarity and informal work.
Almost all EU countries have some form of minimum income scheme at national level. Member
States that do not have one, such as Italy, have other schemes at regional or local level. These are
generally conceived as a short-term form of assistance, though in most Member States, they are
not formally time-limited. They are means-tested and funded through the tax system. They are
intended mainly for people out of work, but some Member States (Cyprus, Germany, Lithuania,
France, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and Ireland) have extended their scope to provide
in-work income support.
An examination of various national definitions116 shows that most Member States use a statutory
minimum level of income, fixed by the (national, regional, local) legislator or government. Further
classifications are possible along territorial arrangements, type of benefits (cash vs. in-kind), and
existence of top-ups (or income tapers). In most Member States the minimum income level is not
linked to national minimum wage.
116
MISSOC Analysis (2011). Guaranteed Minimum Resources, MISSOC Secretariat for the European Commission,
Contract nr. VC/2010/1131.
118
The coverage of unemployment benefit systems can be assessed using a pseudo-coverage rate
that relates the number of people actually receiving an unemployment benefit (as declared in EUSILC with potential misclassifications) to the number of people unemployed during at least three
months during the past year. The coverage of unemployment benefits varies greatly across
countries and varies relative to the length of time spent in unemployment: up until 3 months;
between 4 and 6 months; and between 7 and 12 months (see Figure 55 below). A low coverage of
unemployment benefits undermines the effectiveness of high income replacement rates.
Figure 55: Share of the unemployed aged 18–59 receiving unemployment
benefits during the reference period by unemployment duration, 2010
Source: DG EMPL calculations based on Eurostat, EU-SILC (2011 IE 2010).
Note: Reference population: unemployed aged 18–59 having experienced at least 3 consecutive months of
unemployment over the previous year.
3.3.3.3 Access to quality and affordable services
Providing affordable access to services (e.g. early childhood education and care (ECEC), housing,
health care, transport etc.) complements other social protection instruments in ensuring adequate
livelihoods and empowering people to participate in the labour market and society. In the rest of
this paper we particularly focus on access to housing and to early childhood education and care.
Early childhood education and care
Children who grow up in poverty often stay in poverty for their entire lives. For example, significant
disadvantages faced in childhood in education – such as limited access to high quality education,
limited access to additional learning support, lack of parental support or access to additional (nonformal) learning opportunities, are often compounded over life.
119
Many Member States have not yet achieved the 2002 EU targets for childcare, better known as the
Barcelona targets117, and there are signs that provision is actually worsening due to the crisis118. As
expected the use of ECEC facilities increases with age. Ensuring provision of facilities for children
below 3 years of age is of particular importance for child wellbeing and for female employment.
Again there are many Member States who are significantly below the target of 33%.
In addition, as shown in Figure 56, in many MSs, there is a steep social gradient when it comes to
ECEC attendance, meaning that a greater proportion of children from higher socioeconomic
classes are enrolled in formal childcare in comparison to children from poorer background.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would benefit most from quality ECEC, are in fact
far less likely to make use of these services. This holds for several social background indicators
such as the parent‘s level of education, labour market position, income level and the risk of
poverty.
Figure 56: Percentage of children aged 0 to 2 in formal ECEC per income
quintile
117
The Barcelona targets for 2010 were: 90% of all children between ages 3 and mandatory school age attending ECEC,
and 33% of children under 3 years of age.
118
Commission (DG JUST) Progress report Barcelona objectives: The development of childcare facilities for young
children in Europe with a view to sustainable and inclusive growth.
120
Source: Note for the ISG on the inequality in the use of ECEC. SPC/ISG/2014/12/8. Data from EU-SILC 2011 and
calculations by Tarki-Applica
Note: Income quintiles based on families with children of less than 6 years old.
High quality, integrated ECEC services, complemented by individualised support and interventions,
are more likely to be successful in their redistributive role to break the cycle of disadvantage.
Existing barriers could be reduced by increased targeting of government assistance aimed at
reducing the cost of childcare for low income families. The appropriate degree of targeting,
however, depends on the relative priorities over a range of policy objectives. Broad or universal
provision of ECEC removes the need to engage in the complex and often unsuccessful task of
identifying and targeting disadvantaged categories of children. It can also support better the
overall development and inclusion of children while limiting stigmatisation and segregation.
Evidence shows that supply and demand for places match only in those countries that provide
legal entitlement with a place guarantee straight after the end of parental leave. In these systems
the cost is also differentiated according to income and a ceiling for the percentage of parental
contribution is also decided.119
Housing
Housing costs represent an important share of a household's income, especially for lower income
groups. Households not defined as relatively poor by standard indicators fall into relative poverty
once housing expenses are take into account. Transitions into poverty due to housing expenses,
for instance, vary from a minimum of 4 % in Malta to a maximum of 13 % in the United
Kingdom120.
An increasing burden of housing costs on a household's income as well as the over-indebtedness
of many households might result in the inability of households to pay mortgages, rent or utility
119
Key
data
on
ECEC
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/166EN.pdf.
120
(EACEA,
Maestri, V. (2014), A Measure of Income Poverty Including Housing: Benefits and Limitations for Policy
Making, Social Indicator Research, May 2014
121
2014)
bills, increasing vulnerability for repossessions, foreclosures and evictions and in some cases,
homelessness. There is a growing need for locally available affordable housing, including social
housing and affordable private rentals, as well as a sufficient level of housing and heating
allowances121.
Available data shows that the number of homeless families or living in temporary accommodation
for prolonged periods has been growing in certain Member States. This needs to be prevented
and addressed through early intervention. Households with children, especially single-parent
families, face a higher incidence of being overburdened by housing costs than other households.
This can be counterbalanced by adequate levels of social, family and housing- support.
3.3.4 The need for a comprehensive social investment approach
Adequate income support, including unemployment benefits and social assistance, linked to
inclusive labour market measures, activation measures and access to quality services in an
integrated approach, are part of a comprehensive policy response to ensuring adequate
livelihoods and preventing and reducing the level and depth of poverty.
Income support schemes should help people to be able, motivated and activated to work. In this
regard, establishing and strengthening minimum income schemes -their adequacy, coverage, link
to activation and enabling services- should be a priority. Minimum income should be high enough
for a decent life. Better designed administrative systems for instance through one-stop shops
would improve access to services and benefits whilst reducing administrative burden and costs.
Service integration, including through individualised approaches, deserves attention as it may not
only contribute to improving access and take-up, but also provide an answer to coping with new
types of social risks, the increased role of prevention, and the need for coordination between
increasingly complex services.
Analysing the characteristics of the very poor populations and the (mis-)match of benefits and
services available to these populations would be a good basis for a focused discussion on where
Member States should concentrate their efforts in order to reduce depth of poverty. A better
understanding of the profiles of the very poor would also be the basis for an individualized
approach that tackles the specific barriers the respective person faces in order to ensure
sustainable reintegration into the labour market and the society.
3.3.5 Results of the in-depth thematic review
Drivers behind poverty and social exclusion are multiple; they can vary across an individual's lifecycle and are closely related to the wider economic and labour market context. Comprehensive,
121
Commission Staff Working Document (2013)42 final on Confronting homelessness in the European Union
122
needs-driven, preventive and individualised approaches can contribute to avoiding and alleviating
poverty and social exclusion in an effective and sustainable manner. Social investments are part
and parcel of such approaches by targeting specific needs arising across the life-cycle, ensuring
adequate income support and providing access to quality enabling services supporting individuals
in critical transitions.
Adequate income support, through unemployment benefits, minimum income schemes and other
cash benefits, plays a key role in preventing and avoiding severe poverty. The level of income
support should be high enough to allow for a decent life, while at the same time people need to
be motivated and activated to work. This requires an effective link between income support
schemes and activation. Ensuring coverage and adequacy of minimum income schemes is a
challenge, particularly in those Member States with less fiscal space. Different methodologies,
including reference budgets, are being used by MSs to assess the adequacy of their minimum
income schemes.
Access to quality enabling services is essential to address poverty and social exclusion, considering
the multiple barriers to employment and social participation experienced by the population
concerned, such as low educational attainment, lack of training and skills, health problems and
disability, the need to care for children or adult dependents, language problems, transport costs,
housing costs, etc. Provision of activating and enabling benefits and services should be adequately
linked and combined with income support schemes. Efforts should also comprise simplifying
services and benefits and their administration. This could be achieved through for instance setting
up one-stop-shops and improved targeting.
Several MSs are moving towards more integrated delivery of benefits and services, which address
the multiple drivers of labour market and social exclusion, and are targeted to an individual's
needs. In some cases, MSs use one-stop shops (e.g. activation centres in DE, located in the job
centres, which channel individual's needs towards other relevant service providers), while others
(e.g. CY) aim at improved cooperation between social and employment services. A more
integrated provision of benefits and services can contribute, on the one hand, to better take-up
and coverage by potential beneficiaries, and on the other, to more efficient and optimised
administrative procedures. The individualised provision of a comprehensive package of benefits
and services, often under the responsibility of different administrations, presents non-negligible
governance challenges (in particular in MS where different functions and responsibilities are
divided between national, regional and local level like ES and DE) Instruments such as common
databases could facilitate inter-institutional /departmental coordination.
Policy design should take a systemic approach to the panoply of cash and in-kind benefits and
services provided by the social protection system, and consider how these interact, both at
individual
and
household
level,
with other
policies
and
institutions,
such
as
fiscal
incentives/disincentives to work and labour market institutions (public employment services,
minimum wage…). Trade-offs between different policy measures and the need to take a
comprehensive approach to the design of social protection is illustrated by recent reforms in LU,
123
where maternity/family allowances (which contributed to inactivity traps for women) have been
eliminated and investment shifted towards childcare facilities.
In addition more attention is needed for evidence-based approaches and creating knowledge on
real outcomes coming from policy initiatives and innovative experiences, both in terms of social
and economic returns. Sound methodological frameworks would help in the design of sound
policies and reforms by public authorities.
Finally, involving social partners, and articulating the right synergies between the public and the
private sector, including civil society and social economy actors, is key in addressing our current
social challenges and to mitigate the pressures on our social protection systems.
3.4 The role of activating and enabling benefits and services in
reducing long-term exclusion from the labour market in the
EU
3.4.1 Introduction
Unemployment and long-term unemployment have been some of the more immediate and
tangible impacts of the economic crisis. While the share of (quasi-) jobless households has
stabilised in some countries in 2013 (AT, MT, HU, and HR) and has improved in some others (CZ,
PL, FR, DE, and RO), it remains a major issue in the countries mostly affected by the crisis (EL, IE,
ES, LT, PT, BG). Long-term unemployment is often times related to prolonged economic recessions
as well as structural challenges. It puts pressure on social protection systems in terms of income
support for longer periods of time, use of different benefit schemes to address the challenge as
well as the design of safety nets which are capable of having a strong activating element and
manage to provide the services necessary to guarantee the long-term unemployed opportunities
to be integrated back in the labour market.
The situation of the long-term unemployed and the jobless households, i.e. those furthest away
from the labour market, is at the core of the interrelation between activation policies and access to
services, effectiveness of social protection schemes and the tax and benefit system and is directly
influenced by general labour market conditions.
The Social Investment package122 adopted by the Commission in February 2013 has most recently
emphasized the need for well-targeted, comprehensive and enabling active inclusion strategies
which include both income support and access to services. The investment approach can be used
in containing the rise of long-term unemployment and jobless households by placing the right
122
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes
124
emphasis on the prevention dimension. For those already in long-term unemployment, a
comprehensive approach that combines activation with income support and enabling services
based on individual contracts can be a solution.
The Employment package123 calls for supporting job creation (through lowering labour tax, wage
subsidies, etc.), increased investment in skills, and a series of labour market reforms (such as
anticipating restructuring, life-long learning, ALMPs) that would facilitate return to the labour
market including for the long-term unemployed.
Long-term labour market exclusion was identified by the SPC as one of the social trends to watch
for 2013 and as such was chosen as a subject to a thematic review in the course of the second half
of 2014124. In its Communication on the social dimension of the EMU from 2 October 2013, the
Commission gives strong priority to the exchange of best practices and policy learning which
should be scaled up in the framework of the OMC. While the issues related to how to address the
challenges of the long-term excluded from the labour market and their effective and sustainable
re-integration into the labour market are very broad, it is proposed that this thematic review
focuses on the social protection perspective, and in particular on the role of activating and
enabling benefits and services in reducing long-term labour market exclusion. This review will
therefore contribute to mutual learning on the modernisation of social protection systems, a
priority area for reform identified in the 2015 Annual Growth Survey125, looking at specific ways to
effectively and efficiently address long-term labour market exclusion.
3.4.2 Recent trends
For the purposes of this note long-term labour market exclusion is examined through
developments in the long-term unemployment, share of population living in (quasi-) jobless
households, the at-risk of poverty rate for the population living in (quasi-) jobless households (all
these three SPPM indicators) and inactivity rates.
3.4.2.1 Long-term unemployment
Around 12.4 million people have been unemployed for at least one year. In the second quarter of
2014, long-term unemployment in the EU remains at the same level as in the second quarter of
2013, i.e. 5.1% of the labour force (-0.1 pp compared to the first quarter of 2013). It is more than
double, however, of the lowest point of the examined period (2.5% in the third quarter of 2008).
The very long-term unemployment rate (people in unemployment for at least two consecutive
123
Towards a job-rich recovery COM/2012/0173 final
124
SPC (2014) Social Europe: Many ways, one objective. Annual report of the Social Protection Committee on the social
situation in the European Union (2013)
125
Annual Growth Survey 2015, COM(2014) 902 final
125
years) also remained stable over the quarter (at 3.1% of the labour force, an increase of 0.2 pp on
the second quarter of 2013). The very long-term unemployment thus represented around 60% of
total long-term unemployment (Figure 57).
Figure 57: Unemployment rate and long-term unemployment indicators in
EU-28
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
Long-term unemployment rates appear to have stabilised in the majority of EU Member States but
continue to increase in countries where they are already high, such as Greece, Spain, Italy and
Cyprus (see Figure 58). In the year to the second quarter of 2014, Cyprus and Greece saw the
largest increase (+2.1 pp), while long-term unemployment rates are at historically high levels in
Greece (19.9%) and Spain (12.9%). In contrast, long-term unemployment fell the most in Latvia (1.3 pp), Ireland (-1.2 pp) and Croatia (-1.0 pp).
126
Figure 58: Levels and changes in long-term unemployment rates 2013 –
2014 in EU 28
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
In the first quarter of 2014, the activity rate in the EU stood at 72.1% for the 15 to 64 year-old
population, representing a total of 242.5 million people (see Figure 59). This represents an increase
of 0.5 pp over the year from the first quarter of 2013 and of 1.8 pp since the first quarter of 2008.
Over the year to the first quarter of 2014, the activity rate remained stable in most Member States,
with significant increases seen in Croatia (+6.9 pp), Hungary (+2.4 pp) and Luxembourg (+1.8 pp).
Only Estonia and Denmark, both countries with activity rates well above the EU average, recorded
significant decreases (around 1.0 pp). In terms of gender differences, while on average there are
more men (5.2%) than women (5.1%) affected by long-term unemployment, there are significant
country differences (with high female long-term unemployment rates in IT and EL).
In Italy, Romania and Malta the activity rate remains low and significantly below that of other
Member States. It is interesting to note that the low overall activity rates in these three countries
are associated with low female activity rates - the lowest activity rates in the EU.
127
Figure 59: Activity rate in the EU-28 Member States – 2008-2014
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
A recent World Bank – European Commission report126 examined trends in labour market
exclusion in six EU member States (Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, and Romania).
During the examined period (2007-2011), the total out-of-work population has increased in five of
the six countries studied. Estonia and Lithuania had the greatest increase in the out-of-work
population (all the inactive population), both increasing 33 percent from 2007 to 2011. In Greece
this group increased almost 26 percent, by more than 550,000 people. Hungary had a small
increase in the out-of-work population (25,000), but had the highest share of out-of-work in 2008
and second highest in 2011 (37 and 38 percent respectively). Only in Romania did the out-of-work
population decrease (2.5 percent or 106,000), but it remains a large share of the total working-age
population (31.2 percent).
The characteristics of the profiles of out-of-work population vary from country to country. Based
on the EU-SILC survey for 2011, in Estonia, Bulgaria, and Greece seven groups of out-of-work
individuals could be identified, while in Lithuania and Romania eight groups distinctive groups
emerge, and in Hungary ten. Nevertheless, there are some general groups that can be identified in
all six countries. Clusters of middle-aged unemployed, long-term unemployed, retirees, disabled,
inactive women or mothers, NEETs (young people not in employment, education or training) and
young unemployed are present in every country. The size, share and profile characteristics are
different, reflecting the demographics and labour market of a particular country. The needs for
support in getting back to the labour market also vary according to the individual's characteristics.
The high share and number of long-term unemployed is another worrisome issue in all the
countries analysed. Across the clusters of unemployed, the share of individuals in long-term
126
Ramya Sundaram, Ulrich Hoerning, at co. (2014). Portraits of labour market exclusion, The World Bank.
128
unemployment in all countries has grown. In addition, in Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, and Romania
long-term unemployed accounted for 12 to 28 percent of the out-of-work population. It is also
worth noting that in some Member States, either for structural reasons or as a consequence of the
crisis, a significant share of long-term unemployed does not correspond to the "traditional" low
skilled profiles.
3.4.2.2 Jobless households
In 2013, around 10.7% (40 million) of Europeans lived in (quasi-)jobless households (i.e. in
households with very low work intensity).127 This share has been increasing in the past years at the
EU level. Differences range from 23.4% (IE) to 6.4% (RO) (Figure 60). Countries such as EL and ES
have faced particularly drastic increases between 2008 and 2013. In EL, the percentage of
population living in (quasi-)jobless households increased from 7.5% to 18.2%. In ES, the rate more
than doubled from 6.6% to 15.7%.
Figure 60: Population living in (quasi-)jobless households
(i.e. very low work intensity households) (age 0-59), 2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC); Note: 2012 data has been used for IE.
Approximately 13 million people live in low work intensity households and are at risk of poverty.
When comparing with 2008 (Figure 61), the latest data shows that worsening trends are observed
in almost half of the Member States. Real improvements (from high levels) are observed in several
MS (BG, EE, HR, LV, FI, UK) but it is important to consider that this is a measure of the income
127
People living in (quasi-)jobless households (i.e. with very low work intensity) are people aged 0-59 living in
households where the adults work less than 20% of their total work potential during the past year.
129
situation of the ones further away from the labour market while their living conditions (e.g.
material deprivation) might show a more attenuated picture.
Figure 61: Evolution of the at-risk-of-poverty rate of (quasi-)
jobless households (0-59), 2008 and 2013
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BG CZ EE HR LV RO FI UK
Poverty risk of the (quasi-) jobless
households is decreasing
DK DE IE
LT NL AT
BE EL FR
Poverty risk of the (quasi-)
jobless households is stable
2013
IT
CY LU HU MT PL PT
SI
SK SE
Poverty risk of the (quasi-) jobless households is increasing
2008
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC); 2012 data has been used for IE, and 2010 instead of 2008 for HR
In comparing the poverty risk of jobless households for households with and without children (see
Figure 62), the overall trend is that (quasi-) jobless households with children have a much higher
poverty risk with SK, SI, HU, RO, PT, EL, FR, CZ and SE where the difference is largest (between 3041 pp). DK, DE and to a lesser extent UK and LV, are the only Member States where (quasi-)
jobless households with dependent children are more protected from poverty risk. Single people
and single parents in particular represent a larger share of those living in jobless and poor
households
130
Figure 62: At-risk-of-poverty rate for the (quasi-) jobless by household type,
2013 or latest available year
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DK UK
NL
IE*
FI
DE
AT
CY
LU
LV
CZ RO
LT
MT HR BE
Without children 2013
IT
HU
ES
PL
EL
FR
PT
BG
SI
EE
SE
SK
With children 2013
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC); 2012 data has been used for IE.
European Commission analysis (2014) shows that those living in jobless and at risk of poverty
households tend more often to be women than men (53% vs 47%). There are slightly more young
people and elderly. Middle age adults (aged25-50) account for 57% of those living in (quasi)jobless and poor households, and 62% of the whole population. Those with a low education level
tend also to be more represented among those living in (quasi-) jobless households at risk of
poverty (44%) while representing only 22% of the total 18-59 population. There are slightly more
migrants (14%) compared with the total 18-59 population of migrants (9%). With regards to their
activity status, most are mainly unemployed (41%) with the remainder being shared between
students aged over 25 (11%), retired but younger than 60 (3%), disabled (13%) and adults fulfilling
domestic tasks (15%).
3.4.3 Policies, best practices and evidence-based responses
Some of the main barriers to labour market integration of people on long-term unemployment
include:

Low level/lack of qualifications; outdated qualifications not matching labour market
requirements, with a risk of skills obsolescence increasing with the length of
unemployment

Low motivation and resignation after prolonged periods of unemployment and low
employability due to lack of work habits; limited knowledge of job search techniques

Disincentives to work (e.g. linked with tax-benefit systems)
131

Barriers affecting the capacity to find work: poor public transport, lack of child care
facilities, health issues

Lack of 'life skills' resulting from socialisation in a disadvantaged family or neighbourhood
and/or from school drop-outs and failures in one‘s career
In order to overcome these barriers, social protection systems need to be modernised and provide
a combination of well-designed adequate income support (minimum income, housing benefit…)
which does not result in unemployment/inactivity traps, quality enabling services (childcare, elderly
care, transport problems, debt-counselling, health issues…) and activating measures. Early and
preventative support should also be provided to those at risk of becoming long-term unemployed.
Tackling these barriers calls for a comprehensive approach to labour market integration (e.g.
access to child-care, public transport or health counselling). There is evidence128 that well-designed
policies can make a difference when it comes to transitioning out of unemployment. Participation
in training and ALMPs by unemployed persons improves their transition rates out of
unemployment. However, participation in training is currently limited in many Member States,
particularly among low and medium skilled workers. Another finding is the positive effect of being
registered with the public employment service, particularly when receiving unemployment benefits.
As the focus of this background paper is on the social protection perspective, and more
specifically, on the role of activating and enabling benefits and services, the following section will
look at the role of unemployment benefits and minimum income schemes and their link to
activation, as well as, at the role of other enabling benefits and services. Finally it will examine the
importance of comprehensive policy responses and individualised services.
3.4.3.1 The role of unemployment benefits
Besides activation measures there is a need to provide income support for individuals and
households that have lost their jobs and incomes. Unemployment benefits (both contributory and
non-contributory) act as a cushion to sudden income losses. In this respect, unemployment
benefits are vital to keep households on a lifeline and avoid loss of human capital.
A recent assessment of the unemployment benefit systems in the EU129 reveals some interesting
dynamics on the structure and nature of unemployment benefit systems. Within the EU, there are
groups of countries with relatively homogenous benefit systems. Nordic and Continental countries
are characterised by relatively generous unemployment benefit systems both in terms of
entitlement conditions and income support per unemployed. In both groups, activation and active
labour market policies have a prominent role, with job search conditionality being strong especially
128
European Commission (2012). Employment and social developments in Europe 2012.
129
Stovichek, K. and Turrini, A. (2012). Benchmarking unemployment benefit systems. European Commission, Economic
Papers 454.
132
in Nordic countries. In Anglo-Saxon countries, unemployment insurance benefits are relatively
modest, while unemployment assistance plays a major role. Monitoring of job-search activity is
strict whilst active labour market policies play a less important role. In Southern countries, access to
unemployment insurance is strict and benefit generosity varies widely depending on age and
contribution period. Finally, Central and Eastern countries tend to exhibit a tight unemployment
benefit system both in terms of benefit support per unemployed and benefit coverage. Although
replacement rates at the beginning of the unemployment spell can be high in some cases, benefits
drop sharply over the unemployment spell. Strict conditions on job search and availability often
apply.
The overall generosity of unemployment benefit systems exhibits a high degree of variation across
EU countries. In most Member States the theoretical adequacy of unemployment benefits, as
measured by the net replacement rates, is improved by the presence of the children in the
household and decreases with unemployment spells. The net replacement for families not entitled
to cash housing assistance or social assistance ranges from below 40% in CZ, LT, SK and the UK to
over 75% in DK, NL and PT. The provision of cash housing assistance or social assistance improves
the net replacements rates significantly in some Member States, especially in CZ, LV, and the UK
(Figure 63).
Figure 63: Net replacements of unemployment benefits for families entitled
versus not entitled to cash housing assistance or social assistance, 2010
Source: European Commission (2014, forthcoming); DG EMPL calculations based on OECD-EC tax-benefit model
3.4.3.2 The role of minimum income schemes
Minimum income schemes (MI) provide cash benefits to ensure a minimum standard of living for
individuals (and their dependants) that have either no other means of financial support, or whose
resources fall short of a given level, despite including contributory cash benefits and support from
other family members. MI schemes are considered as ‗schemes of last resort.‘ They provide a
safety net to protect people from destitution if they are not eligible for social insurance benefits, or
133
are no longer entitled to such benefits. They play an even more important role in a crisis, when the
rise in unemployment has already had an impact on social assistance schemes.130
Almost all EU countries have some form of MI scheme at national level. Member States that do not
have one, such as Italy, have some sort of scheme at regional or local level. These are generally
conceived as a short-term form of assistance, though in most Member States, they are not
formally time-limited. They are means-tested and funded through the tax system (i.e. noncontributory). They are intended mainly for people out of work, but some Member States (CY, DE,
LT, FR, PT, RO, SI, SE and IE) have extended their scope to provide in-work income support.
In most Member States, MI schemes are designed at national level, while delivery is delegated to
the local authorities.131 An examination of various national definitions132 shows that most Member
States use a statutory minimum level of income, fixed by the (national, regional, local) legislator or
government. Further classifications are possible along territorial arrangements, type of benefits
(cash vs. in-kind), and existence of top-ups (or income tapers). Minimum income benefits in
general are adjusted periodically.133 In none of the Member States is the minimum income level
linked to national minimum wage.
The design of MI schemes varies widely among Member States. In terms of comprehensiveness
(i.e. the extent to which MI schemes are non-categorical, thus applying to those on low incomes in
general, rather than to specific subgroups), four ‗broad‘ groups of countries can be
distinguished.134
-
Group 1 (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, FI, NL, PT, RO, SI, SE) is characterised by relatively simple and
comprehensive MI schemes, generally open to those without sufficient means to live in dignity.
-
Group 2 is smaller (EE, HU, LT, LV, PL, SK). It has simple and non-categorical135 MI schemes
accompanied by more restricted eligibility conditions.
130
Social assistance (SA) schemes represent the broader category including MI benefits together with other types of
benefits such as housing benefits, child benefits and unemployment assistance benefits.
131
In a few Member States, like Austria and Hungary, responsibility for policy decisions on SA benefit levels and eligibility
conditions is partly delegated to regional/local governments.
132
MISSOC Analysis (2011). Guaranteed Minimum Resources, MISSOC Secretariat for the European Commission,
Contract nr. VC/2010/1131.
133
Most Member States do automatic adjustments following changes in the consumer price index (in some countries an
increase will only take place if the consumer index is raised by a certain percentage (CZ, LU, BE)). Some Member States
will only adjust at irregular intervals after a decision by the government (LT, EE), while in other countries this will depend
on the available budgetary resources (BG, LV). However, the periodicity of adjustment varies from every 6 months (SI,
NL), to each year (almost all Member States), up to once every 3 years (PL), or at irregular intervals (LT, EE). Source:
MISSOC Analysis 2011.
134
Frazer H. and E. Marlier (2009) ‗Minimum income schemes across EU Member States. Synthesis Report‘.
135
Access to categorical benefits is restricted based on some personal characteristics (single, with children, etc.) noncategorical benefits are benefits with no restriction based on personal characteristics. .
134
-
Group 3 (ES, FR,136 IE, MT, UK137) is characterised by a complex set of different and often
categorical schemes that sometimes overlap but generally cover most of those with insufficient
means.
-
Finally, there is a small group of countries with limited, partial or piecemeal arrangements only
covering narrow categories of people (BG, IT, EL).
Eligibility conditions (commonly related to age, nationality, residence, lack of financial resources
and availability for work) vary significantly. In some Member States, where there are only
piecemeal and categorical schemes, there are people on very low incomes that do not have
access to any form of MI scheme.
Over the past years many Member States have tightened eligibility conditions.138 Conditionality has
generally been increased and availability for work has usually been more tightly enforced for those
are fit to work. There are often sanctions if beneficiaries fail to comply with the requirement that
they must be available for work. Sanctions may lead to reductions in benefits, and to the loss of
the right to SA benefits in more extreme cases. There is also a trend towards a stronger link
between income support through MI schemes and activation measures including vocational
training, job search assistance, and counselling.
MI schemes are of unlimited duration in all Member States. They are granted for as long as a
person is in need of support, and need is monitored by regular checks that beneficiaries do indeed
fulfil eligibility conditions. National MI schemes differ as regards the duration for which benefits are
available after each application, so the frequency with which a claimant has to reapply varies. For
example, in FR the Revenu de solidarité active (RSA) has to be renewed after three months, in BG,
SI and LV after six months, while in PT, the period is 12 months.139
Considering overall income support, it should be noted that in some Member States, MI claimants
also receive additional assistance for specific needs, such as housing benefits, contributions to fuel
costs and means-tested child benefits. Though not formally classified as ‗guaranteed MI benefits‘
these do contribute to the level of income that is actually guaranteed to people supported by MI
schemes.
The theoretical adequacy of social assistance can be measured by the net income of people on
social assistance relative to the poverty threshold (Figure 64). Countries differ substantially in terms
of the minimum safety nets they provide to workless households, even relative to the at-risk-ofpoverty threshold, which depends on the living standards within each country. Only a few
136
This has improved with the introduction of the Revenu de solidarité active in 2009.
137
Although some of this complexity is being addressed in the UK by the gradual introduction of Universal Credit.
138
A follow-up survey, conducted in autumn 2011 and spring 2012, on the implementation of the active inclusion
strategies at national level (based on pre-filled questionnaires complemented by MS information) found that more
countries have implemented stricter eligibility criteria for minimum income (CZ, FR HU, PT, RO, UK) compared to those
that relaxed eligibility (MT, LT) in the examined period (2008-2012).
139
MISSOC database for 2011.
135
countries provide households with a minimum income and related benefits (for example housing)
that are sufficient to lift them close to, or above, the 60% median income threshold, and this is true
only for some family types.
Figure 64: Net income of people living on social assistance relative
to median income, 2010
80
Net income of people living on social assistance relative to
median equivalised income (including cash housing assistance)
70
60
%
50
40
30
20
10
0
IE
DK
UK
NL
FI
DE
MT
LU
SE
AT
BE
CZ
LV
SI
FR
PT
PL
HU
EE
ES
SK
RO
BG
Source: OECD-EC tax-benefit model
3.4.3.3 The link between activation and income support
Active labour market policies help ensure that unemployment and social assistance benefit
recipients and other jobseekers have a better chance of finding employment than they would
otherwise have. Key features of such policies140 are to establish and enforce work-availability and
mutual obligation requirements, meaning that benefit recipients are expected to engage in active
job search and improve their employability in exchange for receiving efficient employment services
and benefit payment. By improving skills, they are better able to return to "reduce the risk of long
term marginalization from the labour market." (Gallie and Paugam 2000). Overall, the effective
integration of activation policies and unemployment benefit systems are seen as crucial in
containing the potential disincentive effects of benefits141.
Measures to increase access to and intensity of employment are widespread, particularly in
response to the economic and financial crisis. These measures usually fall under the broad
category of active labour market policies (ALMPs). Shared characteristics of ALMPs in Member
140
See www.oecd.org/els/employment/almp
141
This is confirmed by various macro-econometric evaluation studies that found evidence for interactions between
activation policies and other policies, for instance that spending on activation policies mitigates the impact on higher
unemployment benefits in rising unemployment (Bassaninin and Duval 2006).
136
States are profiling, job counselling, educational training and (re-)qualification.142 Subsidised
employment, public work programmes, short-term paid employment, traineeships and voluntary
work are among ways of reintegrating people into work. While all Member States have policies for
the unemployed and job seekers generally, the degree to which these target those who are
furthest from the labour market (e.g. social assistance recipients) varies substantially. However,
some Member States (BE, DE, AT, FI, LU, PL, SI) specifically target these recipients by means of
separate programmes.
Among the unemployed and recipients of social assistance and activation policies, Member States
often identify different sub-targets for ALPMs, among which young and older workers, low-skilled
and long-term unemployed, migrants and people with disabilities. For example, IE targets older
workers, while the UK targets young people within the Jobseeker‘s Allowance scheme. DK and SE
have separate schemes for older workers and young unemployed people. Measures currently in
place in DE, SK, SI and ES tend to focus on the long-term unemployed. An overwhelming majority
of Member States143 link the right to income support to the willingness to work and a minimum
commitment to seeking a job, vocational or occupational training. In SK, proving one‘s willingness
to work and to accept a suitable job is only compulsory when applying for the highest level of
income support benefit.144
The conditions under which job seekers have to accept a job offer varies across Member States. In
CZ and DE, job seekers are required to accept any job, even if it is short-term, or a mismatch with
their skills. In LV, EE, SK, MT and NL145, job seekers are obliged to accept suitable work only
(subject to the relevant authority‘s assessment).
‗Reluctant behaviours or attitudes‘ such as refusing a job offer or refusing to take part in ALMPs
are generally penalised by sanctions. These vary, and include withdrawal of benefits and grants
(e.g. in EE, SI, LT, CZ, EE), withdrawal of benefits (e.g. BG, CY, HU), suspension of benefits (e.g. LT,
DK) or lowering the level of benefits (LV, IE).
If a job seeker is unable to find work, most Member States offer vocational or occupational
training. Some also provide various counselling services which can cover advice to manage debt or
addiction or psychological support (DE) during drug or alcohol rehabilitation (MT). In SI, job
seekers may have to sign a contract with the Social Work Centre to take part in social and/or
health programmes (SI). In other countries such as LU, an ‗integration allowance‘ is available only if
job seekers take part in an ‗integration activity‘. In NL, a young person who is not in employment
142
For a classification by type of action see Eurostat (2010). Labour market policy — expenditure and participants.
143
MISSOC Analysis (2011). Guaranteed Minimum Resources, MISSOC Secretariat for the European Commission,
Contract nr. VC/2010/1131, Page 17.
144
145
MISSOC Analysis (2011).
In the NL any job will have to be accepted after 12 months of unemployment.
137
or education (NEET) has the right to request a job or an offer of a place in education from the
local municipality.146
If occupational or vocational training is not successful, some public administrations provide
(mandatory) measures to ensure activation (RO, BG, NL, LV, HU). This may mean compulsory
involvement in public works147 (e.g. providing social services, cleaning). This dimension should in
many cases be complemented in order to improve job seekers‘ prospects of finding work, to avoid
locking them into such schemes (LV, HU).148
Back-to-work benefits (such as gradual phasing out of income support, tax allowances and in-work
benefits) and earnings disregards (income that is disregarded when it comes to assessing tax
liability) complement ALMPs in making it more attractive to take a job. Taxing labour income is a
prominent element of every Member State‘s tax policy. So it is important to understand the
underlying relationship between taxation and labour supply. Evidence suggests that secondary
earners are much more responsive to wages (and thus taxes) than primary earners. If the tax
burden is too high, secondary earners might decide they are better off not working, or (more
rarely), working fewer hours.149 Disincentives can also stem from joint taxation.
3.4.3.4 The role of enabling services in reducing labour market barriers
Active labour market services, aimed at increasing employability and attractiveness on the labour
market, are essential for providing opportunities for employment. However, these services are
often not enough to overcome remaining non-work related barriers to employment and job
seeking activities, e.g. access to child-care, public transport and health counselling. Pairing both
active labour market services with enabling support services increase possibilities and decrease
obstacles to gaining and taking up employment. Provision of these services to long-term
unemployed should be combined with access to benefits or social assistance to ensure basic
financial support. Connection between support given by service providers and participation in the
offered services is strengthened, with all parties being linked by mutual obligations to the fulfilment
of the contract.
A key success factor is strengthened cooperation and coordination between all relevant actors
(such as PES, authorities managing cash benefits and related support services, social partners,
146
The recently adopted Youth Employment Package aims to tackle the phenomenon of NEET at Member State level.
For more information see: COM(2012) 727 final.
147
European Commission (2013). Public works – does it work? Issue paper prepared by DG EMPL, unit E5.
148
Commission Staff Working Documents, Assessment of the 2012 national reform programme and convergence
programme for Hungary and Latvia, SWD(2012) 317 final, SWD(2012) 320 final.
149
In the US, for every 10 % reduction in after-tax wages, primary earners work about 1 % fewer hours, for an elasticity of
labour supply with respect to after-tax wages of 0.1. Secondary earners are much more responsive to wages (and thus
taxes), with elasticities of labour supply with respect to after-tax wages estimated to range from 0.5 to 1. Source: Gruber
(2011) Public finance and public policy, Third edition, Worth Publishers, pp. 628.
138
private employment services, social welfare centres, NGOs, municipalities, training and education
providers). This is because the jobless households and long-term unemployed have various
barriers (e.g. care needs, income support, reskilling, counselling support, employment
opportunities) which are addressed by a variety of actors.
While there is no overarching indicator on access to enabling services, there is information on
access on four main service areas: early childhood education and care (ECEC), life-long learning,
housing, and healthcare (seeFigure 65 below). The overall picture on access to services is rather
mixed. On the one hand, the Scandinavian and Western European countries are characterized by
relatively high access to services (with some notable exceptions such as Austria in case of ECEC or
France in life-long learning150). On the other end of the spectrum are the Member States from
Eastern Europe that are characterized by low access across the board.
Figure 65: Indicators on access to enabling services (2010)
Source: Employment and Social Developments in Europe Review (2013)
150
Although caution is needed with the figure for life-long learning as after a break in the time series in 2013 the figure
for life-long learning for France in 2013 is much higher (17.7% in 2013).
139
Description of the set of indicators used to describe access to
services
Source: Employment and Social Developments (2013)
Note: Figures refer to the year 2010.
Example of Member States‘ efforts in supporting social welfare services: the
case of Estonia
In order to guarantee the quality and purposefulness of rehabilitation service, Estonia is splitting
the service into two components: vocational rehabilitation and social rehabilitation. Such division
enables to offer better-targeted services that result in higher effectiveness. Persons with partial
capability of work receive rehabilitation services that are linked with their (possible) employment.
Estonia also continues to implement a counselling services project for people with multiple
problems and their family members. The target is people whose income is below or who are at
risk of falling below absolute poverty line, who are recipients of subsistence benefit and have some
additional problems (for example care burden, low social skills, low educational attainment, health
problems, debts, insufficient social skills, etc.) that can be obstacles to participate in the labour
market or may have difficulties with everyday coping are entitled to the services. In 2013, 45% of
people who participated in the project maintained their job or started working and 27% started
participating in active labour market measures. The project has significantly improved the use of
the case management method in local governments. Based on the positive experience so far, the
project will widen the scope of services that are offered in counselling centres, including specific
experts (lawyers, clinical psychologists, psychiatrist and social pedagogues) in the network that
delivers counselling services.
3.4.3.5 The need for a comprehensive policy approach targeted to individual needs
The assessment of the active inclusion strategies151 at national level highlights the importance of a
comprehensive policy response to the rising unemployment and the resulting poverty, as well as
151
European Commission Communication of 20 February 2013 Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion –
including implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020, CSWD 39 final.
140
of an early intervention for those at risk of becoming unemployed. The assessment clearly shows
that Member States with robust social protection systems characterised by adequate income
support, high coverage of unemployment and social assistance, access to enabling services, and
strong activation policies have weathered much better the crisis. The provision of such
comprehensive policy response might be favoured by the use of individualised integration
contracts, the coordination of employment and social services, and/or the setting-up of one-stop
shops.
The particular case of jobless households and long term unemployed, which often times combine
a number of disadvantages, is a good example of the need for comprehensive measures to
address the problem. It is important to contrast the social isolation and reach out to these families
in order to connect them to the community. To these aim social services and particularly family
centres offer good opportunity of (first) contact. Support for improving parenting and life
capacities can be a first step to improve employability, as it has a direct effect on self-esteem and
therefore on attitude. Often times these households are households with dependent children. IN
relation to this, a recent review of activation policies in OECD countries (Martin 2014) finds that
activation measures have been most effective for unemployment benefit recipients and also for
recipients of sole-parent benefits when assistance is provided with child care.
Support for the labour market integration of the unemployed should be tailored around the
individuals' needs and offer options which meet their skills and interests and avoid placing
individuals into predetermined employment pathways. A correct assessment of skills and
placement into different streams (e.g. through profiling) could allow to better tailor these services.
Unemployed individuals must be transparently informed and aware of each step concerning their
reinsertion path in order to improve their sense of ownership.
3.4.4 Results of the thematic in-depth review
The second thematic review of the 2014 SPPM 'trends to watch' focused on long-term exclusion
from the labour market and the role of activating and enabling benefits and services for
addressing it. The participating countries (DK, LT, BG and IE) outlined different challenges and
policy approaches in addressing long-term unemployment. These conclusions draw on the results
from this review.
Long-term unemployed people form a heterogeneous group with specific and different obstacles
such as health concerns, difficulty in reconciling work and family life, social problems, or lack of
skills. Understanding the profile of the target population is crucial to effectively implement policies
and support their re-integration into the labour market. Measures to fight LTU need to take a
comprehensive approach tailored around individual needs to be effective, including targeted
activation, adequate income support and enabling services. Profiling can help to develop better
targeted measures. Early intervention and preventative support to those at risk of becoming longterm unemployed is also important.
141
The potential of education and up-skilling in bringing people back into jobs differs in relation to
the profile of the target population, their educational background, their potential and the concrete
labour market situation. Skill mismatches cannot always be reduced. In some cases, there is no
sufficient labour demand even for the highly skilled and educated long-term unemployed. Not all
job seekers should be dealt with in the same way; one has to look at specific characteristics and
see how these are best addressed. Specific groups need more attention and are often not
sufficiently covered by the services of the public employment and other job search services. For
example, the activation measures and training offers often do not suit the specific labour market
needs of LTU with high education levels.
Both the individual and the household perspective need to be taken into consideration. In fact,
jobless households are often confronted with a combination of multiple social problems. Better
investigation and monitoring of the dynamics of jobless households and the way households enter
and exit joblessness is needed. Single parents form another fragile group on the labour market,
especially if coming from a low education and socially disadvantaged background. People with
disabilities, having a right to be integrated into the labour market, provide additional challenges
for public employment services. Activation measures for people living in rural / remote areas are
often underdeveloped; targeted investment is needed to compensate their difficulties in accessing
the labour market.
Flexible approaches, in which people are supported to take up work also for a limited number of
hours per week, depending to their capacities, can be a stepping stone to more complete labour
market integration. For such an approach to work, it is crucial to motivate people to work
gradually more hours and increase labour market participation. An active role by employers is also
necessary. First experiences show that employers might indeed be willing to use and interested in
such flexible approaches.
The design of the level and duration of benefits, contributory-based unemployment benefits,
minimum income as well as related benefits, should ensure an adequate income while at the same
time avoiding unemployment or inactivity traps. Reforms also need to ensure an adequate
transition between unemployment benefits and minimum income schemes and an effective
coverage. Supporting reintegration into the labour market requires linking these benefits to
activating and enabling services. Reforms to tax and benefit systems can encourage employment
by removing financial disincentives and ensuring smooth transitions into the labour market.
Provide additional incentives for people to accept work such as receiving social benefits during the
first months of employment in addition to their pay can help transition and cover initial extra costs
in taking up work.
Systems should avoid having an excessive number of people permanently on assistance schemes
and help to increase the returns on investment in continuous activation measures. This can include
also targeted support for persons in vulnerable situations and / or those with care duties allowing
them more flexibility between employment gains and access to benefits. There is potential value
added of customised packages for services and ensuring a proper implementation of a "rights and
142
obligation" approach in receiving benefits. Experience in some Member State shows that reducing
the maximum duration of unemployment benefits can bring people quicker into employment, but
the effects in long-term labour market integration require close monitoring. It is key that those
who remain unemployed keep enrolled in active labour market schemes. This requires a closer
cooperation between employment and social services.
Activation measures/ enabling services need to be timely, effective and efficient; for this
monitoring and evaluation is key. The efficiency and effectiveness of public employment services
and social services as well as the individual role, responsibility and workload of case
handlers/employment promoters are a crucial factor. Also the cooperation and coordination
between employment and social services to provide a more integrated support to long-term
unemployed often needs improvement. Good practice examples are dedicated teams at local
level, composed of different services and discussing individual cases, can ensure better
coordinated support. A 'one-stop shop' approach can simplify and streamline the service and
improve take-up. Depending on the governance structure, empowering the municipal/local
authorities can strengthen the offer and effectiveness of activation measures.
4. The 2014 social trends to watch
This year‘s summary of the results from the analysis of the key social indicators included in the
Social Protection Performance Monitor dashboard (Figure 66), show the following main trends to
watch for the most recent period (2012-2013):

increases in the risk of poverty for the overall population (registered in 8 MS) and in the
depth of poverty as proxied by the poverty gap (registered in 10 MS)

continued rises in the share of (quasi-) jobless households (registered in 11 MS)

increasing housing cost overburden rate (in 9 MS)

declines in real gross household disposable income (in 11 MS)

increase in the working poor (8 MS).
These social trends to watch are partly balanced by positive developments in the following areas:

rising labour market participation of older workers (increase of the employment rate for
55-64 year olds in 18 MS)

improving income and living conditions situation of the elderly (improvements in 15 MS)

some improvement in the severe material deprivation rate (in 11 MS) and the risk of
poverty or social exclusion for the overall population (in 11 MS)

further reductions in the rate of early school leavers (in 10 MS)
143

some improvement in the situation of the working poor (in 7 MS) and in the risk of poverty
or social exclusion among children (8 MS).
Compared to the results from last year‘s edition of the SPPM, there is a more nuanced picture
across the EU with more mixed signs of developments in the living conditions of the population
across Member States, although trends in the share of (quasi-) jobless households, the risk and
depth of poverty, the evolution in household disposable income and housing cost overburden
remain mainly negative.
Figure 66: Social trends to watch and areas of improvement for the period
2012-2013
Source: Social Protection Performance Monitor
Note: i) No 2013 EU-SILC data for IE, so IE has not been considered for the evolutions with regard to SILC indicators. ii)
For 2013 SILC-data ES registered a major break in series for the EU-SILC income variables. As a result, income related
indicators are not comparable to 2012 for this country and ES has therefore not been considered in the trends to watch
for these indicators. iii) For the ―persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate‖ most figures are for the change 2011-2012, but where
figures for 2013 are available (AT, CZ, DK, EE, FI, HU, MT and SI) the changes 2012-2013 are used.
144
Figure 67 shows the evolution since the beginning of the Europe 2020 strategy. For most social
areas, the situation has worsened considerably as a result of the economic crisis. The areas with
the most substantial deterioration are:

youth exclusion (significant increases in NEETs and youth unemployment ratio in almost all
MS)

(long term) exclusion from the labour market (increases in the long term unemployment
rate and in the share of the population in (quasi-) jobless households in more than 2/3 of
MS), together with rises in the poverty risk for (quasi-) jobless households in 14 MS

child poverty and social exclusion (with 19 MS registering increases with reference to 2008)

increasing income inequality (in 13 MS)

rising housing cost overburden rate for households (in 15 MS)

declines in real gross household disposable income (in 11 MS)

increases in self-reported unmet need for medical care (9 MS)

increase in the level and the depth of poverty and deterioration in living conditions
(increases in the at-risk-of-poverty rate in 1/3 of MS and in the severe material deprivation
rate and the poverty gap in around 2/3 of MS, increases in the overall at risk of poverty or
social exclusion rate in ½ of all MS).
There have been also a number of improvements, notably in the areas of increasing number of
healthy life years, especially among men, and significant decreases in the number of early school
leavers in Europe (in 20 MS). The labour market situation of older workers has also improved
markedly, as evidenced by improvements in the employment rate for the age group 55-64 in 2/3
of Member States. The relative situation of the elderly aged 65 and over also shows clear signs of
improvement in almost all MS, with decreases in the number of elderly living in poverty or social
exclusion as well as the improvement of their income situation with respect to the rest of the
population. However, this trend should be read with great caution as it does not necessarily show
improvement in absolute terms. As pension income remained stable during the economic crisis
while the working age population suffered from substantial income loss (wage decreases, job loss,
decrease in benefit levels), the relative, but not necessarily the absolute, position of the elderly has
improved, highlighting the important role of pension systems.
145
Figure 67: Social trends to watch and areas of improvement for the period
2008-2013
Source: Social Protection Performance Monitor
Note: i) Latest data available for Ireland refers to 2012 and changes are presented for the period 2008-2012 only; ii)
Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so longer term changes are presented for the period
2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on
trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious; iv) For ―
the ―persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate‖ most figures are for the change 2008-2012, but where figures for 2013 are
available (AT, CZ, DK, EE, FI, HU, MT and SI) the changes 2008-2013 are used.
Figure 68 shows the number of key social indicators included in the SPPM dashboard for which a
given country has registered a statistically significant deterioration over the period 2008 to 2013.
The Member States with the most worrisome outcomes are CY, EL, ES and SI with deterioration on
15 indicators or more. At the other end of the scale, AT, CZ, DE and FI have only registered
statistically significant deterioration on 4 or fewer indicators.
146
Figure 68: Number of SPPM key social indicators with a statistically
significant deterioration between 2008 and 2013 by Member State
Source: Social Protection Performance Monitor
Note: i) Latest data available for Ireland for EU-SILC based indicators refers to 2012 and changes for those indicators
refer to the period 2008-2012 only; ii) Major break in series in 2013 in ES for income variables in EU-SILC, so longer term
changes for EU-SILC based income indicators refer to the period 2008-2012 only; iii) For UK, changes in the survey
vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the
longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious; iv) The bars refer to the number of SPPM indictors which have
registered a statistically significant deterioration between 2008 and 2013 (for ―persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate‖ the
period covered is instead 2008-2012 due to data availability).
147
5. SPPM dashboard
148
Note: i) Only statistically significant evolutions have been highlighted. Eurostat calculations on statistical significance of net change have been used for the following indicators: for the
period 2012-2013 – AROPE, AROP, SMD, (quasi-)jobless households (i.e. VLWI households), persistent poverty rate, IWP, Children AROPE, AROPE 65+, AROP in (quasi-)jobless
households, housing cost overburden rate, for the period 2008-2013 – AROPE, persistent poverty rate. In all the remaining cases (except for real GHDI growth where any non-zero result
is shown as significant) a 1pp threshold has been used for all indicators but the indicators based on ratios and the healthy life years indicators for which a 5% threshold has been used as
specified in the SPPM methodological paper approved by the SPC. ii) No 2013 data for IE for SILC-based indicators, so for these figures refer to 2012 and changes are presented for the
period 2008-2012 only; iii) Breaks in series in 2013 for all EU-SILC income-based indicators for ES, so no latest year changes are shown while longer term changes are presented for the
period 2008-2012 only; iv) For UK, changes in the EU-SILC survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the
longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious.
149
Summary table of the statistical significance rules applied for each SPPM indicator
Significance thresholds used
Indicator
change 2012-2013
change 2008-2013
At risk of poverty or social exclusion (in %)
Estat estimates
Estat estimates
At-risk-of-poverty rate (in %)
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
>+-5%
>+-5%
Severe material deprivation rate (in %)
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
Population living in (quasi-)jobless (i.e. very low work intensity) households (in %)
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
At-risk-of-poverty threshold for a single person household (in pps)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (in %)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate (in %)
Income quantile ratio (S80/S20)
Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (in %)
>+-1pp
>+-1pp
Estat estimates
Estat estimates
>+-5%
>+-5%
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
>+-5%
>+-5%
At-risk-of-poverty rate for the population living in (quasi-) jobless households (in %)
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate (in %)
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
Long-term unemployment rate (in %)
>+-1pp
>+-1pp
Early school leavers (in %)
>+-1pp
>+-1pp
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
>+-1pp
>+-1pp
NEET (18-24)
>+-1pp
>+-1pp
Employment rate for older workers (55-64), in %
>+-1pp
>+-1pp
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
Median relative income ratio of elderly people
>+-5%
>+-5%
Aggregate replacement ratio
>+-5%
>+-5%
Self-reported unmet need for medical care
>+-1pp
>+-1pp
Healthy life years at 65 - males
n.a.
>+-5%
Healthy life years at 65 - females
n.a.
>+-5%
Estat estimates
>+-1pp
+ or -
+ or -
Impact of social transfers (excluding pensions) on poverty reduction (in %)
At risk of poverty or social exclusion rate for the elderly (65+), in %
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household disposable income (in %)
150
6. Views of the European Social Partners
UEAPME comments:
Draft Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee
on the social situation in the EU
General comments
 UEAPME, the European Association of Crafts and SMEs, welcomes the in-depth
analysis of social policy challenges and trends of the SPC report, which complements
other publications, such as the annual Joint Employment Report.

The economic recovery still remains fragile with weak and uneven signs of growth, and
high unemployment levels, including notably long-term unemployment. In relation to
this, poverty and social exclusion have risen over the past few years in most Member
States, which translates into little progress in reaching the EU‘s social poverty target.
Further efforts are needed by Member States in line with the integrated approach of
the Annual Growth Survey on boosting investments, structural reforms and growthfriendly fiscal responsibility.

The findings show that those countries with less segmented labour markets, solid
industrial relations and ―strong‖ welfare systems have tended to fare better during the
crisis. However, we consider that more focus should be put on effectiveness, efficiency
and sustainability of social protection spending, since many countries are affected by
tighter budgets and have to achieve better results with fewer resources.
Specific comments
 UEAPME agrees that structural long-term unemployment which has been exacerbated
by the crisis is a major driver of increasing trends in poverty and social exclusion. In
fact, it has more than doubled since 2008, and is continuing to rise with the worrying
phenomenon of ―very-long term unemployment‖, i.e. over two years constituting
about 60% of the total long-term unemployed. This bears a significant risk of
individuals not returning to the labour market at all.

SMEs play a vital role for job creation and contributing to social cohesion at local level.
On the demand side, further efforts are needed to create a more favourable business
environment including in relation to employment regulation, and support investments
for small enterprises in accordance with the Juncker Investment Plan. On the supply
side, work needs to be made more attractive. Diverse contractual arrangements are a
stepping stone into the labour market. Wages should be in line with productivity and
taxes shifted from labour. Non-wage labour costs should be reduced in particular for
151
low-skilled or low-paid workers, and those affected by in work-poverty to provide
incentives to stay in work.
152

Individually targeted Active Labour Market Policies policies, including early activation,
are vital to cater for different groups. However, the report shows differences in the EU,
for example that only a number of Member States is taking into account the needs of
those furthest from the labour market. We believe this should be extended to all
Member States.

ALMP need to be implemented in an integrative manner with well-functioning public
employment services and enabling support services, such as childcare or transport.
ALMP should also focus on matching labour supply and demand by helping
unemployed to be retrained and to acquire skills needed on the labour market. In this
respect, we welcome that the role of social partners has been identified as one of the
key success factors regarding cooperation with relevant actors to tackle labour market
barriers and hence achieve more inclusive labour markets.

15.9% of all young people are not in employment, education or training, and they are
also at highest risk of poverty among all age groups. They are also much likely to have
low levels of education, compared to their age cohort. It is thus urgent to speed-up
implementation of the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative. UEAPME
stresses that it requires addressing administrative bottlenecks, possible pre-financing
issues, and continuous reforms of labour markets and education and training systems,
in order to improve basic skills, tackle skills mismatches, and ensure a greater focus on
learning outcomes in line with labour market needs.

In this context, EU social partners have adopted their first implementation report on
the Framework of Actions on Youth Employment152, which demonstrates a wide range
of social partner activities on promoting learning, transitions, employment and
entrepreneurship for young people. On a positive note, some progress has been
achieved in lowering early school leaving.

As highlighted in the report, there is a positive link between human capital,
productivity and growth. In our view, social protection policies should therefore further
improve the link to enhancing skills and competences across the lifecycle, including to
prevent exclusion. Quality vocational training and work-based learning, also at a higher
level, have proven to facilitate transitions from education to the labour market, and
more should be done to support SMEs as key providers of apprenticeships, workbased and informal learning.

We note favourably some improvements for older workers, including female older
workers, which have led to a higher effective retirement age. On pensions, findings
show that Member States have had some success in better tackling early labour
http://www.ueapme.com/IMG/pdf/1st-follow-up-report-FoA-Youth-Sept-2014-Final.pdf
152
market exits and linking retirement age to longevity, which also helps to promote the
adequacy and sustainability of pensions. Yet more emphasis should lie on
strengthening the development of occupational pensions and complementary private
savings to ensure a more adequate retirement income spread across pillars, as well as
providing incentives for companies to adapt workplaces.

The European Social Fund plays an important role in tackling social exclusion. The
report could be complemented with good practices of how Member States are
efficiently using it for facilitating the effective reintegration of people into the labour
market.
03/02/15
For further information please contact:
Helen Hoffmann, Adviser for Social Affairs
[email protected]
UNION EUROPEENNE DE L’ARTISANAT ET DES PETITES ET MOYENNES ENTREPRISES EUROPÄISCHE UNION DES
HANDWERKS UND DER KLEIN- UND MITTELBETRIEBE EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION OF CRAFT, SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ENTERPRISES UNIONE EUROPEA DELL’ARTIGIANATO E DELLE PICCOLE E MEDIE IMPRESE
1 MAISON DE L'ECONOMIE EUROPEENNE - RUE JACQUES DE LALAINGSTRAAT 4 - B-1040 BRUXELLES TEL +32 (0)2 230 75 99 - FAX
+32 (0)2 230 78 61 - E-MAIL [email protected]
153
General economic and social situation
BUSINESSEUROPE shares the analysis in the SPC report that there is a slight improvement in the
overall economic and social situation in the EU, however, whereas the report states that there has
been strong growth in some countries, overall the economic recovery lacks momentum. Positively,
the report states that there has been some growth in employment in most member states. But in
BUSINESSEUROPE‘s view, overall this is still weak. While economic and employment growth
continues at a slow pace, we are equally concerned about continuing high levels of
unemployment, particularly in the euro area and among young people.
Differences remain between member states in terms of the resilience of their social systems and
labour markets to deal with the impact of the crisis. This is due to structural weaknesses that
already existed before the crisis. We agree that well-functioning and efficient welfare systems, as
well as effective industrial relations can have a positive impact. But in fact, what really made a
difference is where countries undertook labour market reforms before the crisis – such countries,
e.g. Germany, have fared better. Also, more recent structural labour market reforms have paid off
– as evident in the positive growth figures for Spain (+0.5% in the 3rd quarter of 2014), Portugal
(+0.3% in the 3nd quarter of 2014) and Ireland, which experienced the strongest Eurozone growth
rate in 2014 - 4.8%. This compares with a 3% decline in 2008. There was also an increase in
employment of 2% in Ireland last year.
Therefore, there should be more focus on structural reforms to increase growth and ensure an
employment-rich recovery. This is the basis for sustaining our already well-developed national
social systems. The priority is to build consensus on a European framework for national labour
market reforms. To achieve this, EU employment and social policies should mobilise relevant
actors, available resources and tools in a consistent policy approach aiming to reach the 75%
employment rate target by 2020.
The conditions need to be right for European companies to be able to generate jobs,
especially, as recognized in the report, since some groups (women, young people, older
workers) c o n t i n u e to be under-represented in employment. The main issues to be
addressed are unnecessary rigidities in labour law, excessively high non-wage labour costs and
skills mismatches. Reducing the tax burden on labour, including targeted cuts in employer‘s social
security contributions will encourage employers to hire more staff. We welcome the Eurogroup
common principles for reforms which recommend reducing the tax wedge on labour and hope
that this leads to concrete measures at national level.
154
As well as facilitating job creation, we agree that labour market activation measures are necessary.
Despite costly employment policies, both in terms of passive and active support, the
EU underperforms in terms of activating the unemployed. Further measures are
needed to ensure that work is an economically attractive option compared to welfare
benefits, especially for low- income earners, by reducing the tax wedge on employment
to avoid unemployment traps. We agree on the importance of re-training workers to adapt
skills to the labour market as well as programmes tailored to the individual, in particular to
avoid those becoming long-term unemployed. Any new labour market activation measures
should be accompanied by efforts to reduce obstacles for those persons who have
difficulties entering the labour market, e.g. insufficient flexibility of employment resulting
from special or enhanced protection, from dismissal and excessive red tape.
We agree on the urgent need to tackle youth unemployment, but also the rising number of
NEETs, to avoid losing an important contribution of human potential to the labour market. We
note that whilst long-term unemployment for young people is often linked to a lack of
qualifications and skills, the crisis has also increased the difficulties of young people with medium
or high level qualifications. This highlights the ongoing problems of skills mismatch and lack of
jobs. It is also no surprise for employers that overall vocational education systems with a strong
component of work-based learning have been more successful in supporting young people in
their transition from education and training to work. BUSINESSEUROPE is leading a project that
aims to explore the business case for apprenticeships by focusing on the cost-effectiveness of
apprenticeship schemes in the ICT, commerce and engineering sectors.
Positively, there has been an increase in the employment rate of older workers, rightly recognizing
that this is partly due to incentives to work longer, including tax and benefit reforms and financial
incentives. Further improvements are possible and desirable, in particular in some countries – the
EU could usefully facilitate learning between member states on this. We confirm that the increase
in the employment rate is also due to the contribution of age management policies in companies.
Social protection systems
It is important to recall that social spending in Europe is high in global comparisons. We agree with
the analysis that there are large differences between member states in the effectiveness of social
spending, for example in alleviating poverty. More targeted and efficient use of social spending at
national level should therefore be encouraged. It is also important to bear in mind the lack of
access and take-up of social benefits in some cases, due to administrative complexities and lack of
information.
As identified in the 2015 Annual Growth Survey, social protection systems need to be modernised
to effectively and efficiently address labour market exclusion. As highlighted in the SPC report,
social protection systems need to provide a combination of well-designed adequate income
155
support, which does not result in unemployment/inactivity traps, quality enabling services and
activating measures.
Social protection schemes have acted as automatic stabilisers during the crisis. At the same time,
the fact that the crisis has endured puts pressure on these systems and national budgets. Reducing
unemployment helps to alleviate this pressure, through less use of unemployment benefit and
social assistance schemes. In terms of reducing budget deficits, it is positive in 2014 that around
2/3 of member states recorded a persistent decrease in the number of unemployment benefit
recipients compared to 2013, although, clearly this has to be looked at in terms of the number of
those people entering employment, rather than moving into social assistance schemes.
Minimum income schemes act as a last resort and exist in almost all member states. It is important
that eligibility for such schemes is linked to availability for work and combined with activation
measures. This is the case in some member states: progress was made in Spain with an
employment activation programme agreed in collaboration with the Autonomous Communities;
there have been positive changes in the Czech Republic, Portugal and Poland, where new
instruments have been designed for certain groups and measures introduced to improve the
functioning of Public Employment Services. However, progress has not been made in all member
states and there is still a need to make systems more efficient. The EU could usefully facilitate
benchmarking and exchange of experience between members states on this subject. Creating an
EU framework in this area would not be appropriate given the diverse design, eligibility, and
benefit levels of such schemes.
Poverty
We note the lack of progress to reach the EU2020 poverty target. At the same time, it is positive to
note that the situation has improved in some member states. We note that this is part of a more
nuanced picture across the EU in terms of the social situation and living conditions of the
population. As has been seen throughout the crisis, those at risk of poverty are mainly of working
age. This shows the correlation with the number of (quasi) jobless households and the rate of
unemployment, as is also the case regarding a specific poverty indicator - the rate of severe
material deprivation.153 We also note the rise in in-work poverty, although the situation is very
different across EU member states. This shows the importance of well-designed automatic
stabilizers.
Poverty has a multi-dimensional nature, however ensuring access to employment remains the best
solution. Other policies are also important, for example ensuring education and training systems
equip people for the labour market. Reducing taxes on labour in particular for lower skilled jobs
and boosting productivity of less productive jobs can both help to address in-work poverty and
mitigate the increasing polarization of labour markets. When considering the possible role of
153
DG ECFIN Economic Brief May 2014 (figure 5).
156
minimum wages to reduce poverty, member states need to fully consider the impact on
employment. High minimum wages create barriers to employment in particular for low skilled
workers, thereby reducing their job opportunities.
There are also differences between population groups – for example the situation of the elderly
has improved in relative terms. This is due partly to stable pension income -the objective now
must be to ensure longer working lives to make sure this is sustainable for future generations.
Policy coordination
We are convinced of the value of monitoring the progress made in national reforms,
implementation of the EU2020 strategy, and of having a better understanding of social
developments. This monitoring should provide accurate information for member states to adjust
social protection systems, education and training systems and labour market regulations, where
they do not perform well. Social partners at EU and national levels should be part of this
monitoring process.
There are divergences within the EU, in terms of labour market policies and outcomes, with
more positive trends in some countries compared to others. The EU therefore has a role in
facilitating learning between countries, with the aim of improving the functioning of labour
markets across the board. To steer the reform process, the EU should set up a fresh
approach on benchmarking. The Social Protection Committee should continue to provide a
platform for such actions, through for example the in-depth thematic reviews. The European
social partners should be better informed about and where appropriate involved in these activities.
For more information, see BUSINESSEUROPE brochure Future of Social Europe.
157
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
What is called a fragile or modest recovery of the economy is non- existent for millions of
European citizens and workers still unemployed and / or in precarious working and living
conditions. It is premature to speak of the (social) crisis being over while unemployment is still
unacceptably high, long term unemployment is becoming increasingly structural, and poverty is
still on the rise. This will lead to more political instability and unrest. The Greek election results
clearly showed that a new Path for Europe is needed – something the ETUC has been calling for
over the past few years.
The actual SPC report takes stock of the social situation in Europe as does the latest Employment
and Social Developments Report 2014.
The ETUC shares the bleak picture drawn there as well as most of the concerns expressed in this
report. In addition the ETUC would like to take the opportunity to complement and underline the
following aspects:
Economic forecast and labour market prospects
The actual forecast underestimates the risk of deflation. An ambitious investment plan is needed
to fight stagnation or deflation and generate employment in Europe. Reforms need to focus on
quality jobs, raising wages and improving skills.
Europe needs strong social investments. Social protection systems must not merely be reduced to
instruments of adjustment in the context of fiscal consolidation. They serve another purpose
mainly in providing a safety net, stabilising living conditions, reducing poverty and the at-risk-ofpoverty rate and contributing to aggregate demand. They are also important for activation and
support measures for people to find their way into or back into work. It is worth making the link
and quoting the actual ESDE 2014 report: ‗People receiving unemployment benefit schemes have
a better chance of taking up a job than non-recipients and that adequate and widely available
systems of income support do not prevent or discourage returns to employment… Research also
shows that receiving adequate income support also provides workers with enough time to search
for a job matching their skills and/or to strengthen those skills where necessary.‘ (ESDE, 2014, p.
27)
158
The ETUC proposes for example that social investment, for example in education, training,
research and development, should be excluded from the calculation of public deficit and debt
within the Stability and Growth Pact.
In-work poverty and access to ALMP
Long term (youth) unemployment is becoming an increasingly worrying trend in Europe which
leads to a lot of negative consequences for the individual and society as a whole, not only in the
short term but especially in a long term perspective and over an individual life span. Both the SPC
report and the ESDE 2014 report effectively illustrate these detrimental effects. From an ETUC
point of view it is necessary to highlight the fact that the jobs created in the last quarters are
mainly temporary contracts and that the rise in involuntary part time work is considerable. This
points directly to the fact that job quality in Europe has dramatically deteriorated. Therefore the
ETUC calls on policy makers to place job quality, not just quantity, back on the agenda. All
proposed EU economic governance measures must be assessed for their impact on employment
and job quality, as well as their social impact.
Europe cannot afford to become ‗competitive‘ via low wages, job insecurity and precarious
employment.
In-work poverty is the driving force behind increased poverty in general. ―ETUC/ETUI observed
over the last five years the highest risk of poverty remains with households of single parents.
However the AROP indicator increased substantially for households of single persons and of two
adults without children, pointing to the fact that households of relatively young people are faced
with the deterioration of their labour market prospects in prime working age.‖ (Benchmarking
Working Europe, 2014 p.49)
From a gender perspective there is an urgent need to assess poverty and in-work poverty not only
at household level but also on an individual level because this leads directly to a variety of further
questions related to access to social protection systems, eligibility criteria for active labour market
instruments, adequacy of pension entitlements and so on. The question may be raised whether a
concept of gender accounting over a working life could be considered a way forward to assess
policy options and measures. The ETUC also supports the call from Employment and Social Affairs
Ministers in the June 2014 Council Conclusions on "Women in the economy: economic
independence from the perspective of part-time work and self-employment‖ for a pillar on gender
equality within the Europe 2020 governance framework.
Active Ageing
The Active Ageing Agenda must be pursued at national and European level. Exchange of policies
that work is crucial. The policy focus however should not be on extending the legal pension age
but on how older workers can be assisted to remain in employment up to their pensionable age
(raising the effective retirement age). This is a point which the SPC has already raised in previous
documents and which the ETUC fully supports. Employers and their representative organisations
159
play an important role in changing the attitude towards older workers in the labour market. It is
also important to take into account work preferences of working men and women over 50 years
old. Evidence exists already. It is time to start social dialogue at all level to move our societies in
such a direction that enables longer working lives in good health.
Minimum Income
The existence of adequate minimum income schemes proved to be an important stabiliser
throughout the crisis. The ongoing discussion, the research carried out so far, the OMC on this
topic are important factors to further develop such systems or to introduce them in countries
where they do not exist. The ETUC is in favour of a European approach to set common principles
and create a social standard for minimum income schemes.
160
7. Country Profiles
Notes:
1. Definitions of variables are provided in the ―Definitions and data sources‖ section at the end of
the report.
2. Concerning the (quasi-)jobless household (VLWI) indicator, its percentage is not calculated as a
part of the whole population (as it is the case for AROP and SMD), but as a part of the population
in the age group 0-59 (see the definition provided on the following site:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=10421&langId=en). This makes it difficult to
compare the VLWI indicator in percent with the AROP and SMD, as in the Venn Diagram
comparing these 3 indicators.
161
BELGIUM
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 380,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
162
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
BE
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
14.7
14.6
14.6
15.3
15.3
15.1
-0.2
0.4
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
1554
1549
1566
1657
1667
1652
-0.9
6.3
84877
83462
% of total pln
11.7
12.3
12.7
13.8
13.9
14.0
0.1
2.3
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
967
1021
1053
1152
1170
1190
1.7
23.1
39644
40189
% of total pln
5.6
5.2
5.9
5.7
6.3
5.1
-1.2
-0.5
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
595
555
628
615
687
561
-18.3
-5.7
49673
48245
% of total pln
3.0
3.5
3.3
4.5
3.9
4.4
0.5
1.4
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
320
372
352
483
423
487
15.1
52.2
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.1
0.1
-0.2
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
137
116
128
141
104
118
13.5
-13.9
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.1
-0.5
0.1
1.8
1.8
211
219
232
242
283
235
-17.0
11.4
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.4
-0.3
0.0
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
44
55
68
45
75
42
-44.0
-4.5
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
163
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
BE
Real GDP growth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
1.0
1.8
7.0
3.3
26.7
2009
-2.8
-0.2
7.9
3.5
29.1
2010
2.3
0.7
8.3
4.1
28.6
2011
1.8
1.4
7.2
3.5
29.0
2012
-0.1
0.2
7.6
3.4
29.4
2013
0.2
-0.2
8.4
3.9
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
BE
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
26.7
7.6
1.9
8.7
2.1
2.1
3.3
0.2
0.7
2009
29.1
8.3
2.1
9.5
2.2
2.2
3.8
0.2
0.8
2010
28.6
8.2
2.1
9.2
2.1
2.2
3.7
0.2
0.8
2011
29.0
8.3
2.2
9.5
2.1
2.2
3.7
0.2
0.7
2012
29.4
8.5
2.3
9.6
2.1
2.1
3.7
0.3
0.8
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
1.4
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.6
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
25.3
7.6
1.5
8.6
2.1
2.1
3.3
27.6
8.3
1.6
9.3
2.2
2.2
3.8
27.1
8.2
1.6
9.0
2.1
2.2
3.7
27.6
8.3
1.7
9.3
2.1
2.2
3.7
27.9
8.5
1.8
9.5
2.1
2.1
3.7
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
164
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
BE
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.8
0
-0.2
0.4
762
1819
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.8
14.7
10046
20.2
14.6
10501
20.8
14.6
10399
21.0
15.3
10895
21.6
15.3
11103
20.8
15.1
11865
21096
5.6
22053
5.2
21838
5.9
22880
5.7
23316
6.3
24917
5.1
1601
-1.2
3821
-0.5
11.7
9.0
17.2
14.7
12.3
9.2
18.1
13.1
12.7
9.3
18.0
13.0
13.8
8.0
18.6
13.5
13.9
9.9
18.7
14.3
14.0
0.1
2.3
19.2
12.7
0.5
-1.6
45.6
4.1
12.5
45.3
3.9
8.7
45.3
3.9
8.9
45.0
3.9
10.6
44.8
4.0
11.0
42.6
3.8
9.6
2.2
2.2
-0.4
-0.7
-0.1
-0.2
165
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
2
-2
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-2.18
-0.2
-1.4
-2.97
-0.3
-2.9
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-0.1
-2.4
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
BE
Children
(0-17)
BE
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.9
0.6
-0.1
0.0
-2.8
-1.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.3
17.2
7.3
20.5
16.6
6.5
23.2
18.3
7.7
23.3
18.7
8.2
22.8
17.3
8.3
21.9
17.2
5.5
8.9
17.5
11.0
21.3
12.0
20.8
14.0
21.5
13.0
19.2
12.2
21.3
-0.8
2.1
3.3
3.8
45.6
6.7
48.6
6.8
42.5
6.9
44.7
4.0
46.6
2.4
46.6
3.1
0.0
0.7
1.0
-3.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
23.0
16.5
9.5
20.1
15.5
7.6
20.7
14.4
7.1
20.4
14.1
5.9
23.4
16.4
8.7
23.8
16.1
7.3
11.1
6.0
6.0
13.3
10.9
10.2
4.6
7.1
14.5
10.2
10.3
4.5
7.3
14.3
8.1
10.7
6.6
6.0
14.8
9.6
12.1
3.5
6.2
15.0
11.0
14.4
2.7
7.3
16.0
9.8
166
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.4
0.8
-0.3
-0.4
-1.4
-2.2
2.3
-0.8
1.1
1.0
-1.2
3.3
-3.3
1.3
2.7
-1.1
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
BE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
BE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.5
0.7
-0.1
1.2
-0.8
0.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.1
12.2
5.7
19.3
12.1
5.3
20.0
12.1
6.0
20.0
12.9
5.6
21.3
13.5
6.6
20.8
13.4
5.8
12.8
4.7
19.1
4.0
11.6
12.8
4.5
20.7
3.7
8.7
12.9
4.4
21.1
4.1
8.5
13.7
4.1
20.0
2.0
10.0
14.2
4.5
20.9
1.6
10.7
14.7
4.4
22.8
2.0
9.7
0.5
-0.1
1.9
0.4
-1.0
53.1
51.8
52.9
51.1
50.6
47.7
-2.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
22.9
21.2
3.2
0.74
0.45
1.0
23.1
21.6
3.1
0.74
0.45
0.8
21.0
19.4
2.8
0.75
0.46
1.1
21.6
20.2
2.6
0.74
0.44
0.7
21.2
19.4
2.8
0.74
0.46
0.5
19.5
18.4
2.0
0.76
0.47
0.7
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
1.9
-0.3
3.7
-2.0
-1.9
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-5.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.7
-3.4
-1.0
-2.8
-0.8
-1.2
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.2
-0.3
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the exception of the poverty threshold, S80/S20
167
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
21.3
17.2
7.3
20.5
16.6
6.5
23.2
18.3
7.7
23.3
18.7
8.2
22.8
17.3
8.3
21.9
17.2
5.5
Change
20122013
-0.9
-0.1
-2.8
8.9
11.0
12.0
14.0
13.0
12.2
-0.8
9.1
9.7
11.6
9.5
14.7
6.2
5.2
5.4
4.4
5.4
5.0
-0.4
-1.2
11.0
10.6
78.6
79.2
76.1
80.1
75.7
74.0
-1.7
-4.6
67.5
64.9
11.1
8.8
10.3
8.5
8.6
9.2
0.6
-1.9
15.9
15.6
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
20.0
17.0
17.0
19.0
21.0
14.0
23.0
16.0
19.0
20.0
27.0
14.0
25.0
30.0
36.0
32.0
25.0
37.0
74.0
69.0
63.0
66.0
75.0
46.0
17.5
17.6
6.9
20.0
21.3
16.3
7.0
18.6
20.8
15.6
4.3
18.4
21.5
16.2
4.6
19.1
19.2
18.4
4.8
21.7
21.3
18.1
5.2
21.1
2.1
-0.3
0.4
-0.6
3.8
0.5
-1.7
1.1
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
45.6
48.6
42.5
44.7
46.6
46.6
-0.02
1.01
39.3
41.3
9.9
5.2
12.0
0.4
478
2.1
6.7
6.8
5.5
11.1
0.6
439
2.7
6.8
7.7
5.3
11.9
0.3
465
3.5
6.9
10.7
6.8
12.3
0.8
434
1.6
4.0
9.3
7.4
12.0
1.2
483
0.9
2.4
7.9
6.8
11.0
1.0
-1.4
-0.6
-1
-0.2
-2
1.6
-1
0.6
10.5
6.7
12.0
1.4
3.1
0.5
0.7
-0.7
-3.6
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
BE
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Change
20082013
0.6
0
-1.8
3.3
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data). Note: Break in series for ―self reported unmet need for medical care‖ in 2011
168
2012
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Low income
High income
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
74
75,9
1,9
85,2
82,1
-3,1
54,2
53,1
-1,1
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
72,9
Low / high income
Gross2010
51,3
52,7
(90/0/10)* (78/0/22)*
59,2
57,8
(91/0/9)* (80/0/20)*
34,3
33,34
(87/0/13)* (75/0/25)*
74,3 / 77,8
51,6 / 54,1
84,4 / 52,6
58,7 / 36,5
69,41
-3,5
50,1
74,7 / 48,3
42 years career: average income
76,7
Low / high income
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
47,85
1,4
-1,4
-1,0
-2,3
52.1 / 31.13
77,82
1,1
54,2
86,1 / 56.81
10 years after retirement
Gross2050 Difference
55,73
1,5
60,7 / 35.5
67,5
70,5
3,0
46,8
47,9
1,1
73,7
74,2
0,5
51,1
51,6
0,5
69
72,5
3,5
46,3
49,0
2,7
67,2
66,3
-0,9
40,8
40,7
-0,1
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
39,2
38,3
-0,9
44,7
37,0
-7,7
:
:
:
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
BE
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
63.3
64.2
10.4
10.4
76.9
82.6
17.3
20.9
0.5
73.9
2827.77
9.94
2009
63.9
63.7
10.6
10.3
77.3
82.8
17.5
21.1
0.6
73.5
2892.14
10.65
2010
64
62.6
10.4
9.7
77.6
83
17.6
21.3
0.4
73
3054.56
10.56
2011
63.4
63.6
9.8
10.3
78
83.3
18
21.6
1.5
73.5
3142.36
10.61
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA).
Note: Break in series for ―self reported unmet need for medical care‖ in 2011
169
2012
64.3
65.4
10.7
11.1
77.8
83.1
17.7
21.3
1.7
74.3
3270.19
10.89
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS154
154
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only a
selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard definition by
the ILO) are given as a background.
170
Definition
Unit
Source
link
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
monthly average -Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Source: eurostat
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/data/datab
ase
comment
Unemployment benefit
Definition
Unit
Source
link
comment
number of full-time unemployed with an unemployment benefit
number of recipients
Administrative data National Employment Office; FPS Social Security on the basis of the
NEO website
http://www.rva.be/Frames/frameset.aspx?Path=D_stat/&Items=1&Language=FR
This number is the sum of a number of different administrative categories of unemployed: after
full-time employment, after studies, after voluntary part-time employment, different categories
of early retirement and unemployed with social or familial difficulties
Social assistance benefit
Definition
Unit
Source
link
comment
number of social assistance recipients ('leefloon'+'financiële steun/equivalent leefloon')
number of recipients
Federal Public Service for Social Integration
age category 18-64
Disability benefit
Definition
Unit
Source
number of persons with a invalidity allowance (schemes for employees and self-employed)
number of benefit recipients
Up to 2007 National Institute for Sickness and Invalidity Insurance (OECD questionnaire).
From 2008: figures published in ‘De sociale Zekerheid in een oogopslag:kerncijfers 2014'
link
comment
171
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
Note: (*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012. Break in series for ―self reported unmet need for medical care‖ in 2011
172
BULGARIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people living in monetary poverty by 260,000 people
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
173
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
BG
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
21.4
21.8
20.7
22.2
21.2
21.0
-0.2
-0.4
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
1632
1657
1564
1672
1559
1528
-2.0
-6.4
84877
83462
% of total pln
8.1
6.9
8.0
11.0
12.5
13.0
0.5
4.9
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
470
399
453
623
676
695
2.8
47.9
39644
40189
% of total pln
41.2
41.9
45.7
43.6
44.1
43.0
-1.1
1.8
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
3151
3184
3459
3277
3242
3129
-3.5
-0.7
49673
48245
% of total pln
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.6
-0.2
0.3
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
23
29
21
36
58
45
-22.4
95.7
13552
13504
% of total pln
13.8
14.3
13.5
11.7
11.1
10.7
-0.4
-3.1
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
1055
1091
1024
882
813
780
-4.1
-26.1
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
4.5
3.7
4.3
5.8
5.8
6.3
0.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
343
285
325
435
426
455
6.8
32.7
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.9
0.5
0.8
1.2
1.8
1.7
-0.1
0.8
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
69
39
63
90
134
122
-9.0
76.8
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC) ;
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
174
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
BG
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
5.8
2.4
5.6
2.9
15.5
2009
-5.0
-1.7
6.8
3.0
17.2
2010
0.7
-3.9
10.2
4.7
18.1
2011
2.0
-2.2
11.3
6.3
17.7
2012
0.5
-2.5
12.3
6.8
17.4
2013
1.1
-0.4
13.0
7.4
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.0
-0.1
-0.4
10.5 10.8
4.6
5.1
29.5
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
BG
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
14.8
4.3
1.1
6.6
0.7
1.5
0.3
0.0
0.3
2009
16.1
3.8
1.3
7.5
0.8
1.9
0.5
0.0
0.2
2010
17.2
4.2
1.4
8.0
0.9
2.0
0.6
0.0
0.3
2011
16.5
4.3
1.3
7.4
0.8
1.8
0.6
0.0
0.2
2012
16.5
4.3
1.3
7.3
0.9
1.7
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
14.1
4.3
1.1
6.6
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
15.4
3.8
1.3
7.5
0.8
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
16.4
4.2
1.4
8.0
0.9
1.4
0.6
0.0
0.1
15.8
4.3
1.3
7.4
0.8
1.3
0.6
0.0
0.1
15.8
4.3
1.3
7.3
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.1
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
175
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
BG
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.3
3.2
-0.2
-0.4
116
774
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
44.8
21.4
2859
46.2
21.8
3436
49.2
20.7
3531
49.1
22.2
3499
49.3
21.2
3517
48.0
21.0
3633
6004
41.2
7215
41.9
7415
45.7
7347
43.6
7385
44.1
7629
43.0
244
-1.1
1625
1.8
8.1
8.0
16.4
29.6
14.8
11.0
16.9
29.4
17.7
12.5
12.9
31.4
18.6
13.0
0.5
4.9
27.0
21.4
6.9
10.7
27.4
16.1
30.9
18.5
-0.5
-0.1
21.0
6.5
13.3
17.4
5.9
7.0
23.6
5.9
5.9
19.0
6.5
8.7
18.2
6.1
14.5
21.4
6.6
14.3
3.2
0.5
-0.2
176
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
3.9
-2.9
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
0.32
0.1
1
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
BG
Children
(0-17)
BG
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.8
7.3
0.2
2.9
-0.3
5.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
44.2
25.5
40.8
47.3
24.9
43.6
49.8
26.7
46.5
51.8
28.4
45.6
52.3
28.2
46.6
51.5
28.4
46.3
9.5
40.3
7.6
33.2
10.4
36.5
14.1
37.0
16.8
41.9
18.2
41.7
1.4
-0.2
8.7
1.4
18.0
65.5
17.3
63.1
21.7
63.2
19.3
63.1
21.5
61.2
25.5
62.8
4.0
1.6
7.5
-2.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
38.6
20.5
34.4
42.7
18.3
39.1
48.5
18.1
45.4
49.2
22.4
43.4
49.7
20.1
44.6
47.4
19.3
43.2
7.6
10.7
3.8
21.6
12.0
6.6
7.8
4.8
24.0
5.7
7.0
7.5
6.7
27.8
4.6
10.6
10.5
7.4
26.3
8.0
10.6
11.3
8.5
26.0
11.2
13.7
6.5
8.4
25.9
9.5
177
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.3
8.8
-0.8
-1.2
-1.4
8.8
3.1
-4.8
-0.1
-0.1
-1.7
6.1
-4.2
4.6
4.3
-2.5
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
BG
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (18-59)
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
BG
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.3
4.8
-0.3
0.1
-0.9
3.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
39.5
17.0
36.2
40.6
16.4
37.1
45.0
16.0
42.2
45.2
18.2
40.3
45.6
17.4
40.8
44.3
17.1
39.9
7.7
7.6
29.6
49.7
12.2
6.7
7.5
29.9
49.0
5.7
7.3
7.7
29.6
49.5
4.8
10.2
8.2
31.6
49.7
7.5
11.2
7.4
34.9
46.8
12.0
11.6
7.2
34.4
46.4
11.5
0.4
-0.2
-0.5
-0.4
-0.5
3.9
-0.4
4.8
-3.3
-0.7
24.1
21.2
28.9
21.9
21.3
24.7
3.4
0.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
65.5
33.8
61.0
0.66
0.34
24.8
66.0
39.3
58.4
0.63
0.34
24.2
63.9
32.2
58.1
0.74
0.43
24.4
61.1
31.2
53.7
0.72
0.41
24.0
59.1
28.2
53.2
0.74
0.42
21.7
57.6
27.9
50.7
0.76
0.39
21.3
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.5
-7.9
-0.3
-5.9
-2.5
-10.3
0.02
0.10
-0.03
0.05
-0.4
-3.5
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the exception of the poverty threshold, S80/S20
178
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
BG
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
44.2
25.5
40.8
47.3
24.9
43.6
49.8
26.7
46.5
51.8
28.4
45.6
52.3
28.2
46.6
51.5
28.4
46.3
Change
20122013
-0.8
0.2
-0.3
Change
20082013
7.3
2.9
5.5
9.5
7.6
10.4
14.1
16.8
18.2
1.4
8.7
15.8
21.8
22.9
13.9
9.7
10.2
10.4
11.1
9.8
9.7
-0.1
0
11.0
10.6
93.4
90.3
89.1
84.5
81.1
80.6
-0.5
-12.8
67.5
64.9
18.2
19.3
19.3
19.0
17.0
16.6
-0.4
-1.6
15.9
15.6
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
9.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
14.0
6.0
7.0
4.0
2.0
5.0
37.0
61.0
48.0
50.0
58.0
92.0
46.0
40.3
33.2
36.5
37.0
41.9
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
41.7
2.0
-0.2
1.4
3.5
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
18.0
17.3
21.7
19.3
21.5
25.5
4.01
7.45
39.3
41.3
14.0
13.7
14.8
9.6
668
35.0
65.5
6.5
14.8
14.7
5.1
729
27.8
63.1
5.8
15.6
13.9
5.8
708
23.8
63.2
8.7
15.0
11.8
5.0
601
23.5
63.1
16.2
15.4
12.5
3.7
536
23.2
61.2
13.9
15.2
12.5
-2.3
-0.2
0
-0.1
1.5
-2.3
10.5
6.7
12.0
25.2
62.8
2
1.6
-9.8
-2.7
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
179
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
62,3
67,5
5,2
Low income
62,9
68,0
5,1
High income
56,3
50,6
-5,7
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
48,8
52,4
(100/0/0)* (74/26/0)*
49,3
52,8
(100/0/0)* (74/26/0)*
44,1
39,3
(100/0/0)* (74/26/0)*
65,5 / 70,5
50,4 / 54,7
71,7 / 64,3
55,6 / 49,9
-3,6
-3,5
-4,8
53,1
65,1
12,0
42,7
50,5
7,8
56,9 / 53,1
65,6 / 48,8
8,7 / -4,3
48,5 / 39,1
50,9 / 37,9
2,3 / -1,2
70,3
75,7
5,4
55,1
58,7
3,6
71,1 / 62,7
76,3 / 57
4,8 / -5,7
55,7 / 49,1
59,2 / 44,2
3,5 / -4,9
52,8
59,3
6,5
40,9
46
5,1
42,7
60,5
17,8
33,8
46,9
13,1
50,3
63,5
13,2
40,5
49,3
8,8
43
51,1
8,1
33,7
39,7
6,0
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
46,1
38,6
-7,5
44,7
37,0
-7,7
49,8
50,8
1,0
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
BG
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
62.1
65.7
8.7
9.4
69.8
77
13.5
16.7
15.3
62.2
2009
62.1
65.9
8.5
9.3
70.1
77.4
13.8
17
10.3
65.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
180
2010
63
67.1
8.8
9.9
70.3
77.4
13.6
17
10.5
67.2
2011
62.1
65.9
8.6
9.7
70.7
77.8
14
17.3
9.8
67.1
2012
62.1
65.7
8.7
9.5
70.9
77.9
13.9
17.3
8.2
66.6
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS155
155
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only a selection of
benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard definition by the ILO) and the
number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
181
Unemployment
definition
unit
source
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
definition
unit
source
comment
definition
unit
source
comment
U benefits beneficiaries
thousands of beneficiaries
National Social Security Institute
The number of the unemployed benefits beneficiaries increased due to the
economic crisis and the higher unemployment rate.
Social assistance benefit
Monthly social assistance benefit recipients
thousands of recipients
Social assistance Agency
There are not big differences in the number of the monthly social assistance
benefit recipients.
Disability benefit
definition
unit
source
comment
Monthly disability benefit recipients
thousands of recipients
Social Assistance Agency
There is a little increase in the number of the monthly disability benefit
recipients
182
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
183
CZECH REPUBLIC
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Maintaining the number of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion at the level of 2008
(15.3% of total population) with efforts to reduce it by 30,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
184
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
CZ
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
9.0
8.6
9.0
9.8
9.6
8.6
-1.0
-0.4
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
925
885
936
1022
990
886
-10.5
-4.2
84877
83462
% of total pln
7.2
6.0
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.9
0.1
-0.3
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
581
482
520
531
536
541
0.9
-6.9
39644
40189
% of total pln
6.8
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.6
6.6
0.0
-0.2
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
696
635
644
641
683
679
-0.6
-2.4
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.5
-0.1
-0.3
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
183
162
156
177
164
150
-8.5
-18.0
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.3
-0.3
-0.1
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
140
144
138
115
163
136
-16.6
-2.9
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.2
0.0
1.8
1.8
139
113
143
132
129
140
8.5
0.7
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
-0.1
0.0
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
35
21
24
39
45
31
-31.1
-11.4
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
185
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
CZ
Real GDP growth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
2.7
2.3
4.4
2.2
17.5
2009
-4.8
-1.8
6.7
2.0
19.7
2010
2.3
-1.0
7.3
3.0
19.5
2011
2.0
0.0
6.7
2.7
19.8
2012
-0.8
0.4
7.0
3.0
20.2
2013
-0.7
0.9
7.0
3.0
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
CZ
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
17.5
5.8
1.4
7.3
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.1
0.2
2009
19.7
6.4
1.5
8.3
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.1
0.2
2010
19.5
6.3
1.5
8.5
0.7
1.3
0.8
0.1
0.2
2011
19.8
6.3
1.5
8.9
0.7
1.2
0.7
0.1
0.3
2012
20.2
6.4
1.4
9.3
0.7
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
17.1
5.8
1.4
7.3
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.0
0.1
19.3
6.4
1.5
8.3
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.0
0.2
19.2
6.3
1.5
8.5
0.7
1.2
0.8
0.0
0.1
19.4
6.3
1.5
8.9
0.7
1.1
0.7
0.0
0.2
19.7
6.4
1.4
9.3
0.7
1.0
0.7
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
186
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
CZ
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.8
-0.7
-1
-0.4
201
554
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.3
9.0
5835
14.0
8.6
5666
14.4
9.0
5796
15.3
9.8
5993
15.4
9.6
6188
14.6
8.6
6389
12254
6.8
11898
6.1
12171
6.2
12586
6.1
12994
6.6
13418
6.6
424
0
1164
-0.2
7.2
3.9
18.5
9.0
6.0
3.7
18.8
8.1
6.4
5.5
21.1
7.8
6.6
4.2
17.2
8.6
6.8
4.3
19.1
8.7
6.9
4.1
16.6
8.5
0.1
-0.3
-2.5
-0.2
55.0
3.4
12.8
52.0
3.5
8.9
50.3
3.5
9.7
45.6
3.5
9.5
45.5
3.5
10.0
48.2
3.4
11.7
2.4
2.0
0.1
-1.4
-1.5
-2.3
187
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
-1.9
-0.5
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
2.74
-0.1
1.7
-6.81
0
-1.1
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-0.8
-4.8
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
CZ
Children
(0-17)
CZ
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate (18 - 24)
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.4
-2.2
-2.6
-1.9
-1.2
-1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
18.6
13.2
8.3
17.2
13.3
7.4
18.9
14.3
8.6
20.0
15.2
8.0
18.8
13.9
8.5
16.4
11.3
7.3
7.6
21.4
6.2
22.2
7.0
25.5
6.9
17.7
6.7
20.5
6.2
19.8
-0.5
-0.7
-1.4
-1.6
55.6
43.0
47.4
39.3
45.0
34.4
43.7
32.6
46.5
32.4
49.6
31.5
3.0
-0.9
-6.0
-11.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.4
11.6
8.0
16.6
11.0
7.9
16.1
11.2
7.4
18.3
12.7
6.1
18.9
13.4
7.3
18.5
11.4
9.0
4.9
4.4
3.1
8.9
9.2
3.6
3.4
5.3
11.2
7.6
4.8
2.6
5.7
11.4
9.1
4.7
2.4
5.4
10.7
9.3
5.2
5.2
6.1
11.3
10.1
6.9
3.1
6.0
11.8
10.8
188
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.4
1.1
-2.0
-0.2
1.7
1.0
1.7
-2.1
-0.1
0.5
0.7
2.0
-1.3
2.9
2.9
1.6
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
CZ
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
CZ
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.3
0.2
-0.7
0.3
0.4
0.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.0
8.3
6.5
13.7
7.6
5.9
14.1
8.1
6.0
15.1
9.1
5.8
15.5
9.3
6.3
15.2
8.6
6.7
7.1
3.6
19.8
29.5
11.5
5.9
3.2
21.5
26.6
8.0
6.2
3.7
22.2
22.2
8.8
6.5
4.1
19.4
20.9
8.8
6.9
4.6
21.5
21.3
9.1
7.1
4.1
17.3
21.5
11.0
0.2
-0.5
-4.2
0.2
1.9
55.4
54.5
52.6
47.7
47.2
49.7
2.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
12.5
7.4
6.4
0.79
0.51
14.6
11.7
7.2
5.7
0.78
0.51
11.6
10.1
6.8
4.3
0.82
0.54
9.4
10.7
6.6
5.4
0.82
0.53
8.2
10.8
6.0
6.0
0.84
0.55
7.4
10.4
5.8
5.3
0.85
0.56
7.7
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
0.0
0.5
-2.5
-8.0
-0.5
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-5.7
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.4
-2.1
-0.2
-1.6
-0.7
-1.1
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.3
-6.9
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the exception of the poverty threshold, S80/S20
189
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
CZ
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
18.6
13.2
8.3
17.2
13.3
7.4
18.9
14.3
8.6
20.0
15.2
8.0
18.8
13.9
8.5
16.4
11.3
7.3
Change
20122013
-2.4
-2.6
-1.2
7.6
6.2
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.2
-0.5
6.1
6.2
10.3
4.7
7.3
6.1
5.0
4.6
5.1
5.7
5.9
4.7
-1.2
-0.3
11.0
10.6
74.6
85.5
82.8
79.3
74.0
71.5
-2.5
-3.1
67.5
64.9
8.1
8.6
9.2
10.5
9.6
7.3
-2.3
-0.8
15.9
15.6
1.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
14.0
14.0
33.0
28.0
32.0
29.0
27.0
37.0
36.0
36.0
39.0
45.0
48.0
46.0
21.4
18.4
22.2
16.5
17.7
16.1
20.5
17.4
23.1
21.6
25.5
20.1
1.3
26.2
20.9
55.6
47.4
45.0
14.5
2.6
5.6
0.3
338
9.8
43.0
8.7
3.5
5.4
0.0
341
10.3
39.3
9.9
3.7
4.9
0.4
313
7.1
34.4
-1.4
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
-0.7
2.4
-1.6
1.4
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
23.7
19.8
19.8
3.2
25.2
1.5
2.1
28.4
27.6
43.7
46.5
49.6
3.01
-6.01
39.3
41.3
8.8
3.6
4.9
9.0
3.8
5.5
11.5
3.1
5.4
2.5
-0.7
-0.1
-3
0.5
-0.2
10.5
6.7
12.0
298
8.4
32.6
285
6.7
32.4
6.4
31.5
-0.3
-0.9
-3.4
-11.5
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
190
Change
20082013
-2.2
-1.9
-1
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
70,6
43,1
-27,5
Low income
87,2
54,9
-32,3
High income
42,5
26,6
-15,9
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
60,3
74,9 / 35,4
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
80,2
94,3 / 46,3
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Difference Gross2010 Gross2050 Difference
55,1
33,4
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
72,1
45
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
31,5
19,5
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
43,1 / 43,1
33,4 / 33,4
43,1 / 43,1
33,4 / 33,4
34,2
-26,1
47
26,5
44 / 20,8 (-30,8/-14,6) 61,9 / 26,1
53,9
-26,3
-27,1
-12,0
-20,5
36,1 / 15,2 (-25,8/-10,9)
63,1
41,8
68 / 33,6 (-26,3/-12,8) 77,2 / 34,7
-21,6
-21,3
55,7 / 24,6 (-21,5/-10,1)
61,1
37,9
-23,2
47,3
29,4
-17,9
51,5
59,5
8,0
33,8
46,1
12,3
57,6
58,8
1,2
43,8
45,6
1,8
50,1
28,9
-21,2
39,1
22,4
-16,7
2010
2050
26,2
25,2
-1,0
44,7
37,0
-7,7
28,5
25,4
-3,2
48,0
39,1
-8,9
Difference EU27 2010
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
CZ
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
61.2
63.4
7.5
8.2
74.1
80.5
15.3
18.8
0.7
61.4
1421.26
6.82
2009
61.1
62.7
8.1
8.5
74.2
80.5
15.2
18.8
0.6
61.3
1579.14
7.85
2010
62.2
64.5
8.5
8.8
74.5
80.9
15.5
19
1
62.2
1535.16
7.43
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
191
2011
62.2
63.6
8.4
8.7
74.8
81.1
15.6
19.2
1.1
59.5
1571.65
7.5
2012
62.3
64.1
8.3
8.9
75.1
81.2
15.7
19.2
1
60.4
1619.16
7.55
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS156
600
500
Thousands of people
400
300
200
100
0
2006
2007
2008
CZ Number of unemployed (ILO)
CZ disability benefit pensioners 1
2009
2010
2012
CZ Unemployment Benefit recipients
CZ disability benefit pensioners 2
CZ
definition
unit
source
comment
2011
2013
2014
CZ Social Assistance Beneficiaries
CZ Number of early retirees
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
eurostat
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
definition
unit
source
comment
Unemployment Benefits recipients
thousands of recipients
www.mpsv.cz
Unemployment benefits - due to worse economic situation, there was a significant
growth of number of unemployment benefits recipients at the end of 2008 (e.g. from
the reason of mass laying-off) and during the 1st quarter of 2009. The declines in
summer months of the following years were induced mainly by the impact of traditional
element – seasonal works. On the other hand, increased numbers at the turn of years
have been connected rather with layoffs at the end of the year. Since June 2011, the
numbers of beneficiaries have been nearly similar to those ones in before-crisis years.
Annual decrese in 2012 was partly caused by relevant legislative changes. On the other
hand, annual increase of recipients in 2013 has related with higher number of newly
registered job seekers.
156
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) are given as a background.
192
Social assistance benefit
definition
unit
source
comment
Social assistance beneficiaries
thousands of beneficiaries
MoLSA
After the introduction of the new System of Assistance in Material Need (starting 2007),
there was a slight decrease of the number of beneficiaries of assistance in material
need benefits (or more precisely of allowance for living) since the 2nd quarter of 2007
mainly due to favourable economic development. The impact of global economic crisis
became evident in this statistics since the end of 2008, more intensively during 2009 and
in the 1st half of 2010. After stagnation in the 2nd half of 2010, there has been another
significant increase since February 2011. It may be explained by legislative changes in
the system of State Social Support (the reduction of entitlement to social allowance
affected the System of Assistance in Material Need in the form of growth of its number
of beneficiaries). With regard to full cancelation of social allowance in State Social
Support since 2012 and increase of amounts of the subsistence minimum and the
existence minimum, number of beneficiaries has increased significantly (except specific
situation in January 2012 when new IS was introduced). Following increse has been
affected mainly by income situation of households and by higher number of job-seekers
without entitlement to unemployment benefit.
Methodological note: number of beneficiaries represent number of household
supported by Allowance for Living. On behalf of the whole household (all its members)
there can be only one beneficiary of this benefit.
The curve for „social assistance beneficiaries“ is in the graph provided only for the
period of time 2007-2013 and reflects the development of the number of allowance for
living recipients (see the Act No. 111/2006 Coll., on Assistance in material need, as
amended, that has been in effect since 01/01/2007); till the end of 2006 the system of
social assistance benefits was regulated in absolutely different way. Because of this
fact, there is no reasonable comparability.
Disability benefit
definition
unit
source
comment
Number of pensioners (disability benefits 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree)
thousands of persons
MoLSA
From the beginning of 2010 the new types of disability were implemented to the social
system. Currently three levels of disability are differentiated (the 1st, 2nd , 3rd )
instead of the former two levels (full disability, partial disability). The 3rd level is equal
to the full disability while the partial disability was split in the current 1st and 2nd level.
From January 2010 all receivers of disability pension older than 65 years of age are no
more implicated in the number of disability pensioners. They are implicated in the
number of old age pensioners. This change is displayed in the drop of number of
disability pensioners in January 2010. According to these changes, new data (starting
January 2010) are being presented separately.
193
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
194
DENMARK
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of persons living in households with low work intensity by 22,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
195
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
DK
AROP
VLWI
SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change
20122013
Change
20082013
2012
2013
% of total pln
11.8
13.1
13.3
13.0
13.1
12.3
-0.8
0.5
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
643
716
728
715
731
690
-5.6
7.3
84877
83462
% of total pln
8.5
8.8
10.6
11.7
11.3
12.9
1.6
4.4
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
347
360
433
480
464
522
12.5
50.4
39644
40189
% of total pln
2.0
2.3
2.7
2.6
2.8
3.8
1.0
1.8
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
107
124
145
146
157
215
36.9
100.9
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.3
2.4
2.7
3.1
2.6
2.8
0.2
0.5
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
125
129
148
172
147
155
5.4
24.0
13552
13504
% of total pln
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.3
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
21
29
22
34
39
39
0.0
85.7
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.8
1.1
0.3
0.8
1.8
1.8
19
29
44
27
43
59
37.2
210.5
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
26
22
41
42
23
56
143.5
115.4
3391
3685
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
196
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
DK
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-0.8
1.7
3.4
0.5
29.2
2009
-5.7
-3.4
6.0
0.6
33.1
2010
1.4
-2.5
7.5
1.5
32.8
2011
1.1
-0.2
7.6
1.8
32.8
2012
-0.4
-0.3
7.5
2.1
33.1
2013
0.4
0.2
7.0
1.8
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
DK
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
29.2
6.5
3.7
12.7
0.0
4.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
2009
33.1
7.3
4.1
14.0
0.0
4.5
1.6
0.7
0.9
2010
32.8
7.0
4.2
13.8
0.0
4.3
1.8
0.7
1.0
2011
32.8
6.9
4.1
14.2
0.0
4.1
1.8
0.7
1.1
2012
33.1
6.9
4.1
14.4
0.0
4.0
1.8
0.7
1.1
1.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.4
1.6
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.5
1.7
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.6
1.8
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.7
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
27.8
6.5
3.6
12.6
0.0
3.9
0.9
0.0
0.4
31.5
7.3
4.0
13.9
0.0
4.4
1.6
0.0
0.4
31.2
7.0
4.0
13.8
0.0
4.2
1.8
0.0
0.4
31.1
6.9
3.9
14.2
0.0
3.9
1.8
31.3
6.9
4.0
14.4
0.0
3.9
1.8
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
197
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
DK
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.1
2.6
-0.8
0.5
298
920
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
16.3
11.8
10561
17.6
13.1
10751
18.3
13.3
10770
18.9
13.0
11277
19.0
13.1
11183
18.9
12.3
11481
22177
2.0
22577
2.3
22616
2.7
23683
2.6
23484
2.8
24111
3.8
627
1
8.5
4.9
18.0
11.8
8.8
2.7
18.4
13.1
10.6
6.3
21.6
12.6
11.7
6.4
21.4
12.2
11.3
5.7
22.8
13.0
12.9
5.1
23.7
12.8
57.6
3.6
17.1
58.0
4.6
24.2
54.3
4.4
21.9
54.2
4.4
20.0
53.7
4.5
18.2
-0.4
1.3
3.4
0.5
-0.9
198
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
1934
1.8
9.9
9.6
1.6
-0.6
0.9
-0.2
4.4
0.2
5.7
1
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
56.2
4.3
18.9
2.52
-0.2
0.7
-1.32
0.7
1.8
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.8
-0.9
-1.4
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
DK
Children
(0-17)
DK
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.2
2.8
-1.7
-0.6
0.3
1.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
12.7
9.1
2.5
14.0
10.6
2.1
15.1
10.9
3.1
16.0
10.2
3.3
15.3
10.2
3.6
15.5
8.5
3.9
4.3
19.3
5.5
22.0
7.4
19.6
8.9
20.2
5.8
25.3
8.6
16.2
2.8
-9.1
4.3
-3.1
58.8
10.8
56.4
10.7
54.6
9.9
60.3
10.8
58.4
9.9
65.7
11.2
7.4
1.3
6.9
0.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
36.0
34.0
3.4
37.6
34.4
5.6
42.3
39.1
4.1
45.6
42.4
5.1
44.7
39.4
6.0
46.5
40.5
6.1
9.0
17.0
5.8
5.7
29.9
8.6
19.5
8.4
7.0
34.5
11.9
24.5
9.4
8.3
36.1
14.2
27.1
9.6
8.4
41.7
11.5
25.8
9.1
8.8
40.2
15.7
15.9
8.1
8.1
43.6
199
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.8
10.5
1.1
6.5
0.1
2.7
4.2
-9.9
-1.0
-0.7
3.4
6.7
-1.1
2.3
2.4
13.7
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
DK
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
DK
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.8
5.2
0.2
2.8
1.5
2.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.1
11.3
2.0
18.1
12.2
2.7
19.5
12.9
2.9
20.5
13.1
2.9
21.5
13.9
3.2
22.3
14.1
4.7
10.2
5.0
25.1
7.7
17.7
10.1
5.9
29.2
8.4
23.1
11.9
6.3
29.3
8.1
21.6
12.8
6.3
31.7
8.5
19.7
13.6
5.7
29.8
8.4
18.6
14.6
4.3
28.4
11.3
19.7
1.0
-1.4
-1.4
2.9
1.1
59.4
58.9
56.1
56.5
55.5
56.1
0.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
18.6
18.1
0.9
0.70
0.41
0.5
20.6
20.1
0.9
0.71
0.42
1.1
18.4
17.7
0.9
0.71
0.44
0.6
16.6
16.0
1.1
0.72
0.42
0.7
14.6
14.1
0.6
0.75
0.42
0.6
11.4
10.6
1.0
0.76
0.44
0.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
200
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
4.4
-0.7
3.3
3.6
2.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-3.3
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-3.2
-7.2
-3.5
-7.5
0.4
0.1
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.2
0.3
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
DK
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
12.7
9.1
2.5
14.0
10.6
2.1
15.1
10.9
3.1
16.0
10.2
3.3
15.3
10.2
3.6
15.5
8.5
3.9
Change
20122013
0.2
-1.7
0.3
4.3
5.5
7.4
8.9
5.8
8.6
2.8
3.5
0.8
10.1
5.0
6.9
4.4
4.7
4.8
5.9
5.0
4.4
38.2
50.3
54.9
41.5
7.6
7.9
6.8
8.0
65.0
10.0
63.0
13.0
Change
20082013
2.8
-0.6
1.4
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
4.3
9.1
9.3
-2.5
0.9
12.8
3.3
-1.1
-1.4
11.0
10.6
32.1
30.2
-1.9
-8
67.5
64.9
7.1
7.5
6.0
-1.5
-1.6
15.9
15.6
10.0
68.0
5.0
69.0
8.0
59.0
14.0
14.0
12.0
15.0
11.0
9.0
37.0
83.0
72.0
75.0
87.0
85.0
46.0
19.3
3.9
22.0
3.0
19.6
3.1
-9.1
-0.2
-3.1
-1.2
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
4.1
4.2
25.3
2.9
0.1
4.2
16.2
2.7
5.3
20.2
2.9
0.5
3.9
3.9
-0.3
-1.4
28.4
27.6
58.8
56.4
54.6
60.3
58.4
65.7
7.36
6.91
39.3
41.3
12.6
2.5
12.5
0.7
262
1.6
10.8
22.0
3.6
11.3
1.3
193
1.6
10.7
18.3
3.7
11.0
1.8
216
1.9
9.9
13.1
3.8
9.6
1.3
208
5.1
10.8
11.4
3.8
9.1
1.0
197
2.8
9.9
12.0
3.2
8.0
0.6
-0.6
-1.1
-0.6
0.7
-4.5
10.5
6.7
12.0
3.2
11.2
0.4
1.3
1.6
0.4
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
201
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
69,4
67,3
-2,1
Low income
97,3
89,9
-7,4
High income
44,5
43,7
-0,8
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
68,8
97,2 / 43,6
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
73,2
65,9
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
48,8
56,2
(72/14/14)* (45/8/47)*
70,9
75,1
(76/15/9)* (56/9/35)*
26,5
32,4
(64/13/23)* (34/7/60)*
64,1 / 71,2
53,3 / 59,9
75,4 / 62,8
61,5 / 52,1
63,3
-5,5
53,1
89,4 / 38,8 (-7,8 / -4,8) 78,3 / 27,7
73,4
102,9 / 46,8 97,3 / 48,4
10 years after retirement
Difference Gross 2010 Gross 2050 Difference
7,4
4,2
5,9
52,6
-0,5
74,5 / 28,4
(-3,8 / 0,7)
0,2
53
61,9
8,9
(-5,6 / 1,6)
77,2 / 28,6
82,2 / 36,1
5,0 / 7,5
0,5
46,5
54,7
8,2
66,4
68,4
57,3
68,3
57,1
61,9
51,3
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
EU27 2050 Difference
35,8
30,5
-0,9
44,7
37,0
-7,7
:
:
:
48,0
39,1
-8,9
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
DK
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
62.1
61
12
12.4
76.5
81
16.6
19.5
0.6
74.1
3044.06
10.18
2009
61.8
60.4
11.3
12.1
76.9
81.1
16.8
19.5
1.5
72.3
3175.99
11.47
2010
62.3
61.4
11.8
12.8
77.2
81.4
17
19.7
1.1
71
3257.16
11.08
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
202
2011
63.6
59.4
12.4
13
77.8
81.9
17.3
20.1
0.9
70.8
2012
60.6
61.4
10.6
12.9
78.1
82.1
17.5
20.2
1.2
70.8
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS157
Note: numbers of benefit recipients are not seasonally adjusted.
157
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only a
selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) is given as a background.
203
DK
definition
unit
source
Number of unemployed
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment recipients
definition
unit
source
comment
U benefits recipients, full time recipients.
full time persons recipients (both passive and active recipients)
http://www.jobindsats.dk/sw167.asp
The monthly recipients of 2012 are also listed. If the recipients are only to be
based on a whole year basis, these can be ignored and only 2011 data be used.
Social assistance benefit
definition
unit
source
comment
numbers of recipients of cash benefits
both passive and active recipients
http://www.jobindsats.dk/sw9990.asp
Both recipients and full time recipients are listed as the numbers can then be
compared (with unemployment benefits) as these are measured in full time
recipients. The update includes a change in the numbers back in time due to
the abolishment of the lowest cash benefits by January 1st 2012. As it is a
headcount, all recipients of the lowest cash benefits are now listed as
recipients of the same cash benefit back in time as it would otherwise mean a
change in the level of recipients as from 1/1 2012 when all recipients became
recipients of the same level of benefit.
Disability benefit
definition
unit
comment
Number of pensioners (disability benefits full+partial )
thousands of pensioners
Figures do not include people who reached statutory retirement age due to
comparability reasons; the data until January 2011 represent an estimation,
because the calculation of the accurate share of disability pensioners only
existed for one month (December).
204
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
205
GERMANY
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of long-term unemployed by 320,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (LFS)
206
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
DE
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change
20122013
Change
20082013
0.9
16.9
16.7
2012
2013
% of total pln
15.2
15.5
15.6
15.8
16.1
16.1
0.0
1000 persons
12389
12590
12648
12814
13030
12845
-1.4
3.7
84877
83462
% of total pln
11.7
10.9
11.2
11.2
9.9
9.9
0.0
-1.8
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
7044
6538
6695
6637
5866
5744
-2.1
-18.5
39644
40189
% of total pln
5.5
5.4
4.5
5.3
4.9
5.4
0.5
-0.1
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
4442
4360
3672
4323
3937
4281
8.7
-3.6
49673
48245
% of total pln
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.1
-0.3
-0.7
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
3113
2944
3183
3026
2762
2457
-11.0
-21.1
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.8
0.2
0.4
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
1142
1024
917
1349
1292
1432
10.8
25.4
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.5
-0.1
-0.2
1.8
1.8
1408
1450
1333
1542
1279
1204
-5.9
-14.5
9240
9250
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
% of total pln
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1
-0.1
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
460
402
286
242
312
362
16.0
-21.3
3391
3685
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC),
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
207
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
DE
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
1.1
1.2
7.4
4.0
26.9
2009
-5.1
0.1
7.6
3.5
30.2
2010
4.0
0.5
7.0
3.4
29.4
2011
3.3
1.4
5.8
2.8
28.3
2012
0.7
1.1
5.4
2.5
28.3
2013
0.4
0.6
5.2
2.4
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
DE
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
26.9
8.3
2.2
9.4
2.1
2.8
1.4
0.6
0.1
2009
30.2
9.7
2.3
10.0
2.2
3.2
1.9
0.7
0.1
2010
29.4
9.5
2.3
9.7
2.1
3.2
1.7
0.7
0.1
2011
28.3
9.4
2.2
9.4
2.0
3.1
1.3
0.6
0.1
2012
28.3
9.6
2.3
9.4
2.0
3.2
1.2
0.6
0.2
3.3
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.1
3.6
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.1
3.5
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.1
3.4
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.1
3.4
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.2
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
23.7
8.1
1.6
9.3
2.1
1.8
0.7
26.6
9.6
1.7
10.0
2.2
2.1
1.1
25.9
9.4
1.6
9.7
2.1
2.1
0.9
24.9
9.3
1.6
9.3
2.0
2.0
0.7
24.9
9.4
1.6
9.3
2.0
2.0
0.6
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
208
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
DE
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.7
0.2
0
0.9
97
818
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.1
15.2
10804
20.0
15.5
10770
19.7
15.6
10544
19.9
15.8
11037
19.6
16.1
11525
20.3
16.1
11622
22689
5.5
22617
5.4
22143
4.5
23177
5.3
24201
4.9
24407
5.4
206
0.5
1718
-0.1
11.7
7.2
22.2
15.2
10.9
8.1
21.5
16.0
11.2
9.1
20.7
15.8
11.2
10.4
21.4
15.9
9.9
10.4
21.1
16.0
9.9
0
-1.8
20.4
16.8
-0.7
0.8
-1.8
1.6
37.2
4.8
35.7
4.5
35.5
4.5
14.5
37.1
4.5
16.1
33.7
4.3
16.6
34.0
4.6
16.4
0.28
0.3
-0.2
0.7
-0.5
0.6
1.9
0.7
0.6
0.0
209
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
-3.17
-0.2
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-0.1
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
DE
Children
(0-17)
DE
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.0
-0.7
-0.5
-0.5
0.8
-1.3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.1
15.2
6.9
20.4
15.0
7.1
21.7
17.5
5.2
19.9
15.6
5.4
18.4
15.2
4.8
19.4
14.7
5.6
9.1
19.3
9.0
19.8
8.9
17.8
8.6
17.2
6.8
17.4
6.9
16.4
0.1
-1.0
-2.2
-2.9
50.3
9.6
50.8
9.5
46.7
10.2
52.7
9.6
50.7
9.6
51.7
9.8
1.0
0.2
1.3
0.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
25.1
20.2
7.0
25.5
21.1
6.9
23.8
18.9
5.3
24.2
19.0
6.2
25.3
20.7
5.6
25.5
18.5
6.1
8.7
10.5
5.5
11.8
6.5
11.6
5.8
12.1
9.2
10.6
5.1
11.4
14.3
9.7
9.6
4.5
10.2
15.2
8.6
10.3
4.1
9.8
17.7
8.7
11.5
4.0
8.8
16.0
210
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.2
0.4
-2.2
-1.7
0.5
-0.9
0.1
1.2
-0.1
-1.0
-1.7
0.0
1.0
-1.5
-3.0
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
DE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
DE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.8
0.5
0.3
1.5
0.5
-0.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.5
15.4
6.1
21.1
15.8
5.8
20.8
15.6
5.2
21.3
16.4
6.0
21.2
16.6
5.5
22.0
16.9
6.0
12.4
7.1
25.0
7.9
11.4
6.8
23.8
8.1
11.9
7.1
22.7
8.0
13.6
12.0
7.7
24.5
7.5
15.7
10.8
7.7
23.1
7.3
16.3
10.8
8.6
22.1
7.5
15.8
0.0
0.9
-1.0
0.2
-0.5
38.2
36.3
37.4
37.2
34.1
33.7
-0.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.5
14.9
2.1
0.87
0.44
1.8
16.0
15.0
2.5
0.88
0.47
1.5
14.8
14.1
2.1
0.89
0.49
1.6
15.3
14.2
3.2
0.90
0.51
1.8
15.8
15.0
2.8
0.88
0.47
2.0
16.0
14.9
3.2
0.89
0.47
1.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
211
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
-1.6
1.5
-2.9
-0.4
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-4.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.2
0.5
-0.1
0.0
0.4
1.1
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.03
-0.2
0.0
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
DE
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.1
15.2
6.9
20.4
15.0
7.1
21.7
17.5
5.2
19.9
15.6
5.4
18.4
15.2
4.8
19.4
14.7
5.6
Change
20122013
1
-0.5
0.8
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.6
6.8
6.9
0.1
4.6
5.4
8.0
9.7
7.7
8.3
7.5
8.8
8.1
7.7
8.1
0.4
-0.2
11.0
10.6
70.4
67.5
76.1
68.8
71.7
58.3
-13.4
-12.1
67.5
64.9
9.6
9.7
11.7
10.5
10.8
11.3
0.5
1.7
15.9
15.6
10.0
9.0
7.0
12.0
7.0
13.0
9.0
15.0
9.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
54.0
48.0
46.0
46.0
40.0
37.0
36.0
40.0
46.0
44.0
51.0
46.0
19.3
22.3
2.8
26.6
19.8
23.6
17.8
23.6
17.2
22.8
17.4
16.4
-1
-2.9
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
27.6
27.5
26.9
26.3
27.2
0.9
0.6
28.4
27.6
50.3
50.8
46.7
52.7
50.7
51.7
1
1.32
39.3
41.3
3.8
11.8
1.8
2414
3.3
9.6
3.9
11.1
1.3
2334
3.1
9.5
11.7
3.7
11.9
0.9
2322
3.6
10.2
12.5
3.3
11.7
0.6
2408
3.5
9.6
13.2
3.0
10.6
0.6
2202
3.4
9.6
11.5
2.6
9.9
-1.7
-0.4
-0.7
-1.2
-1.9
10.5
6.7
12.0
2.6
9.8
-0.8
0.2
-0.7
0.2
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
212
Change
20082013
-0.7
-0.5
-1.3
-2.2
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
59,1
63,7
4,6
Low income
53,9
59,7
5,8
High income
51,1
49,5
-1,6
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Difference Gross2010 Gross2050 Difference
41,9
45,7
(100/0/0)* (73/0/27)*
41,9
45,7
(100/0/0)* (73/0/27)*
31,4
34,3
(100/0/0)* (73/0/27)*
61,2 / 66,5
43,8 / 47,9
67,7 / 60,6
48,8 / 43,3
3,8
3,8
2,9
52,1
57,2
5,1
37
40,1
3,1
47,5 / 45,8
56,9 / 45
9,4 / -0,8
37 / 28
43,2 / 30,2
6,2 / 2,2
69,5
70,6
1,1
49,3
51,7
2,4
63,4 / 60,1
67,7 / 54,7
4,3 / -5,4
49,3 / 37,6
51,7 / 38,9
2,4 / 1,3
59,1
61,2
2,1
41,9
43,7
1,8
62,1
72,5
10,4
44,0
53,7
9,7
57
68
11,0
40,5
49,5
9,0
44,3
47,7
3,4
31,4
33,5
2,1
2010
2050
47,0
38,1
-8,9
44,7
37,0
-7,7
40,5
34,5
-6,0
48,0
39,1
-8,9
Difference EU27 2010
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
DE
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
56.3
57.7
6.3
6.7
77.6
82.7
17.5
20.7
2.2
64.4
3133.00
10.7
2009
57.1
58.1
6.5
6.7
77.8
82.8
17.6
20.8
2.1
65.1
3200.99
11.75
2010
57.9
58.7
6.9
7.1
78
83
17.8
20.9
1.8
65.2
3442.9
11.56
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
213
2011
57.9
58.7
6.7
7.3
78.4
83.2
18.2
21.2
1.7
64.8
3553.9
11.25
2012
57.4
57.9
6.7
6.9
78.6
83.3
18.2
21.2
1.6
65.3
3651.51
11.27
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS158
158
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only a
selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) is given as a background.
214
Unemployment
definition
unit
source
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit recipients
definition
unit
source
link
Benefit recipients (UB I + UB II)
thousands of recipients
Source: Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Federal Employment Agency)
http://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Navigation/Statistik/Statistik-nachThemen/Arbeitslose-und-gemeldetes-Stellenangebot/Arbeitslose/ArbeitsloseNav.html?year_month=aktuell
comment
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income recipients
definition
unit
source
link
Social Assistance recipients
thousands of recipients
Source: Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Federal Employment Agency)
http://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Navigation/Statistik/Statistik-nachThemen/Lohnersatzleistungen-SGBIII/Kurzarbeitergeld/KurzarbeitergeldNav.html?year_month=aktuell
comment
Disability benefit recipients
definition
unit
source
link
comment
new disability pension recipients
thousand of recipients (annual figures)
Source: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (German statutory pension insurance scheme)
215
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
216
ESTONIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduction of the at risk of poverty rate after social transfers to 15%, equivalent to an absolute
decrease by 36,248 persons
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
217
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
EE
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
19.5
19.7
15.8
17.5
17.5
18.6
1.1
-0.9
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
259
262
211
232
233
248
6.4
-4.2
84877
83462
% of total pln
5.3
5.6
9.0
10.0
9.1
8.4
-0.7
3.1
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
55
58
92
102
93
86
-7.5
56.4
39644
40189
% of total pln
4.9
6.2
9.0
8.7
9.4
7.6
-1.8
2.7
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
65
83
119
115
124
100
-19.4
53.8
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.2
1.8
2.9
3.2
2.7
3.3
0.6
1.1
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
30
24
39
43
36
43
19.4
43.3
13552
13504
% of total pln
2.0
2.1
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.0
-0.7
0.0
2.8
2.7
-27.8
0.0
14249
13558
1000 persons
26
28
38
31
36
26
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.1
1.4
1.9
2.4
2.4
1.8
-0.6
0.7
1.8
1.8
15
19
26
32
31
24
-22.6
60.0
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
1
1
5
6
4
3
-25.0
200.0
3391
3685
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
218
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
EE
Real GDP growth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008 2009
-4.1 -14.1
0.2 -9.9
5.5 13.5
1.7
3.7
14.8 18.8
2010
3.3
-4.8
16.7
7.6
17.8
2011
8.7
7.0
12.3
7.1
15.9
2012
4.5
2.1
10.0
5.5
15.3
2013
2.2
1.9
8.6
3.8
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
Note: social protection expenditure does not include administrative costs
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
EE
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
14.8
4.8
1.5
6.2
0.1
1.8
0.3
0.0
0.1
2009
18.8
5.3
1.9
7.9
0.1
2.2
1.2
0.0
0.1
2010
17.8
4.8
1.9
7.8
0.1
2.3
0.8
0.0
0.1
2011
15.9
4.4
1.8
6.9
0.1
2.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
2012
15.3
4.3
1.8
6.7
0.1
1.8
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
14.7
4.8
1.5
6.2
0.1
1.8
0.3
0.0
0.0
18.7
5.3
1.9
7.9
0.1
2.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
17.7
4.8
1.9
7.8
0.1
2.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
15.7
4.4
1.8
6.9
0.1
2.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
15.2
4.3
1.8
6.7
0.1
1.8
0.5
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
219
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
EE
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.1
1.7
1.1
-0.9
396
592
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.8
19.5
4538
23.4
19.7
4861
21.7
15.8
4448
23.1
17.5
4491
23.4
17.5
4734
23.5
18.6
5130
9530
4.9
10208
6.2
9340
9.0
9431
8.7
9942
9.4
10773
7.6
831
-1.8
5.3
13.6
20.3
19.5
5.6
12.9
17.0
18.9
9.0
9.9
23.2
19.7
10.0
10.5
26.0
23.9
9.1
12.0
23.8
24.2
8.4
9.3
21.5
21.0
21.1
5.0
3.6
23.9
5.0
4.4
36.6
5.0
6.0
29.7
5.3
7.4
29.4
5.4
7.9
26.8
5.5
7.2
220
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
1243
2.7
9.9
9.6
-0.7
-2.7
-2.3
-3.2
3.1
-4.3
1.2
1.5
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
-2.66
0.1
-0.7
5.72
0.5
3.6
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
EE
Children
(0-17)
EE
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.1
2.9
1.1
1.0
-2.2
1.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
19.4
17.1
5.3
24.5
20.6
7.0
24.0
17.3
10.7
24.8
19.5
9.1
22.4
17.0
9.2
22.3
18.1
7.0
3.8
24.4
4.5
19.7
8.4
28.1
9.2
26.7
6.9
24.6
6.6
27.8
-0.3
3.2
2.8
3.4
35.0
55.2
30.6
55.1
44.4
53.9
35.9
24.0
40.6
23.1
34.2
33.3
-6.4
10.2
-0.8
-21.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.8
15.3
3.9
21.8
15.6
7.4
25.6
18.7
9.2
29.4
22.4
11.7
27.8
20.9
10.9
27.1
21.4
9.4
3.8
3.3
4.9
11.1
6.4
2.8
3.0
10.7
19.0
4.9
7.4
4.3
12.4
18.6
7.8
7.0
10.3
9.0
14.6
9.1
7.6
9.3
8.5
15.0
12.6
6.1
7.2
7.4
14.5
9.3
221
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.7
9.3
0.5
6.1
-1.5
5.5
-1.5
-2.1
-1.1
-0.5
-3.3
2.3
3.9
2.5
3.4
2.9
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
EE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (18-59)
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
EE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.5
5.2
-0.4
2.3
-2.0
3.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.5
15.0
4.5
19.9
15.8
6.1
21.8
15.6
9.1
24.2
18.0
9.3
24.2
17.7
10.0
22.7
17.3
8.0
5.8
7.4
26.5
42.1
4.0
5.9
8.3
23.1
41.6
4.6
9.1
6.7
25.9
39.9
6.4
10.3
8.2
29.7
14.0
8.3
9.8
8.5
29.9
13.6
8.6
9.0
7.7
28.3
20.8
7.4
-0.8
-0.8
-1.6
7.2
-1.2
3.2
0.3
1.8
-21.3
3.4
24.6
28.2
37.6
30.2
28.9
28.8
-0.1
4.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
40.9
39.0
5.8
0.62
0.45
25.4
35.6
33.9
5.6
0.66
0.52
24.2
19.0
15.1
6.6
0.73
0.55
23.6
17.0
13.1
5.8
0.75
0.54
5.5
21.8
17.2
7.1
0.72
0.50
5.5
28.0
24.4
6.3
0.69
0.50
8.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS),
222
Change Change
201220082013
2013
6.2
-12.9
7.2
-14.6
-0.8
0.5
-0.03
0.07
0.00
0.05
3.3
-16.6
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
EE
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
19.4
17.1
5.3
24.5
20.6
7.0
24.0
17.3
10.7
24.8
19.5
9.1
22.4
17.0
9.2
22.3
18.1
7.0
Change
20122013
-0.1
1.1
-2.2
3.8
4.5
8.4
9.2
6.9
6.6
-0.3
13.5
13.2
9.5
15.5
11.1
7.9
9.4
11.6
8.5
9.5
9.4
82.8
74.2
73.2
77.5
14.3
17.8
12.1
1.0
16.0
4.0
21.0
4.0
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
2.8
9.1
9.3
-3.2
-5.6
12.8
8.5
-0.9
-0.9
11.0
10.6
73.4
82.9
9.5
0.1
67.5
64.9
13.7
12.8
13.4
0.6
-0.9
15.9
15.6
2.0
19.0
4.0
15.0
4.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
9.0
6.0
9.0
10.0
37.0
84.0
84.0
86.0
83.0
83.0
46.0
24.4
11.9
19.7
10.1
28.1
7.7
26.7
8.7
24.6
10.1
27.8
8.9
3.2
-1.2
3.4
-3
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
16.6
14.9
10.7
11.9
13.3
12.0
-1.3
-4.6
28.4
27.6
35.0
30.6
44.4
35.9
40.6
34.2
-6.38
-0.8
39.3
41.3
3.2
5.3
14.0
2.3
80
14.4
55.2
5.5
6.8
13.5
2.2
57
18.6
55.1
6.2
5.6
11.0
1.5
53
16.8
53.9
7.3
6.1
10.6
3.3
36
8.4
24.0
7.1
6.3
10.3
4.5
50
8.5
23.1
7.8
4.4
9.7
0.7
-1.9
-0.6
4.6
-0.9
-4.3
10.5
6.7
12.0
8.3
33.3
-0.2
10.2
-6.1
-21.9
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
223
Change
20082013
2.9
1
1.7
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
46,2
50,1
3,9
Low income
64,9
56,4
-8,5
High income
26,6
34,5
7,9
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
36,4
40,2
(100/0/0)* (55/45/0)*
52,6
46,3
(100/0/0)* (61/39/0)*
20,4
27,1
(100/0/0)* (50/50/0)*
47,8 / 52,6
38,5 / 42,3
51,6 / 49,9
41,9 / 39,7
3,8
-6,3
6,7
40,5
44,8
4,3
31,9
36
4,1
57,5 / 22,9
50,6 / 31,1
(-6,9 / 8,2)
46,6 / 17,5
41,5 / 24,5
(-5,1 / 7)
57,9
58,9
1,0
45,6
47,4
1,8
83,5 / 35,3
66 / 40,7
40,9
39,6
-1,3
32,8
32,3
-0,5
43,9
48,4
4,5
34,6
38,9
4,3
44,1
47,4
3,3
34,8
38,1
3,3
39,2
41,2
2,0
30,9
33,1
2,2
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
38,7
23,0
-15,8
44,7
37,0
-7,7
36,0
22,4
-13,6
48,0
39,1
-8,9
(-17,5 / 5,4) 67,7 / 27,1
54,2 / 31,9 (-13,5 / 4,8)
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
EE
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
53
57.5
4
4.2
68.7
79.5
13.6
18.9
7.3
54.5
1039.67
6.06
2009
55
59.2
5.6
5.4
69.8
80.2
14
19.2
4.3
51.5
1032.94
6.93
2010
54.1
58.2
5.3
5.5
70.6
80.8
14.2
19.4
4.8
52.7
994.85
6.32
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
224
2011
54.3
57.9
5.6
5.7
71.4
81.3
14.8
20.1
7.3
51.8
1021.54
5.83
2012
53.1
57.2
5.4
5.5
71.4
81.5
14.8
20.3
8.3
52.4
1095.13
5.89
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS159
EE
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment insurance benefit recipients
thousands of recipients (monthly)
Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund
http://www.tootukassa.ee/sites/tootukassa.ee/files/TKH_0.xls
Definition: Unemployment insurance benefit recipients - unemployed persons who received a
payment of unemployment insurance benefit during the specified period. Unemployment
insurance is a type of compulsory insurance, unemployment insurance is financed from
unemployment insurance premiums paid by the insured persons (employees) and the employers.
The unemployment insurance benefit is paid to unemployed persons whose unemployment
insurance period in the three preceding years is at least 12 months and whose last relationship did
not end on their own initiative or mutual agreement.
Social assistance benefit
Subsistence benefit (to maintain subsistence level) receivers
Number of granted applications (thousands, cumulative during the year)
Ministry of Social Affairs
http://www.sm.ee/et/muud-toetused-ja-teenused#Toimetulekutoetus
http://pub.stat.ee/pxweb.2001/I_Databas/Social_life/15Social_protection/02Social_assistance/05Subsistence_benefits
/05Subsistence_benefits.asp
159
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
225
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
A person living alone or a family whose monthly disposable income, after deduction of the fixed
expenses connected with permanent dwelling during the current month, is below the subsistence
level has right to receive a subsistence benefit. The subsistence level increased (by 20%) from the
beginning of 2011. The subsistence level increased also in 2014 (by 17 % compared to the previous
year) and as from 2015 the subsistence level will be higher for underage children.
Note: In April 2010, a new social services and benefit register was introduced. Therefore the data
from the 2nd quarter 2010 is not fully comparable with the previous data.
Disability benefit
Recipients of benefits for disabled persons
Thousands of recipients at the end of quarter
Source: Social Insurance Fund
http://www.ensib.ee/?lang=en
Disability is the loss of or an abnormality in an anatomical, physiological or mental structure of
function of a person, which in conjunction with different relational and environmental restrictions
prevents participation in social life on equal bases with others. From 2008 the disabled adult
allowance was replaced by disability allowance for a person of working age and disability
allowance for a person of retirement age. Therefore the indicator since 2008 includes recipients of
three types of benefits: recipients of the allowance for disabled persons of at least 16 years of
age, for disabled persons of working age and for disabled persons of retirement age.
Incapacity for work
Receivers of pension for incapacity for work
Thousands of recipients at the end of quarter
Social Insurance Board
http://www.ensib.ee/?lang=en
The right for the pension for incapacity for work has a person, who is at least 16 years of age and
has been declared to be permanently incapable to work, loss of whose working capacity is 40 to
100 per cent and who by the initial date of granting of the pension has acquired the following
pensionable service or accumulation period in Estonia.
226
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
227
IRELAND
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of persons in combined poverty (either consistent poverty, at-risk-ofpoverty or basic deprivation) by 200,000, from the 2010 baseline year.
Note: The Irish combined poverty population is defined by combining two national poverty
indicators: at-risk-of-poverty and basic deprivation.
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EUROPE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION
OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION2008-2011 (IE AND EU INDICATORS)
Source: Social Inclusion Monitor 2013 (forthcoming), data from CSO SILC 2008-2013
228
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION USING IRISH
INDICATORS (2013)
Consistent poverty
At-risk-of-poverty only
Basic deprivation only
8.2%
7%
22.3%
Consistent poverty
(8.2%)
At-risk-ofpoverty
15.2%
Basic deprivation
30.5%
Source: Social Inclusion Monitor 2013 (forthcoming), data from CSO SILC 2013
IE
Combined poverty
Consistent poverty
At-risk-of-poverty
Basic deprivation
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
% of total population
%
24.0%
25.7%
31.0%
33.6%
35.7%
37.5%
1,000 persons
1,076
1,165
1,412
1,542
1,637
1,722
% of total population
4.2%
5.5%
6.3%
6.9%
7.7%
8.2%
1,000 persons
188
249
287
317
353
377
14.4%
14.1%
14.7%
16.0%
16.5%
15.2%
646
639
670
734
757
698
13.8%
17.1%
22.6%
24.5%
26.9%
30.5%
619
775
1,029
1,124
1,233
1,401
% of total population
1,000 persons
% of total population
1,000 persons
Source: Social Inclusion Monitor 2013 (forthcoming), data from CSO SILC 2013
229
POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION USING EU INDICATORS (2013)
EU28
IE
%
% of total pln
1000 persons
% of total pln
SMD
1000 persons
% of total pln
AROP+SMD
1000 persons
AROP
2008
15.5
686
5.5
245
0.6
26
2009
15.0
670
6.1
274
0.6
26
2010
15.2
682
5.7
256
0.4
17
2011
15.2
680
7.8
352
0.4
19
2012
15.7
722
9.8
451
0.9
42
2013
14.1
648
9.9
455
0.6
29
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.6
-1.4
-10.2
-5.5
0.1
4.4
0.9
85.7
-0.3
0.0
-31.0
11.5
2012
2013
16.9
84877
9.9
49673
2.8
14249
16.7
83462
9.6
48245
2.7
13558
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: The Irish Government has requested the Commission to avoid the use of the very low work
intensity (VLWI) indicator for Ireland, pending further investigation of the accuracy of this indicator.
It is therefore not included in any of the tables and charts in this country profile.
230
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
IE
Real GDP growth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-2.6
-0.6
6.4
1.7
20.0
2009
-6.4
-7.8
12.0
3.5
24.9
2010
-0.3
-4.1
13.9
6.8
27.7
2011
2.8
-1.8
14.7
8.7
28.7
2012
-0.3
-0.6
14.7
9.1
31.0
2013
0.2
2.4
13.1
7.9
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
IE
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
20.0
7.9
1.1
4.6
0.9
3.1
1.8
0.2
0.4
2009
24.9
9.8
1.3
5.3
1.1
3.6
3.0
0.2
0.6
2010
27.7
11.4
1.4
6.2
0.5
3.5
3.8
0.6
0.3
2011
28.7
12.8
1.3
6.2
0.5
3.4
3.7
0.6
0.3
2012
31.0
15.1
1.3
6.4
0.5
3.4
3.6
0.5
0.3
5.0
1.2
0.6
0.8
0.0
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.4
6.5
1.5
0.7
0.9
0.0
1.3
1.3
0.2
0.6
7.8
1.7
0.8
1.1
0.0
1.4
2.0
0.6
0.3
8.2
1.8
0.7
1.1
0.0
1.4
2.4
0.6
0.2
8.3
2.0
0.7
1.1
0.0
1.3
2.5
0.5
0.2
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
15.0
6.7
0.5
3.8
0.9
2.0
1.1
18.4
8.3
0.6
4.3
1.1
2.3
1.7
19.9
9.7
0.6
5.1
0.5
2.1
1.8
20.5
10.9
0.6
5.2
0.5
2.0
1.3
22.6
13.0
0.6
5.3
0.5
2.0
1.1
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
231
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
IE
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income (growth)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
23.7
25.7
27.3
15.5
15.0
15.2
10901 10386 10102
29.4
15.2
9999
30.0
15.7
9622
Change
20122013
29.5
-0.5
14.1
-1.6
9581
-41
2013
22893 21810 21214 20998 20206 20119
5.5
6.1
5.7
7.8
9.8
9.9
17.7
15.5
16.2
15.4
15.5
20.0
17.5
21.7
19.1
25.3
17.4
25.4
54.4
4.4
3.3
60.0
4.2
4.0
61.9
4.7
4.9
61.6
4.6
6.1
60.1
4.7
6.6
63.4
4.5
4.9
232
Change
2008- 2012
2013
5.8
24.8
-1.4
16.9
-1320
-87
0.1
-2774
4.4
-1.7
0.1
-0.3
9.9
3.4
9.0
-0.2
-1.7
0.1
1.6
2013
24.5
16.7
9.9
10.2
23.5
18.2
9.6
23.8
18.3
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
EU28
IE
Children
(0-17)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
IE
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
26.6
18.0
6.8
19.2
31.4
18.8
8.4
14.7
34.1
18.9
8.2
14.3
34.1
17.1
10.0
14.7
33.1
18.0
12.4
16.7
33.9
16.0
13.4
14.1
55.2
59.7
62.9
65.2
60.8
64.8
5.2
5.3
5.4
4.2
4.3
3.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
23.7
13.7
6.7
2.9
6.7
17.4
3.4
26.4
14.7
6.7
5.7
11.7
23.1
6.7
32.1
19.9
5.5
5.6
12.0
24.1
9.3
41.8
26.8
10.1
10.4
12.1
24.0
13.9
44.4
23.3
14.1
10.8
12.3
23.8
10.2
40.0
21.0
11.9
2.6
10.6
20.5
10.6
233
Change Change
2012- 2008- 2012
2013 2013
0.8
7.3
28.1
-2.0
-2.0
20.7
1.0
6.6
11.8
-2.6
-5.1
23.8
4.0
9.6
-0.4
-1.3
39.3
2013
27.6
20.3
11.0
25.2
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
Change Change
2012- 2008- 2012
2013 2013
-4.4
16.3
31.6
-2.3
7.3
23.1
-2.2
5.2
12.0
-8.2
-0.3
11.9
-1.7
3.9
9.7
-3.3
3.1
17.1
0.4
7.2
14.1
2013
31.8
22.7
12.0
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
IE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Working age
At risk-of-poverty gap
(18-64)
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
IE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
22.6
13.4
5.6
6.3
20.5
5.2
3.4
24.8
13.2
5.8
4.9
17.3
3.5
4.2
27.2
14.6
5.4
5.5
15.4
3.0
5.4
30.5
15.1
7.9
5.3
18.2
2.3
6.7
31.7
15.4
10.1
5.4
21.2
3.2
7.1
30.9
14.0
9.6
4.5
18.1
2.8
5.6
56.6
61.4
61.8
61.4
61.2
64.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
22.5
21.1
2.2
0.74
0.49
0.4
17.9
16.2
2.6
0.78
0.48
0.7
11.3
9.9
1.5
0.85
0.47
0.6
13.8
11.0
3.0
0.86
0.43
0.4
14.7
12.2
2.9
0.88
0.42
0.6
13.3
10.1
3.6
0.94
0.37
0.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
234
Change Change
2012- 2008- 2012
2013 2013
-0.8
8.3
25.4
-1.4
0.6
16.5
-0.5
4.0
10.0
-0.9
-1.8
9.1
-3.1
-2.4
25.9
-0.4
-2.4
18.1
-1.5
2.2
11.6
3.3
Change
20122013
-1.4
-2.1
0.7
0.1
-0.1
-0.4
7.9
2013
25.3
16.4
10.0
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change
2008- 2012
2013
-9.2
19.4
-11.0
14.6
1.4
7.5
0.2
0.91
-0.1
0.54
-0.2
6.8
2013
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
IE
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
In-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
EU28
Change
Change
2013
2012 2013
2012-2013 2008-2013
33.9
0.8
7.3
28.1 27.6
16.0
-2.0
-2.0
20.7 20.3
13.4
1.0
6.6
11.8 11.0
12.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
26.6
18.0
6.8
31.4
18.8
8.4
34.1
18.9
8.2
34.1
17.1
10.0
33.1
18.0
12.4
8.5
5.3
6.2
4.4
6.2
4.5
-1.7
-4.0
11.0
10.6
11.0
7.5
9.3
6.3
6.8
6.6
-0.2
-4.4
15.9
15.6
16.0
15.0
21.0
10.0
14.0
8.0
5.0
8.0
11.0
14.0
72.0
74.0
73.0
68.0
37.0
13.0
13.0
17.0
14.0
46.0
19.2
-
14.7
19.6
14.3
16.3
14.7
14.8
16.7
14.8
14.1
16.1
-2.6
1.3
-5.1
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
-
24.9
21.5
19.8
20.3
22.4
2.1
3.8
28.4
27.6
55.2
59.7
62.9
65.2
60.8
64.8
4.0
9.6
39.3
41.3
3.6
11.0
11.3
1.3
284
1.2
5.2
4.4
11.5
11.7
1.0
247
1.9
5.3
4.6
11.5
11.5
1.0
271
0.7
5.4
5.7
10.5
10.8
1.9
262
1.1
4.2
6.9
11.3
9.7
2.2
250
0.6
4.3
4.2
10.5
8.4
1.6
-2.7
-0.8
-1.3
-0.6
0.6
-0.5
-2.9
0.3
10.5
6.7
12.0
1.8
3.9
1.2
-0.4
0.6
-1.3
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS); CSO for Infant mortality data
235
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
85,8
69,0
-16,8
Low income
99,1
83,8
-15,3
High income
61,9
49,6
-12,3
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
82
96,1 / 60,8
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
73,1
58,6
(38/0/62)* (47/0/53)*
88,3
72,9
(48/0/52)* (58/0/42)*
46,4
37,1
(30/0/70)* (38/0/62)*
65,4 / 73,3
54/64,2
75 / 64,5
66,4 / 52,7
67,5
-14,5
71,2
82,4 / 47,7 (-13,7/-13,1) 86,8 / 45,6
-14,5
-15,4
-9,3
56,6
-14,6
70,9 / 35,6
(-15,9/-10)
87,7
71,4
-16,3
75,2
61,7
-13,5
99 / 61,4
85,9 / 52,4
(-13 / -9)
89,7 / 47,2
76 / 39,4
(-13,6/-7,8)
78,7
65,5
-13,2
66,6
54,1
-12,5
81,3
66,8
-14,5
69
55,7
-13,3
79,7
66,8
-12,9
67,1
55,7
-11,4
74,1
61,8
-12,3
62,3
49,2
-13,1
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
:
:
:
44,7
37,0
-7,7
37,3
38,0
0,7
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
IE
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
63.5
65
9.3
10.3
77.8
82.4
16.8
20.3
1.8
84.3
2009
63.9
65.2
10.2
10.5
77.7
82.7
17.4
20.8
2
83.1
2010
65.9
67
11.1
11.2
78.7
83.2
18.1
21.1
2.1
82.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
236
2011
66.1
68.3
10.9
11.8
78.6
83
17.9
20.9
2.2
83.1
2012
65.9
68.5
10.9
12.2
78.7
83.2
18
21.1
3.4
82.7
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS160
Unemployment
IE
Unemployment
according
to
ILO
definition - Total
definition
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
unit
Eurostat
source
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment
Benefit
and
Assistance recipients
definition
thousands of recipients
unit
Social Welfare Monthly Statistical Reports
source
Social assistance benefit
Emergency
Social
Assistance
recipients
definition
thousands of beneficiaries
unit
Social Welfare Monthly Statistical Reports
source
Disability benefit
Illness,
Disability
&
Caring
recipients
definition
thousands of beneficiaries
unit
Social Welfare Monthly Statistical Reports
source
160
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
237
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
238
GREECE
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 450,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
239
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
EL
AROP
VLWI
SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
20.1
19.7
20.1
21.4
23.1
23.1
0.0
3.0
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
2187
2149
2205
2349
2536
2529
-0.3
15.6
84877
83462
% of total pln
7.5
6.6
7.6
12.0
14.2
18.2
4.0
10.7
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
611
539
619
978
1158
1466
26.6
139.9
39644
40189
% of total pln
11.2
11.0
11.6
15.2
19.5
20.3
0.8
9.1
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
1213
1198
1269
1667
2141
2223
3.8
83.3
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.1
1.0
1.2
2.1
2.4
2.7
0.3
1.6
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
122
107
134
226
260
291
11.9
138.5
13552
13504
% of total pln
5.2
5.3
6.1
6.3
8.2
7.2
-1.0
2.0
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
564
576
669
693
900
789
-12.3
39.9
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.1
0.8
1.0
2.8
3.6
5.2
1.6
4.1
1.8
1.8
124
85
108
303
396
565
42.7
355.6
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
31
26
43
67
86
104
20.9
235.5
3391
3685
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC),
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
240
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
EL
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-0.2
1.2
7.8
3.7
25.4
2009
-3.1
-0.6
9.6
3.9
27.4
2010
-4.9
-2.6
12.7
5.7
28.2
2011
-7.1
-5.6
17.9
8.8
28.9
2012
-7.0
-8.3
24.5
14.5
30.0
2013
-3.9
-4.1
27.5
18.5
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
EL
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
25.4
7.4
1.2
10.8
2.1
1.6
1.3
0.5
0.6
2009
27.4
8.0
1.3
11.3
2.2
1.8
1.6
0.5
0.6
2010
28.2
8.2
1.3
11.9
2.2
1.8
1.7
0.4
0.6
2011
28.9
7.5
1.4
12.7
2.3
1.8
2.1
0.4
0.7
2012
30.0
6.4
1.3
15.4
2.4
1.6
1.9
0.2
0.6
1.9
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.1
1.9
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.2
1.8
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.2
1.7
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.2
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
23.5
7.4
1.0
10.4
2.0
1.0
1.3
0.0
0.4
25.4
8.0
1.1
11.0
2.1
1.3
1.6
0.0
0.4
26.3
8.2
1.1
11.6
2.0
1.2
1.7
0.0
0.5
27.0
7.4
1.2
12.4
2.2
1.2
2.1
0.0
0.5
28.3
6.4
1.2
15.0
2.3
1.1
1.9
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.5
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
241
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
EL
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.1
7.6
0
3
-586 -1767
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.1
20.1
7219
27.6
19.7
7521
27.7
20.1
7559
31.0
21.4
6976
34.6
23.1
6038
35.7
23.1
5452
15160
11.2
15794
11.0
15874
11.6
14650
15.2
12679
19.5
11450
20.3
-1229
0.8
-3710
9.1
7.5
13.0
24.7
20.1
6.6
16.1
24.1
18.9
7.6
17.6
23.4
18.0
12.0
10.5
26.1
24.9
14.2
13.8
29.9
35.8
18.2
4
10.7
32.7
44.3
2.8
8.5
13.7
5.9
22.2
13.2
5.8
21.8
15.6
5.6
18.1
13.7
6.0
24.2
13.8
6.6
33.1
17.5
6.6
36.9
3.69
0
3.8
242
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
8
24.2
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
3.77
0.7
14.7
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
EL
Children
(0-17)
EL
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.7
9.4
1.9
5.8
2.4
12.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.7
23.0
10.4
30.0
23.7
12.2
28.7
23.0
12.2
30.4
23.7
16.4
35.4
26.9
20.9
38.1
28.8
23.3
3.9
26.0
2.7
26.4
3.9
26.0
7.2
27.4
7.6
36.0
13.8
39.0
6.2
3.0
9.9
13.0
10.9
30.6
6.0
27.9
10.9
29.0
10.6
28.9
9.7
27.3
18.2
32.9
8.5
5.6
7.3
2.3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
34.0
23.0
13.8
31.6
22.3
14.8
38.4
27.6
18.0
40.3
26.9
22.5
48.3
33.1
29.0
50.7
34.1
29.4
8.3
15.5
6.6
15.6
30.5
6.6
11.6
7.9
16.9
32.8
11.2
11.9
9.9
20.3
33.1
14.0
12.9
13.0
24.2
35.2
19.3
13.3
16.1
28.1
48.2
21.6
18.1
16.5
28.2
49.3
243
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.4
16.7
1.0
11.1
0.4
15.6
2.3
4.8
0.4
0.1
1.1
13.3
2.6
9.9
12.6
18.8
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
EL
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
EL
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.4
11.2
0.3
5.4
0.9
11.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
27.9
18.7
10.4
27.1
18.1
10.3
27.7
19.0
11.2
31.6
20.0
15.4
37.7
23.8
20.7
39.1
24.1
21.6
8.6
14.2
25.9
29.2
22.9
7.8
13.7
26.1
27.8
22.4
8.7
13.9
24.8
28.4
18.6
13.5
11.9
28.8
28.8
23.5
16.3
15.1
32.5
30.2
34.4
19.6
13.0
33.6
29.9
38.1
3.3
-2.1
1.1
-0.3
3.7
11.0
-1.2
7.7
0.7
15.2
13.8
13.0
14.4
13.0
14.4
16.3
1.9
2.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.1
22.3
14.8
0.86
0.41
14.2
26.8
21.4
12.1
0.86
0.41
12.8
26.7
21.3
12.4
0.84
0.42
12.5
29.3
23.6
13.1
0.81
0.45
13.2
23.5
17.2
14.3
1.01
0.52
14.1
23.1
15.1
13.7
1.04
0.60
14.4
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
244
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.4
-5.0
-2.1
-7.2
-0.6
-1.1
0.03
0.18
0.08
0.19
0.3
0.2
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
EL
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.7
23.0
10.4
30.0
23.7
12.2
28.7
23.0
12.2
30.4
23.7
16.4
35.4
26.9
20.9
38.1
28.8
23.3
Change
20122013
2.7
1.9
2.4
3.9
2.7
3.9
7.2
7.6
13.8
6.2
14.2
19.8
21.4
11.7
16.9
16.9
17.0
17.2
14.4
18.5
15.6
-2.9
-1.3
11.0
10.6
60.3
54.0
56.0
79.2
84.4
81.3
-3.1
21
67.5
64.9
21.4
22.8
21.6
19.2
22.1
20.4
-1.7
-1
15.9
15.6
5.0
7.0
4.0
7.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
15.0
5.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
29.0
33.0
46.0
43.0
37.0
37.0
26.0
25.0
23.0
32.0
39.0
46.0
26.0
11.4
26.4
9.1
26.0
7.2
27.4
36.0
15.7
12.8
10.5
9.0
8.6
10.9
6.0
10.9
10.6
9.7
18.2
8.45
27.4
6.8
14.4
1.2
314
9.3
30.6
26.5
6.9
14.2
2.0
371
8.3
27.9
20.2
7.9
13.5
1.3
436
7.9
29.0
27.4
8.6
12.9
2.4
357
7.1
28.9
38.4
10.0
11.3
1.9
293
5.8
27.3
44.0
10.2
10.1
7.7
32.9
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
245
Change
20082013
9.4
5.8
12.9
9.9
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
39.0
3
13
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
7.33
39.3
41.3
5.6
0.2
-1.2
16.6
3.4
-4.3
10.5
6.7
12.0
1.9
5.6
-1.6
2.3
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
Gross2010
121,3
87,0
-34,3
100,8
Low income
130,8
93,0
-37,8
109,3
High income
101,8
64,6
-37,2
83,1
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
126,4
133,5 / 110,9
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
126,1
Gross2050 Difference
67,9
(100/0/0)*
74,4
(100/0/0)*
47,8
(100/0/0)*
87 / 87
67.9 / 67.9
76,5 / 99,1
58,5 / 80
81,5
-44,9
108,8
63,2
-32,9
-34,9
-35,3
-45,6
88,4 / 60 ( - 45,1 / -50,9) 111,1 / 91,1 69,9 / 43,5 ( - 41,2 / -47,6)
88,9
-37,2
105
69,9
-35,1
141,2 / 105,3 92,7 / 64,3 ( - 48,5 / -41) 114,2 / 86,3 86,3 / 47,5 ( - 27,9 / - 26,7)
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
114,6
71,6
-43,0
93,7
53,7
-40,0
121,3
87
-34,3
100,8
68
-32,9
121,3
87
-34,3
100,8
68
-32,9
96,7
63,8
-32,9
76,4
47,3
-29,1
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
35,9
29,0
-6,9
44,7
37,0
-7,7
59,3
52,4
-6,9
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
EL
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
65.8
66.1
9
8.3
77.7
82.3
17.8
19.8
5.4
76
2009
66.1
66.8
7.9
7.3
77.8
82.7
18.1
20.2
5.5
75.4
2253.37
10.19
2010
66.3
67.7
8.8
8.1
78.4
82.8
18.5
20.4
5.5
75.5
2042.33
9.48
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
246
2011
66.2
66.9
9
7.9
78
83.6
18.2
21.2
7.5
76.4
2000.32
9.79
2012
64.8
64.9
8.6
7.3
78
83.4
18.1
21
8
74.8
1812.04
9.27
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS161
EL
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
Registered at the National Manpower Agency (OAED) receiving an unemployment
benefit
thousands of receivers
National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG), Labour Force Survey
Note on the unemployed receiving or not an unemployment benefit:
In the above data, the unemployed are defined according to the Eurostat definition.
Therefore, it should be underlined that the above figures for the registered
unemployed (receiving or not an unemployment benefit) are lower enough than the
figures of the National Manpower Agency for the registered unemployed, largely due
to the fact that only recipients classified as ―unemployment‖ according to the Eurostat
definition are taken into account. ‖
161
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only a selection of
benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard definition by the ILO) and the
number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
247
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
248
SPAIN
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 1,400,000-1,500,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; VLWI - share of population living in (quasi-)jobless
households, i.e. very low work intensity households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of poverty rate (AROP),
the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey year) and Ireland (12
months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity rate (VLWI) refers to the
income reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the current year.
To note that there is a major break in 2013 in Spain for income variables in EU-SILC.
249
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
ES
AROP
VLWI
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
20.8
20.1
21.4
22.2
22.2
20.4
-1.8
-0.4
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
9415
9223
9881
10257
10276
9425
-8.3
0.1
84877
83462
% of total pln
6.6
7.6
10.8
13.4
14.3
15.7
1.4
9.1
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
2351
2725
3900
4810
5137
5604
9.1
138.4
39644
40189
% of total pln
3.6
4.5
4.9
4.5
5.8
6.2
0.4
2.6
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
1625
2066
2264
2100
2708
2862
5.7
76.1
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.4
2.6
4.0
5.2
5.0
5.6
0.6
3.2
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
1089
1180
1822
2407
2340
2574
10.0
136.4
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.5
1.4
1.9
1.1
1.5
1.6
0.1
0.1
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
673
659
868
511
711
745
4.8
10.7
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.3
2.0
1.9
-0.1
1.4
1.8
1.8
229
450
475
624
925
858
-7.2
274.7
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
47
41
88
210
129
223
72.9
374.5
3391
3685
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%). ii) There is a major break in 2013 in Spain
for income variables in EU-SILC.
250
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
ES
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
0.9
-0.1
11.3
2.0
21.5
2009
-3.8
-6.5
17.9
4.3
24.7
2010
-0.2
-2.2
19.9
7.3
25.0
2011
0.1
-1.9
21.4
8.9
25.5
2012
-1.6
-4.2
24.8
11.0
25.4
2013
-1.2
-3.0
26.1
13.0
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
ES
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
21.5
6.8
1.6
7.1
2.0
1.4
2.3
0.2
0.2
2009
24.7
7.3
1.7
7.9
2.1
1.5
3.6
0.2
0.2
2010
25.0
7.2
1.7
8.5
2.2
1.5
3.4
0.2
0.2
2011
25.5
7.1
1.8
8.8
2.3
1.4
3.7
0.2
0.2
2012
25.4
6.7
1.8
9.2
2.4
1.4
3.6
0.1
0.2
2.9
0.0
0.4
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
3.4
0.0
0.4
1.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
3.7
0.0
0.4
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.2
4.1
0.0
0.4
1.4
0.3
0.4
1.1
0.2
0.2
3.7
0.0
0.4
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.1
0.2
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
18.6
6.8
1.2
6.0
1.7
1.0
1.9
21.2
7.3
1.3
6.6
1.9
1.1
3.0
21.3
7.2
1.3
7.1
1.9
1.1
2.6
21.4
7.1
1.3
7.4
2.0
1.0
2.6
21.7
6.7
1.4
7.8
2.0
1.0
2.8
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
251
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
ES
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.9
2.8
-1.8
-0.4
1127
382
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.5
20.8
8161
24.5
20.1
8114
26.7
21.4
7780
27.7
22.2
7532
28.2
22.2
7416
27.3
20.4
8543
17138
3.6
17040
4.5
16338
4.9
15817
4.5
15573
5.8
17940
6.2
2367
0.4
802
2.6
6.6
11.0
24.4
20.8
7.6
12.5
28.9
21.2
10.8
11.6
32.3
22.9
13.4
11.4
30.9
26.4
14.3
11.6
31.4
28.1
15.7
1.4
9.1
30.9
22.2
-0.5
-5.9
17.5
5.7
10.1
20.2
6.4
12.8
25.7
7.2
13.2
26.0
7.1
13.8
25.0
7.2
14.3
32.0
6.3
10.3
-0.7
4.8
-1.7
-3.9
-5.6
0.2
252
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
6.5
1.4
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
7
-0.9
-4
14.54
0.6
0.2
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
5.8
0.9
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
ES
Children
(0-17)
ES
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.2
2.0
-2.4
-0.7
0.7
2.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
30.6
28.2
5.5
30.0
26.8
6.7
33.1
29.2
7.4
33.2
29.5
5.2
33.8
29.9
7.6
32.6
27.5
8.3
4.3
26.2
6.1
33.5
9.5
35.1
11.6
35.8
12.3
33.9
13.8
35.4
1.5
1.5
9.5
9.2
13.0
9.0
16.0
8.2
20.0
7.5
20.3
9.5
18.8
8.5
27.6
7.1
8.9
-1.4
14.7
-1.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
26.2
21.1
4.4
26.4
20.9
5.9
29.9
23.7
6.5
31.7
24.8
7.0
35.6
28.4
6.9
36.5
28.2
7.8
7.9
10.7
11.7
16.7
11.2
7.4
13.2
17.0
22.3
13.6
10.1
15.9
17.7
22.1
14.9
13.3
10.8
18.9
22.8
14.1
15.5
12.4
20.6
23.6
16.5
17.7
15.5
21.0
24.0
12.4
253
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.9
10.3
-0.2
7.1
0.9
3.4
2.2
3.1
0.4
0.4
-4.1
9.8
4.8
9.3
7.3
1.2
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
ES
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
ES
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.5
7.1
-1.5
3.1
0.4
3.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
22.1
17.3
3.5
23.0
17.5
4.5
26.3
19.5
4.9
27.8
20.8
4.8
29.7
21.9
6.1
29.2
20.4
6.5
7.3
11.1
26.1
5.6
10.3
8.0
11.6
33.0
5.2
13.4
11.2
12.6
35.5
5.1
13.9
13.9
12.1
34.2
6.8
14.5
14.9
12.3
34.0
5.7
15.3
16.3
10.6
31.4
5.5
11.1
1.4
-1.7
-2.6
-0.2
-4.2
22.1
24.2
29.9
29.7
28.0
34.6
6.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
27.7
26.9
1.9
0.79
0.49
1.8
24.3
23.1
2.3
0.82
0.50
2.0
21.4
20.5
2.2
0.86
0.53
2.1
20.9
19.5
2.7
0.86
0.56
2.4
16.6
14.8
2.9
0.93
0.58
1.9
14.5
12.7
2.7
1.00
0.60
1.8
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
9.0
-0.5
5.3
-0.1
0.8
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
12.6
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.1
-13.2
-2.1
-14.2
-0.2
0.8
0.07
0.21
0.02
0.11
-0.1
0.0
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: i) ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the exception of the poverty threshold, S80/S20. ii) There is a major break in 2013 in
Spain for income variables in EU-SILC.
254
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
ES
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
30.6
28.2
5.5
30.0
26.8
6.7
33.1
29.2
7.4
33.2
29.5
5.2
33.8
29.9
7.6
32.6
27.5
8.3
Change
20122013
-1.2
-2.4
0.7
4.3
6.1
9.5
11.6
12.3
13.8
1.5
17.1
18.5
19.1
15.7
18.7
15.5
15.1
16.0
15.1
16.0
13.6
-2.4
-1.9
11.0
10.6
76.4
83.0
78.4
80.8
83.7
78.6
-5.1
2.2
67.5
64.9
26.1
23.2
23.9
22.7
22.3
19.3
-3
-6.8
15.9
15.6
22.0
16.0
18.0
18.0
20.0
18.0
20.0
19.0
21.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
50.0
50.0
45.0
45.0
52.0
37.0
45.0
44.0
50.0
41.0
40.0
46.0
26.2
15.3
0.8
19.2
33.5
13.3
1.6
16.5
35.1
13.2
1.3
16.5
35.8
12.8
2.5
16.2
33.9
10.5
1.2
13.7
35.4
11.6
1.5
1.1
9.2
-3.7
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
15.1
1.4
-4.1
28.4
27.6
13.0
16.0
20.0
20.3
18.8
27.6
8.88
14.67
39.3
41.3
14.7
11.4
31.7
0.2
1717
2.5
9.0
18.9
12.5
30.9
0.2
1578
3.1
8.2
18.3
11.6
28.2
0.1
1531
2.9
7.5
19.5
11.0
26.3
0.2
1477
3.3
9.5
20.5
10.4
24.7
0.2
1389
2.1
8.5
13.7
10.1
23.6
-6.8
-0.3
-1.1
-1
-1.3
-8.1
10.5
6.7
12.0
2.7
7.1
0.6
-1.4
0.2
-1.9
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
Note: There is a major break in 2013 in Spain for income variables in EU-SILC.
255
Change
20082013
2
-0.7
2.8
9.5
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
94,5
86,5
-8,0
Low income
94,6
86,5
-8,1
High income
77,7
68,0
-9,7
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
83
88,5 / 71,7
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
86,5
79,1
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
86,5
79,1
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
69,2
59,3
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
86 / 86
80,4 / 80,4
96 / 77,5
91,2 / 71,1
63,4
-19,6
65,2 / 51,2 (-23,4/-20,4)
74,2
55,4
75,2 / 63
-7,4
-7,4
-9,9
-18,8
55,4 / 41,5 (-19,9/-21,5)
98,2
92,3
-5,9
90,9
85,4
-5,5
99,7 / 81,3
92,9 / 72,5
(-6,8/-8,8)
91,6 / 73,4
85,4 / 64
(-6,2/-9,4)
86
78,2
-7,8
78,6
71,5
-7,1
94,5
86,5
-8,0
86,5
79,1
-7,4
92,3
84,7
-7,6
84,4
77,5
-6,9
86,1
77,8
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
EU27 2050 Difference
55,3
46,4
-8,8
44,7
37,0
-7,7
72,4
56,6
-15,9
48,0
39,1
-8,9
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
ES
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
64.1
63.6
9.9
8.7
78.2
84.5
18.1
22.1
0.4
72.8
2239.54
8.93
2009
62.9
62.2
9.2
8.4
78.7
84.9
18.3
22.4
0.4
71.1
2236.39
9.6
2010
64.4
63.9
9.6
8.9
79.1
85.3
18.6
22.7
0.3
71.9
2240.43
9.65
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
256
2011
65.4
65.8
9.7
9.3
79.5
85.6
18.8
23
0.6
75.1
2186.31
9.44
2012
64.8
65.8
9.2
9
79.5
85.5
18.7
22.8
0.7
74.3
2163.77
9.3
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS162
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
Number of Unemployment Benefits Total (In Thousands)
1) Contributory Unemployment Benefit 2) Social Assistance Unemployment
Benefit 3) Programme of active insertion income
thousands of recipients
Ministry of Employment and Social Security
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
RMI : Minimum Income for Insertion (holders)
thousands of beneficiaries
Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality
Disability benefit
Number of invalidity pensions
thousands of recipients
Ministry of Employment and Social Security
162
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
257
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012. There is a major break in 2013 for income variables in EU-SILC, so the reference period 2008-2012 is used
for the long term changes in indicators based on EU-SILC income data, since the 2013 data are not comparable to 2008.
258
FRANCE
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 1,900,000 (baseline year:
2007)
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
259
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
FR
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
12.5
12.9
13.3
14.0
14.1
13.7
-0.4
1.2
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
7554
7820
8112
8605
8707
8496
-2.4
12.5
84877
83462
% of total pln
8.8
8.4
9.9
9.4
8.4
7.9
-0.5
-0.9
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
4069
3873
4585
4346
3902
3670
-5.9
-9.8
39644
40189
% of total pln
5.4
5.6
5.8
5.2
5.3
5.1
-0.2
-0.3
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
3253
3372
3530
3211
3256
3133
-3.8
-3.7
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.1
2.0
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.4
0.1
0.3
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
1282
1213
1559
1573
1426
1489
4.4
16.1
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.1
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.4
0.1
0.3
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
662
944
903
960
816
880
7.8
32.9
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.2
-0.1
0.0
1.8
1.8
745
721
922
789
815
740
-9.2
-0.7
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.0
-0.1
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
292
265
209
211
232
222
-4.3
-24.0
3391
3685
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC),
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
260
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
FR
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-0.1
0.5
7.4
2.8
29.7
2009
-3.1
-1.1
9.1
3.2
31.5
2010
1.7
0.0
9.3
3.7
31.7
2011
2.0
0.7
9.2
3.8
31.6
2012
0.0
0.1
9.8
4.0
32.1
2013
0.2
-0.2
10.3
4.1
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
FR
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
29.7
8.6
1.8
11.5
1.8
2.6
1.9
0.8
0.6
2009
31.5
9.2
2.0
12.4
1.8
2.6
1.9
0.8
0.7
2010
31.7
9.3
2.0
12.5
1.8
2.5
2.0
0.8
0.7
2011
31.6
9.2
2.0
12.6
1.8
2.5
1.9
0.8
0.8
2012
32.1
9.2
2.1
12.9
1.8
2.6
2.0
0.8
0.8
3.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.6
3.4
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.7
3.4
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.7
3.4
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.8
3.5
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.8
0.8
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
26.4
8.6
1.5
11.1
1.5
2.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
28.1
9.2
1.6
11.9
1.5
2.0
1.8
28.3
9.2
1.6
12.0
1.4
2.0
1.8
28.2
9.2
1.7
12.2
1.4
2.0
1.8
28.6
9.2
1.7
12.4
1.4
2.1
1.8
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
261
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
FR
Total
population
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
18.5
18.5
19.2
19.3
At-risk-of-poverty rate
12.5
12.9
13.3
14.0
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
10496 10644 10669 10897
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children younger
22041than
22353
14 years)
22406
- in PPS
22883
Severe material deprivation rate
5.4
5.6
5.8
5.2
Share of people living in very low work intensity
8.8households
8.4 (0-59)
9.9
9.4
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
14.5
18.2
19.5
17.1
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
12.5
12.5
12.3
13.7
Impact of social transfers on poverty reduction
46.8
(excl. pensions)
46.3
46.6
43.3
S80/S20
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.6
Housing cost overburden rate
4.2
4.0
5.1
5.2
Real change in gross household disposable income
0.4 growth
1.7
1.3
0.3
19.1
14.1
11271
23668
5.3
8.4
7.0
16.2
13.8
40.8
4.5
5.2
-0.8
18.1
13.7
11631
24424
5.1
7.9
262
16.6
13.3
43.4
4.5
5.0
0.0
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1
-0.4
-0.4
1.2
360
1135
756
2383
-0.2
-0.3
-0.5
-0.9
0.4
-0.5
2.63
0
-0.2
0.8
2.1
0.8
-3.42
0.1
0.8
-0.4
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
34.5
5
11.2
-1.1
9.6
10.7
23.8
18.3
35.27
5
11
-0.3
EU28
FR
Children
(0-17)
FR
Youth
(18-24)
%
2010
2011
2012
2013
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
21.2
21.2
22.9
At-risk-of-poverty rate
15.6
16.8
18.1
Severe material deprivation rate
6.6
6.5
7.0
Share of people living in very low work intensity
7.4households
6.6
8.8
At risk-of-poverty gap
14.5
18.2
17.2
Impact of social transfers on poverty reduction
55.3
(excl. pensions)
51.5
50.0
Overcrowding rate
13.6
14.1
13.2
23.0
18.8
7.0
8.2
16.7
47.5
11.6
23.2
19.0
7.2
7.2
15.4
44.3
11.3
21.3
18.0
6.0
6.4
16.7
47.4
10.5
%
2008
2008
2009
2009
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
27.4
26.6
At-risk-of-poverty rate
21.0
21.1
Severe material deprivation rate
8.4
8.6
Share of people living in very low work intensity
9.4households
8.3
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
12.2
10.7
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
7.1
9.2
NEET rate
13.5
16.5
Housing cost overburden rate
10.0
9.1
2010
2011
2012
2013
30.3
24.3
8.1
10.7
12.2
8.9
16.2
11.7
29.1
22.4
6.9
11.0
11.2
8.4
15.8
11.3
27.8
23.0
7.3
9.4
12.0
8.9
16.2
12.8
28.3
22.7
6.3
9.9
13.5
9.0
14.6
11.2
263
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.9
0.1
-1.0
2.4
-1.2
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
1.3
2.2
3.1
-7.9
-0.8
-3.1
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.5
0.9
-0.3
1.7
-1.0
-2.1
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.3
0.1
1.9
-1.6
1.1
-1.6
1.2
2012
2013
28.1
27.6
20.7
20.3
11.8
11.0
9.1
9.3
23.8
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
FR
%
2010
2011
2012
2013
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
18.8
18.9
19.9
At-risk-of-poverty rate
11.6
11.8
12.7
Severe material deprivation rate
5.5
5.9
6.0
Share of people living in very low work intensity
9.4households
9.1
10.3
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
6.5
6.6
6.5
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
18.5
19.8
21.7
Overcrowding rate
10.1
9.7
9.5
Housing cost overburden rate
4.9
4.3
5.9
Impact of social transfers on poverty reduction
47.3
(excl. pensions)
47.8
48.0
20.1
13.5
5.2
9.8
7.6
18.3
8.2
6.1
43.8
19.8
13.7
5.4
8.9
8.0
17.6
8.5
6.3
41.0
19.2
13.6
5.4
8.5
8.0
17.6
8.1
6.1
43.6
FR
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
2008
2009
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14.1
11.9
3.3
0.95
0.65
3.3
13.4
11.9
3.2
0.96
0.66
3.0
11.8
9.4
3.4
0.98
0.65
3.0
11.5
9.7
2.9
1.01
0.64
2.4
11.1
9.4
2.4
1.00
0.65
2.4
10.4
8.7
2.7
1.02
0.64
2.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
264
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.6
0.4
-0.1
2.0
0.0
-0.1
-0.4
-0.9
0.0
1.5
0.0
-0.9
-0.4
-2.0
-0.2
1.2
2.6
-3.7
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.7
-3.7
-0.7
-3.2
0.3
-0.6
0.02
0.07
-0.01
-0.01
-0.3
-1.2
2012
2013
25.4
25.3
16.5
16.4
10.0
10.0
10.9
11.1
9.1
8.9
25.9
25.8
18.1
18.7
11.6
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
FR
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.2
15.6
6.6
21.2
16.8
6.5
22.9
18.1
7.0
23.0
18.8
7.0
23.2
19.0
7.2
21.3
18.0
6.0
Change
20122013
-1.9
-1
-1.2
7.4
6.6
8.8
8.2
7.2
6.4
-0.8
-1
9.7
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.3
7.7
7.8
8.6
9.1
9.1
0
1.8
11.0
10.6
64.7
72.9
72.9
75.9
77.9
77.9
0
13.2
67.5
64.9
11.5
12.8
12.7
13.6
14.3
13.8
-0.5
2.3
15.9
15.6
17.0
23.0
16.0
25.0
17.0
26.0
18.0
26.0
17.0
23.0
14.0
14.0
52.0
48.0
47.0
43.0
45.0
37.0
44.0
47.0
47.0
52.0
50.0
46.0
14.5
30.4
6.5
35.2
18.2
30.5
17.2
28.8
16.7
29.3
15.4
29.4
16.7
26.1
1.3
-3.3
2.2
-4.3
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
35.3
33.6
34.0
34.4
30.4
-4
-4.8
28.4
27.6
55.3
51.5
50.0
47.5
44.3
47.4
3.09
-7.93
39.3
41.3
1.6
5.2
11.5
1.6
3149
5.0
13.6
2.0
6.5
12.2
2.0
3180
4.7
14.1
3.7
6.4
12.5
1.5
3022
4.4
13.2
4.3
6.1
11.9
2.8
2846
3.6
11.6
3.8
6.3
11.5
2.2
2917
3.9
11.3
3.5
6.6
9.7
-0.3
0.3
-1.8
1.9
1.4
-1.8
10.5
6.7
12.0
3.4
10.5
-0.5
-0.8
-1.6
-3.1
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
265
Change
20082013
0.1
2.4
-0.6
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
77,6
58,8
-18,8
Low income
78,5
59,0
-19,5
High income
63
48,0
-15,0
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
66,6
66,9 / 54,5
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
80,9
82 / 66,1
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
63,9
47,3
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
64,3
47,3
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
47,9
37,4
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
58,8 / 58,8
47,3 / 47,3
69,4 / 50,8
56,7 / 40,2
51,3
-15,3
53,9
40,6
50,5 / 43,6 (-16,4 /-10,9) 54,4 / 41,4
65,4
-15,5
-17,0
-10,5
-13,3
40,6 / 32,6 (-13,8/-8,8)
66,9
53,2
66,9 / 55,1 (-15,1 /-11) 67,3 / 50,5
-16,6
-13,7
53,7 / 41,7 (-13,6 /-8,8)
65,5
51
-14,5
53,6
40,4
-13,2
76,4
61,2
-15,2
62,9
49,4
-13,5
76,9
58,5
-18,4
63,3
46,8
-16,5
56,5
42,3
-14,2
45,2
33,3
-11,9
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
39,8
32,3
-7,5
44,7
37,0
-7,7
58,8
53,2
-5,6
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
FR
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
62.7
64.6
8.7
10.1
77.8
84.8
18.5
23
1.9
69.1
2958.69
10.91
2009
62.8
63.5
9
9.5
78
85
18.7
23.2
1.9
68.6
3005.9
11.6
2010
61.8
63.4
9
9.8
78.2
85.3
18.9
23.4
1.9
67.3
3114.99
11.55
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
266
2011
62.7
63.6
9.7
9.9
78.7
85.7
19.3
23.8
2.3
67.6
3205.33
11.52
2012
62.6
63.8
9.4
10.4
78.7
85.4
19.1
23.4
2.2
68.1
3303.14
11.61
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS163
FR
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
link
definition
unit
source
link
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit 1
persons entitled to U unemployment insurance scheme : ARE (Allocation de
Retour à l'Emploi)
thousands of beneficiaries Seasonnaly adjusted (France Métropolitaine)
Fichier National des Assédics (FNA)
http://www.unedic.org/etude-et-prevision/situations-detaillees-de-l-assurancechomage-pour-l-annee-2013
Unemployment benefit 2
persons entitled to U assistance scheme ASS PER YEAR: (Allocation de
Solidarité Spécifique)
thousands of beneficiaries - Seasonally adjusted (the whole of France)
Cnamts, Cnaf, MSA, Drees, Pôle Emploi, FSV, Cnav, CDC, régime des caisses des
DOM
SHEET RSA
http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/tableau.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=natsos04604
http://www.drees.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/minima_sociaux_2013.pdf
na: not available with the same filed (the whole of France)
163
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
267
definition
unit
source
link
comment
Social assistance benefit
Households entitled to social assistance Benefit (RSA since Q2/2009) RSA Socle
& RSA Activité
thousands of beneficiaries (the whole of France)
CNAF
http://www.caf.fr/etudes-et-statistiques/donnees-statistiques/solidarite-et-insertion
RSA definition: A new social assistance scheme, revenu de solidarité active
(RSA), has been introduced in June 2009. It replaces two former social
assistance benefits, the former minimum income scheme (revenu minimum
d’insertion, RMI), and the lone parents benefit (allocation de parent isolé,
API), and the various in-work benefits which were related to these two social
assistance benefits. Notably for these reasons, the data on RMI and the data on
RSA are not fully comparable. Moreover, only one part of RSA (RSA socle) is a
social assistance scheme. Within the attached data, the whole of beneficiaries
are covered:
- « RSA socle » only
- « RSA activité » only. This case (RSA activité) completes the amount of ARE in
the case of a low income.
- and « RSA socle + activité ». This case represents the beneficiaries who
receive only the RSA socle (when they have not work income) or beneficiaries
who are in a situation of full cumulation RSA socle+activité for 3 months
following the resumption of employment during the last twelve months.
268
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
269
CROATIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduction of the number of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion to 1,220,000,
equivalent to a decrease by 152,000 persons compared to 2011
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
270
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
HR
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
%
% of total pln
2008
17.3
2009
17.9
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.2
2012
2013
20.6
20.9
20.4
19.5
-0.9
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
874
889
865
830
-4.0
84877
83462
% of total pln
13.9
15.9
16.8
14.8
-2.0
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
449
515
541
478
-11.6
39644
40189
% of total pln
14.3
15.2
15.9
14.7
-1.2
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
609
646
676
624
-7.7
49673
48245
% of total pln
4.1
4.1
3.6
3.7
0.1
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
172
175
155
156
0.6
13552
13504
% of total pln
3.4
3.7
3.5
4.2
0.7
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
144
159
148
178
20.3
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
3.3
3.5
4.2
3.6
-0.6
1.8
1.8
139
147
180
151
-16.1
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.6
-0.2
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
17
37
34
24
-29.4
3391
3685
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
271
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
HR
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
2.1
3.1
8.9
5.6
18.2
2009
-6.9
-1.8
9.6
5.4
20.2
2010
-2.3
-5.1
12.3
7.0
20.5
2011
-0.2
-2.3
13.9
8.8
20.3
2012
-2.2
-3.9
16.1
10.4
20.7
2013
-0.9
-1.0
17.3
11.0
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
HR
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
18.2
6.3
3.2
4.9
2.0
1.5
0.2
0.0
0.1
2009
20.2
7.1
3.5
5.4
2.1
1.6
0.4
0.0
0.1
2010
20.5
7.0
3.6
5.6
2.1
1.7
0.5
0.0
0.1
2011
20.3
6.9
3.5
5.6
2.1
1.6
0.5
0.0
0.1
2012
20.7
7.2
3.5
5.8
2.1
1.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
17.0
6.3
2.9
4.9
2.0
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
18.9
7.1
3.2
5.4
2.1
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
19.2
7.0
3.3
5.6
2.1
0.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
18.9
6.9
3.2
5.6
2.1
0.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
19.3
7.2
3.2
5.7
2.1
0.7
0.5
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
272
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
HR
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.7
-0.9
2.2
-62
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.3
17.9
31.1
20.6
4567
32.6
20.9
4454
32.6
20.4
4417
29.9
19.5
4355
9591
14.3
9353
15.2
9276
15.9
9146
14.7
-130
-1.2
13.9
15.9
16.8
14.8
-2
25.0
24.4
27.6
27.9
31.0
28.1
-2.9
3.1
31.6
4.5
29.8
4.3
31.3
5.5
14.1
31.9
5.6
8.0
33.3
5.4
6.8
34.3
5.3
8.4
1.01
-0.1
1.6
2.72
0.8
273
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
HR
Children
(0-17)
HR
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
2008
15.8
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
18.7
29.4
19.6
14.8
31.1
21.1
14.4
34.8
23.3
18.1
29.3
21.8
13.7
11.5
28.1
13.8
28.0
15.7
31.4
11.4
27.2
-4.3
-4.2
2.8
-3.4
23.0
25.4
45.7
35.3
37.0
58.6
37.2
59.6
34.4
60.0
37.2
56.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
34.5
23.2
16.7
34.7
22.2
16.7
31.6
20.1
16.8
32.9
21.2
17.2
14.1
7.6
11.2
19.3
12.6
15.0
7.6
11.3
20.6
8.2
13.7
5.5
12.7
22.2
6.6
13.8
9.1
14.9
27.0
7.3
7.6
13.3
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-5.5
-1.5
6.0
-4.4
8.5
15.5
274
4.2
-8.5
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.3
1.1
0.4
0.1
3.6
2.2
4.8
0.7
7.3
13.7
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
HR
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
HR
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
2008
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.2
-0.3
5.0
-1.0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
13.5
29.9
18.2
13.8
32.0
18.6
15.2
31.8
18.1
15.4
29.6
17.8
14.4
27.2
22.1
14.7
6.2
28.1
44.8
12.6
16.6
6.5
28.3
46.3
7.8
17.1
6.1
32.3
46.0
6.6
15.9
6.2
30.2
44.7
8.2
-1.2
0.1
-2.1
-1.3
1.6
3.0
37.6
35.7
32.6
33.8
35.8
34.8
-1.0
-2.8
12.8
2008
2009
31.2
31.3
0.75
0.47
0.76
0.49
2010
2011
2012
2013
37.5
30.5
15.7
0.78
0.32
23.5
36.4
29.4
16.3
0.82
0.36
22.1
33.1
25.6
15.5
0.84
0.36
21.6
31.9
23.4
16.9
0.88
0.37
20.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
275
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.2
-2.2
-7.8
1.4
0.04
0.13
0.01
-0.10
-0.8
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
HR
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.8
18.7
29.4
19.6
14.8
31.1
21.1
14.4
34.8
23.3
18.1
29.3
21.8
13.7
Change
20122013
-5.5
-1.5
-4.4
11.5
13.8
15.7
11.4
-4.3
2012
2013
6
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.7
8.0
7.7
7.8
0.1
11.0
10.6
82.5
71.5
73.2
76.3
3.1
67.5
64.9
11.5
13.0
14.0
14.8
0.8
15.9
15.6
1.0
7.0
1.0
14.0
0.0
12.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
10.0
9.0
37.0
29.0
41.0
32.0
46.0
23.0
5.4
25.4
5.1
28.1
4.8
28.0
4.3
31.4
2.9
27.2
5.2
-4.2
2.3
4.2
-0.2
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
8.3
7.7
7.0
6.0
4.8
8.0
3.2
-0.3
28.4
27.6
45.7
35.3
37.0
37.2
34.4
37.2
2.81
-8.52
39.3
41.3
8.0
3.7
8.9
3.9
10.6
10.5
3.7
7.6
11.1
4.1
8.3
11.9
4.5
2.9
0.9
0.3
3.9
0.8
235
192
17.6
58.6
192
13.2
59.6
10.8
56.6
-1
-3.4
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
10.5
6.7
12.0
195
5.4
11.0
4.2
0.2
150
11.8
60.0
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
276
Change
20082013
7.6
23.5
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
HR
2008
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2009
73
79.7
14.5
17.9
2010
57.3
60.7
6.4
6.4
73.5
79.9
14.6
18.2
6.1
46.5
2011
59.9
61.8
7.5
7.1
73.8
80.4
15.1
18.6
5.1
45
1085.85
7.28
2012
61.9
64.2
7.7
7.9
73.9
80.6
15
18.7
3.6
47.2
1114.86
7.23
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS164
164
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
277
Unemployment
definition
unit
source
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
definition
unit
source
link
comment
Unemployed persons on the CES register are entitled to unemployment benefit
number of pearsons of social assistance beneficiaries, in thousands
Croatian Emloyment Service
www.hzz.hr
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
definition
unit
source
link
comment
On the basis of the Social Welfare Act that entered into force on 1 January 2014 (“The
Official Gazette” No. 157/13) a new right was introduced – a guaranteed minimum
benefit (GMB), which encompassing the four social benefit: the maintenance assistance
(from Social Welfare system) and extended financial benefit which was defined by the
Act on Employment Mediation and Unemployment Rights as well as the right to survivor
benefit defined under the Act on the Rights of Croatian Homeland War Veterans and Their
Family Members and the Act on the Protection of Military and Civilian War-Disabled
Persons. That is a new form of social benefit by which the state guarantees that every
number of pearsons of social assistance beneficiaries, in thousands
Ministry of Social Policy and Youth of the Republic of Croatia
www.mspm.hr
Guaranteed minimum benefit may be granted wholly or partially as allowance in kind,
when it establishes that it is more favourable for the beneficiary or that beneficiary does
not use, or it is very probable that the benefit will not be used for intended purposes. In
the column for the 2014, we have shown the number of maintenance assistance and GMB
beneficiaries’ since the all maintenance assistance beneficiaries have not been yet
translated into GMB.
Disability benefit
definition
unit
source
link
comment
disability pension is a pension granted on the grounds of person’s total or occupational
disability if disability occurred prior to the age of 65
number of disability pension beneficiaries, in thousands
Croatian Pension Insurance Institute
http://www.mirovinsko.hr/
Number of disability pension beneficiaries from October 2013 does not include
beneficiaries whose benefit payment have been suspended because they have not
submitted their Personal Identification Number
278
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
279
ITALY
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2,200,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
280
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
IT
AROP
VLWI
SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
18.7
18.4
18.2
19.6
19.4
19.1
-0.3
0.4
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
11149
11077
10938
11877
11810
11648
-1.4
4.5
84877
83462
% of total pln
9.8
8.8
10.2
10.4
10.3
11.0
0.7
1.2
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
4344
3922
4514
4631
4592
4908
6.9
13.0
39644
40189
% of total pln
7.5
7.0
6.9
11.2
14.5
12.4
-2.1
4.9
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
4494
4211
4173
6771
8810
7585
-13.9
68.8
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.6
2.1
2.7
2.8
2.2
2.6
0.4
0.0
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
1553
1284
1641
1718
1355
1561
15.2
0.5
13552
13504
% of total pln
2.7
2.7
2.3
3.6
4.7
3.8
-0.9
1.1
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
1635
1596
1369
2208
2881
2289
-20.5
40.0
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.6
2.0
2.1
0.1
0.8
1.8
1.8
752
623
836
944
1187
1283
8.1
70.6
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
197
248
187
352
408
398
-2.5
102.0
3391
3685
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
281
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
IT
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-1.2
0.3
6.7
3.1
26.4
2009
-5.5
-1.6
7.8
3.5
28.5
2010
1.7
-0.7
8.4
4.1
28.6
2011
0.4
0.3
8.4
4.4
28.4
2012
-2.4
-0.3
10.7
5.7
29.0
2013
-1.9
-2.0
12.2
6.9
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
IT
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
26.4
6.9
1.6
13.6
2.4
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
2009
28.5
7.3
1.7
14.5
2.6
1.4
0.8
0.0
0.1
2010
28.6
7.3
1.7
14.8
2.6
1.3
0.8
0.0
0.1
2011
28.4
7.0
1.6
14.9
2.6
1.4
0.8
0.0
0.1
2012
29.0
7.0
1.7
15.3
2.7
1.4
0.9
0.0
0.1
1.8
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.8
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.8
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.8
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
24.7
6.9
1.2
13.2
2.4
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
26.5
7.3
1.4
14.1
2.6
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
26.8
7.3
1.3
14.3
2.6
0.4
0.8
26.6
7.0
1.3
14.4
2.6
0.4
0.8
27.2
7.0
1.4
14.8
2.7
0.4
0.9
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
282
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
IT
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.5
3.1
-0.3
0.4
-140
48
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
25.3
18.7
9157
24.7
18.4
9158
24.5
18.2
9123
28.2
19.6
9468
29.9
19.4
9345
28.4
19.1
9205
19231
7.5
19233
7.0
19159
6.9
19884
11.2
19625
14.5
19331
12.4
-294
-2.1
100
4.9
9.8
12.7
23.0
18.7
8.8
13.0
22.6
19.9
10.2
11.6
24.5
19.3
10.4
11.8
26.0
21.4
10.3
13.1
25.4
22.7
11.0
0.7
1.2
28.0
25.0
2.6
2.3
20.1
5.1
8.1
20.7
5.2
7.5
21.9
5.2
7.5
19.7
5.6
8.4
20.5
5.5
7.9
22.4
5.7
8.7
-1.3
-1.9
-1.4
-0.3
-4.3
-1.8
283
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
5
6.3
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
1.87
0.2
0.8
2.27
0.6
0.6
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
2.5
-0.5
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
IT
Children
(0-17)
IT
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.9
2.8
-1.2
0.1
-3.2
4.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.1
24.7
9.3
28.8
24.4
8.3
28.9
24.7
8.0
32.2
26.3
12.2
33.8
26.0
16.9
31.9
24.8
13.7
6.5
24.0
5.8
23.9
7.3
29.0
7.7
30.4
6.8
29.1
7.9
33.6
1.1
4.5
22.6
34.4
23.3
34.4
24.5
35.2
20.3
36.5
21.5
38.8
26.2
39.5
4.7
0.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
30.0
21.3
10.2
29.5
21.6
9.9
30.7
23.0
8.0
34.3
24.9
12.6
36.7
25.4
16.0
36.3
25.3
15.6
10.7
8.6
6.6
20.7
8.5
9.7
13.4
7.4
22.4
8.0
10.3
13.2
7.9
24.2
7.0
11.4
14.7
8.0
25.2
9.1
12.1
12.8
10.1
27.0
8.7
11.5
13.7
10.9
29.3
9.4
284
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
1.4
9.6
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
3.6
5.1
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.4
6.3
-0.1
4.0
-0.4
5.4
-0.6
0.9
0.8
2.3
0.7
0.8
5.1
4.3
8.6
0.9
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
IT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
IT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.0
4.9
0.2
2.5
-1.6
5.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.5
16.3
7.3
24.1
16.4
7.1
24.7
16.9
6.8
28.4
18.5
11.0
30.4
18.6
14.3
29.4
18.8
12.7
10.8
9.0
25.8
26.3
7.8
9.8
10.2
25.4
25.1
7.4
11.1
9.5
28.0
25.9
7.3
11.3
10.8
30.2
26.9
8.6
11.4
11.1
28.6
28.4
8.2
12.0
10.7
31.4
30.0
8.9
0.6
-0.4
2.8
1.6
0.7
22.4
23.0
23.9
21.6
22.2
23.3
1.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.4
20.9
6.7
0.88
0.51
8.5
22.8
19.6
5.7
0.89
0.51
7.7
20.3
16.6
6.3
0.92
0.53
8.0
24.1
17.0
10.9
0.92
0.55
8.8
25.2
16.3
13.0
0.95
0.58
8.9
22.6
15.3
10.7
0.96
0.62
9.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
285
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
1.2
1.7
5.6
3.7
1.1
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
0.9
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.6
-1.8
-1.0
-5.6
-2.3
4.0
0.01
0.08
0.04
0.11
0.3
0.7
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
IT
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.1
24.7
9.3
28.8
24.4
8.3
28.9
24.7
8.0
32.2
26.3
12.2
33.8
26.0
16.9
31.9
24.8
13.7
Change
20122013
-1.9
-1.2
-3.2
6.5
5.8
7.3
7.7
6.8
7.9
1.1
17.7
16.4
14.9
18.0
18.8
12.5
13.6
13.2
14.6
14.4
13.2
-1.2
0.7
11.0
10.6
78.3
73.6
79.9
81.9
80.3
78.9
-1.4
0.6
67.5
64.9
20.9
21.3
20.3
21.7
22.1
20.2
-1.9
-0.7
15.9
15.6
12.0
16.0
9.0
16.0
6.0
16.0
9.0
17.0
10.0
11.0
14.0
14.0
19.0
20.0
17.0
20.0
21.0
37.0
72.0
73.0
70.0
75.0
70.0
46.0
24.0
26.1
1.6
32.4
23.9
24.0
1.4
29.6
29.0
22.3
1.4
27.7
30.4
20.1
1.2
25.2
29.1
18.5
1.1
23.7
33.6
16.7
1.1
21.8
4.5
-1.8
0
-1.9
9.6
-9.4
-0.5
-10.6
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
22.6
23.3
24.5
20.3
21.5
26.2
4.74
3.62
39.3
41.3
9.2
11.4
19.7
2.7
1896
10.3
34.4
9.1
10.9
19.2
3.5
1947
11.2
34.4
10.1
11.9
18.8
2.5
1773
10.3
35.2
10.7
11.7
18.2
2.5
1595
12.4
36.5
10.1
11.9
17.6
1.8
1532
13.2
38.8
11.1
11.4
17.0
1
-0.5
-0.6
1.9
0
-2.7
10.5
6.7
12.0
12.8
39.5
-0.4
0.7
2.5
5.1
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
286
Change
20082013
2.8
0.1
4.4
1.4
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
Gross2010
89,5
69,1
-20,4
80,2
58,8
-21,4
Low income
89,8
70,5
-19,3
80,2
58,8
-21,4
High income
86,5
55,8
-30,7
76,1
44,5
-31,6
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
83,4
84/81,4
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
89,3
89,6 / 86,7
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2050 Difference
69,1/69,1
58,8/58,8
81,7/59,8
71,3/49,3
63,4
-20,0
73,8
65,2/51,2 (-18,8 / -30,2) 73,8/70,3
75,6
-13,7
76,6 / 61,6 (-13 / -25,1)
52,9
52,9/40,4 (-20,9 / -29,9)
80
80 / 76,4
-20,9
65,6
-14,4
65,6 / 49,8 (-14,4 / -26,6)
84,4
60,9
-23,5
74,9
50,3
-24,6
78,7
69,6
-9,1
68,3
59,3
-9,0
85,6
76,1
-9,5
81,5
71,8
-9,7
70,5
55,1
-15,4
60,3
44,3
-16,0
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
48,5
45,4
-3,1
44,7
37,0
-7,7
79,5
66,0
-13,6
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
IT
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
63
61.9
7.6
7.1
79.1
84.5
18.2
22
5.2
63.5
2009
63.4
62.6
8
7.2
79.4
84.6
18.3
22.1
5.3
63.8
2010
67.6
67.6
10.2
10
79.8
85
18.6
22.4
5
66.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
287
2011
63.4
62.7
8.1
7
80.1
85.3
18.8
22.6
5.9
64.7
2012
62.1
61.5
7.7
7.1
79.8
84.8
18.5
22.1
5.6
68.4
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
288
CYPRUS
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 27,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
289
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
CY
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
15.9
15.8
15.6
14.8
14.7
15.3
0.6
-0.6
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
124
126
128
124
127
132
3.9
6.5
84877
83462
% of total pln
4.5
4.0
4.9
4.9
6.5
7.9
1.4
3.4
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
29
26
33
33
45
55
22.2
89.7
39644
40189
% of total pln
9.1
9.5
11.2
11.7
15.0
16.1
1.1
7.0
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
71
76
92
98
129
139
7.8
95.8
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.2
0.9
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.4
-0.1
0.2
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
9
7
12
11
13
12
-7.7
33.3
13552
13504
% of total pln
2.5
2.3
3.4
3.2
3.8
4.0
0.2
1.5
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
20
18
27
27
33
34
3.0
70.0
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.9
2.0
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.8
5
6
4
4
8
17
112.5
240.0
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
4
3
3
3
7
7
0.0
75.0
3391
3685
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
290
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
CY
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection benefits (% of GDP) 1
Social Protection Total expenditure (% of GDP)
2
2013
-5.4
-5.2
15.9
6.1
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2
-0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
2008
3.6
2.0
3.7
0.5
2009
-2.0
-0.4
5.4
0.6
2010
1.4
-0.2
6.3
1.3
2011
0.3
0.5
7.9
1.6
2012
-2.4
-4.2
11.9
3.6
18.6
20.8
21.8
22.4
22.6
28.3
19.5
21.1
22.1
22.8
23.1
29.5
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Notes: 1) This indicator refers exclusively to the benefits. 2) The Social Protection Total Expenditure comprises of Social
Protection Benefits, Administration costs and Other Expenditure.
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
CY
Social protection
benefits (in % of GDP) 1
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing 2
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
18.6
4.5
0.7
7.3
1.1
2.1
1.0
0.8
1.1
2009
20.8
5.1
0.8
8.1
1.2
2.2
1.0
1.1
1.4
2010
21.8
5.0
0.7
8.9
1.2
2.1
1.1
1.1
1.5
2011
22.4
5.1
0.8
9.5
1.3
2.0
1.2
1.0
1.6
2012
22.6
4.9
0.8
10.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.6
1.3
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
1.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.1
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.6
0.8
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
16.4
4.5
0.7
6.7
1.1
2.1
1.0
18.0
5.1
0.8
7.4
1.2
2.2
1.0
18.8
5.0
0.7
8.1
1.2
2.1
1.1
19.5
5.1
0.8
8.6
1.3
2.0
1.2
19.4
4.9
0.8
9.7
1.4
0.6
1.5
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
n.a.
0.4
n.a.
0.4
n.a.
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: 1) The table presents the social protection benefits. 2) For the case of Cyprus, as regards the function "Housing",
the benefits are all means tested.
291
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
CY
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.7
4.5
0.6
-0.6
-548
-49
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
23.3
15.9
10945
23.5
15.8
11256
24.6
15.6
10816
24.6
14.8
11497
27.1
14.7
11444
27.8
15.3
10896
22984
9.1
23639
9.5
22713
11.2
24144
11.7
24033
15.0
22881
16.1
-1152
1.1
-103
7
4.5
9.9
15.3
15.9
4.0
10.1
17.2
16.3
4.9
9.2
18.0
17.4
4.9
8.6
19.0
15.3
6.5
8.3
19.0
17.6
7.9
1.4
3.4
17.7
23.3
-1.3
5.7
30.6
4.3
1.8
33.1
4.4
2.4
33.6
4.5
3.1
37.0
4.3
3.1
37.4
4.7
3.3
37.0
4.9
3.3
-0.41
0.2
0
292
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
2.4
7.4
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
6.47
0.6
1.5
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
CY
Children
(0-17)
CY
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.2
6.2
1.6
1.5
0.6
9.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.5
14.0
9.7
20.2
12.3
9.3
21.8
12.6
12.5
23.4
12.8
14.8
27.5
13.9
18.1
27.7
15.5
18.7
3.4
13.6
3.1
14.6
3.6
14.8
3.2
18.1
5.0
19.3
6.4
20.6
1.4
1.3
3.0
7.0
44.0
5.1
51.4
3.5
49.6
4.5
47.1
3.9
45.5
3.7
43.6
2.9
-1.9
-0.8
-0.4
-2.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.8
12.9
9.2
23.0
10.3
13.6
24.4
12.2
17.0
25.0
11.6
15.0
29.6
11.2
21.1
32.7
15.7
21.3
3.9
6.3
3.8
13.4
2.2
3.1
6.8
5.6
14.5
2.9
5.0
8.5
6.7
16.7
3.9
4.6
10.1
8.7
20.7
2.7
7.1
9.0
10.8
22.3
2.2
8.6
10.7
14.9
27.1
1.4
293
Change Change
201220082013
2013
3.1
11.9
4.5
2.8
0.2
12.1
1.5
1.7
4.1
4.8
-0.8
4.7
4.4
11.1
13.7
-0.8
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
CY
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
CY
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.4
9.3
2.2
3.6
1.2
8.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
18.9
10.8
8.6
19.9
11.2
9.5
22.1
11.9
11.5
22.1
11.5
11.6
25.8
12.2
15.5
28.2
14.4
16.7
5.0
6.3
14.0
3.1
1.8
4.4
6.8
18.6
2.6
2.6
5.3
7.4
20.1
3.6
3.4
5.5
7.3
20.4
2.9
3.3
6.9
8.0
20.5
2.8
3.6
8.4
9.0
18.3
2.5
3.3
1.5
1.0
-2.2
-0.3
-0.3
3.4
2.7
4.3
-0.6
1.5
36.5
38.1
37.4
42.5
41.9
38.2
-3.7
1.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
49.3
46.3
10.9
0.59
0.33
1.4
48.6
46.4
9.5
0.61
0.37
1.0
42.6
39.9
7.3
0.65
0.37
1.2
39.8
35.5
7.1
0.67
0.39
1.1
33.4
29.3
7.5
0.70
0.39
1.1
26.1
20.1
9.0
0.77
0.40
0.9
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
294
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-7.3
-23.2
-9.2
-26.2
1.5
-1.9
0.07
0.18
0.01
0.07
-0.2
-0.5
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
CY
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.5
14.0
9.7
20.2
12.3
9.3
21.8
12.6
12.5
23.4
12.8
14.8
27.5
13.9
18.1
27.7
15.5
18.7
Change
20122013
0.2
1.6
0.6
3.4
3.1
3.6
3.2
5.0
6.4
1.4
5.5
6.5
3.8
5.5
4.1
6.0
5.7
6.0
6.5
6.8
8.0
1.2
2
11.0
10.6
57.2
63.3
67.1
61.6
55.7
69.0
13.3
11.8
67.5
64.9
12.5
10.6
10.6
11.2
11.6
11.8
0.2
-0.7
15.9
15.6
8.0
18.0
8.0
14.0
11.0
13.0
7.0
16.0
7.0
19.0
14.0
14.0
34.0
40.0
35.0
35.0
32.0
37.0
44.0
41.0
46.0
38.0
42.0
46.0
13.6
12.2
14.6
13.4
14.8
14.4
18.1
9.3
19.3
12.3
20.6
10.2
1.3
-2.1
7
-2
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
18.2
19.8
23.0
15.3
19.9
16.4
-3.5
-1.8
28.4
27.6
44.0
51.4
49.6
47.1
45.5
43.6
-1.85
-0.36
39.3
41.3
1.5
5.6
13.7
0.7
32
2.0
5.1
2.4
5.1
11.7
1.0
32
1.7
3.5
2.8
6.8
12.7
1.8
31
2.1
4.5
2.9
7.1
11.3
1.2
30
2.4
3.9
3.1
8.7
11.4
1.8
36
1.9
3.7
4.5
7.4
9.1
1.3
1.4
-1.3
-2.3
-0.5
3
1.8
-4.6
0.6
10.5
6.7
12.0
1.6
2.9
-0.3
-0.8
-0.4
-2.2
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
295
Change
20082013
6.2
1.5
9
3
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
57
70
13
Low income
60
66
6
High income
48
55
7
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
50
60
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
56
59
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
38
44
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
70 / 70
60 / 60
70 / 70
60 / 60
10
3
6
57
67
10
50
57
7
60 / 48
64 / 53
(4 / 5)
56 / 38
58 / 42
(2 / 4)
56
72
16
49
61
12
60 / 51
68 / 58
(8 / 7)
56 / 41
61 / 47
(5 / 6)
56
68
12
50
54
4
53
64
11
49
56
7
53
66
13
46
56
10
42
54
12
37
46
9
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
43,3
45,2
1,9
44,7
37,0
-7,7
45,3
52,3
7,0
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source:
Joint SPC/EC
report
on
Pension
Adequacy
in
the
European
Union
(2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
CY
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
64.5
65.4
9.4
7.8
78.5
83.1
17.9
20.4
2.8
76.5
1401.57
5.9
2009
64.9
65.6
10.1
8.5
78.6
83.6
18.1
20.9
3.4
75.6
2010
65.1
64.2
10.2
8.1
79.2
83.9
18.3
21
3.9
74.3
2011
61.6
61
8
5.9
79.3
83.1
18.2
20.3
4.4
75.6
2012
63.4
64
8.8
7.7
78.9
83.4
17.9
20.4
3.5
77.1
6.4
6.5
6.8
6.6
EU28
2013 2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
4.4 3.4 3.4
76.4 67.9 68.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA) and Statistical Service of Cyprus (Health and Hospital Statistics 2012)
296
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS165
CY
definition
unit
source
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit (1)
definition
unit
source
comment
Number of applicants for unemployment benefit
thousands of applicants
Social Insurance Services, Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, Cyprus
CY UB applicants refer to the number of applicants for unemployment benefit
from Social Insurance Services. Some of those applicants can be rejected due to
the qualifying contribution conditions of the unemployment benefit. The
unsmoothness of the number of applicants is due to the seasonality effect of
the hospitality industry.
165
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
297
Unemployment benefit (2)
definition
unit
source
comment
Number of beneficiaries for unemployment benefit
thousands of applicants
Social Insurance Services, Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, Cyprus
CY UB beneficiaries refer to the number of beneficiaries for unemployment
benefit from Social Insurance Services at the corresponding period. The
unsmoothness of the number of beneficiaries is due to the seasonality effect
of the hospitality industry.
Social assistance benefit
definition
unit
source
comment
Number of public assistance beneficiaries
thousands of beneficiaries
Social Welfare Services, Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, Cyprus
The decrease shown in the number of public assistance beneficiaries in June
2012 is due to a change of the relevant legislation. More specifically, until May
2012 financial assistance to lone parents was provided in the context of the
Public Assistance Legislation and from June 2012 a single parent benefit has
been introduced in the Child Benefit Law. In addition, the cases of public
assistance with the nature of distress “unemployment” have been increased
over the last years from 2.628 in October 2013 to 3570 in October2014.
As of July 2014, a new Law on the Guaranteed Minimum was put in place which
will replace the Public Assistance Law.
298
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
299
LATVIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty after social transfers and/or living in households
with very low work intensity by 121,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
300
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
LV
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
25.9
26.4
20.9
19.0
19.2
19.4
0.2
-6.5
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
559
563
437
388
388
387
-0.3
-30.8
84877
83462
% of total pln
5.4
7.4
12.6
12.6
11.7
10.0
-1.7
4.6
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
91
122
200
195
178
149
-16.3
63.7
39644
40189
% of total pln
19.3
22.1
27.6
31.0
25.6
24.0
-1.6
4.7
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
416
472
578
634
518
480
-7.3
15.4
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.8
-0.2
0.5
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
29
39
41
36
40
35
-12.5
20.7
13552
13504
% of total pln
9.3
8.3
7.2
7.1
6.1
6.3
0.2
-3.0
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
201
178
150
145
123
126
2.4
-37.3
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
2.2
2.9
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.3
-0.9
1.1
1.8
1.8
47
62
102
94
84
66
-21.4
40.4
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.1
0.3
1.1
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
3
6
23
28
21
20
-4.8
566.7
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
301
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
LV
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008 2009
-2.8 -17.7
-0.8 -14.3
7.7 17.5
1.9
4.5
12.5 16.7
2010
-1.3
-6.7
19.5
8.8
17.6
2011
5.3
1.5
16.2
8.8
14.8
2012
5.2
1.4
15.0
7.8
13.8
2013
4.1
2.3
11.9
5.8
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
LV
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
12.5
3.7
0.9
5.4
0.2
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.1
2009
16.7
3.9
1.3
7.6
0.3
1.7
1.6
0.1
0.1
2010
17.6
3.7
1.3
9.1
0.3
1.5
1.3
0.1
0.2
2011
14.8
3.2
1.3
7.9
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.1
0.3
2012
13.8
3.0
1.2
7.5
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
12.2
3.7
0.9
5.4
0.2
1.4
0.5
16.4
3.9
1.3
7.6
0.3
1.7
1.5
16.9
3.5
1.3
9.1
0.3
1.5
1.1
14.2
3.0
1.3
7.9
0.3
1.1
0.6
13.4
3.0
1.2
7.5
0.2
1.0
0.4
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
302
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
LV
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.1
0.9
0.2
-6.5
257
-317
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
34.2
25.9
4288
37.9
26.4
4283
38.2
20.9
3512
40.1
19.0
3537
36.2
19.2
3714
35.1
19.4
3971
9004
19.3
8995
22.1
7376
27.6
7428
31.0
7800
25.6
8339
24.0
539
-1.6
-665
4.7
5.4
12.6
28.6
25.9
7.4
17.1
29.0
27.2
12.6
11.0
28.9
32.8
12.6
9.3
31.7
35.2
11.7
12.6
28.6
35.0
10.0
-1.7
4.6
27.5
33.0
-1.1
-2
14.2
7.3
8.7
14.8
7.4
9.3
26.7
6.8
9.8
29.1
6.5
12.5
25.3
6.5
11.2
25.4
6.3
11.4
2.4
-15.4
-5.3
-4.3
1.8
9.4
303
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
-1.1
7.1
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
0.1
-0.2
0.2
11.15
-1
2.7
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
7.6
7.0
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
LV
Children
(0-17)
LV
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.6
6.0
-1.0
-0.2
-1.9
6.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
32.4
23.6
19.2
38.4
26.3
24.6
42.2
26.3
30.7
44.1
24.7
32.4
40.0
24.4
27.3
38.4
23.4
25.4
4.6
30.7
6.9
34.2
12.4
31.3
12.6
33.2
10.4
31.0
9.2
29.9
-1.2
-1.1
4.6
-0.8
22.9
69.6
22.0
71.7
28.5
71.1
32.3
59.6
28.5
53.1
28.2
53.4
-0.2
0.3
5.3
-16.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
25.2
16.2
15.7
31.8
19.4
20.8
38.7
21.0
28.0
43.7
22.3
35.4
37.4
20.1
27.1
36.5
19.8
23.9
2.8
8.2
5.8
14.4
4.5
4.9
9.6
13.7
22.3
5.2
10.4
8.0
14.4
22.6
8.0
9.9
8.3
11.6
19.8
11.7
9.7
5.6
11.5
17.4
9.8
7.7
9.6
9.1
16.2
8.7
304
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.9
11.3
-0.3
3.6
-3.2
8.2
-2.0
4.0
-2.4
-1.2
-1.1
4.9
1.4
3.3
1.8
4.2
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
LV
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
LV
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.9
6.0
-0.5
-0.6
-2.1
6.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.0
19.4
16.7
32.8
20.5
20.5
37.4
20.4
26.8
41.1
20.2
31.2
35.9
19.3
25.0
34.0
18.8
22.9
5.7
10.7
29.5
58.6
7.1
7.6
11.2
33.5
57.0
7.8
12.6
9.7
31.9
56.4
10.1
12.6
9.6
33.0
44.2
13.1
12.1
8.9
32.1
36.7
11.3
10.2
9.1
32.0
38.1
10.9
-1.9
0.2
-0.1
1.4
-0.4
4.5
-1.6
2.5
-20.5
3.8
17.5
18.0
27.1
28.9
25.2
25.4
0.2
8.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
58.8
52.0
28.7
0.53
0.30
40.1
55.5
47.6
25.3
0.57
0.34
37.9
36.8
17.2
27.5
0.78
0.47
37.8
33.0
9.1
28.9
0.86
0.53
26.5
33.7
13.9
26.4
0.80
0.49
20.4
36.1
17.6
26.6
0.77
0.47
22.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
305
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.4
-22.7
3.7
-34.4
0.2
-2.1
-0.03
0.24
-0.02
0.17
1.7
-18.0
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
LV
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
32.4
23.6
19.2
38.4
26.3
24.6
42.2
26.3
30.7
44.1
24.7
32.4
40.0
24.4
27.3
38.4
23.4
25.4
Change
20122013
-1.6
-1
-1.9
4.6
6.9
12.4
12.6
10.4
9.2
-1.2
12.1
17.5
13.0
12.7
16.8
11.8
12.7
11.4
10.8
10.2
10.8
0.6
-1
11.0
10.6
84.4
89.0
79.6
73.0
76.6
68.4
-8.2
-16
67.5
64.9
20.1
21.3
18.5
17.4
18.3
18.5
0.2
-1.6
15.9
15.6
2.0
12.0
2.0
13.0
1.0
15.0
1.0
14.0
4.0
19.0
14.0
14.0
3.0
7.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
37.0
67.0
67.0
59.0
66.0
72.0
46.0
30.7
6.4
34.2
4.8
31.3
3.0
33.2
3.8
31.0
2.8
29.9
3.2
-1.1
0.4
-0.8
-3.2
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
10.0
7.9
4.9
6.1
3.7
4.9
1.2
-5.1
28.4
27.6
22.9
22.0
28.5
32.3
28.5
28.2
-0.23
5.34
39.3
41.3
7.1
7.6
15.5
3.0
161
29.3
69.6
7.9
9.0
14.3
2.5
168
30.5
71.7
8.9
8.2
12.9
5.8
110
28.9
71.1
12.2
8.9
11.6
4.7
124
24.7
59.6
10.7
8.7
10.6
3.0
125
25.0
53.1
10.3
5.6
9.8
-0.4
-3.1
-0.8
3.2
-2
-5.7
10.5
6.7
12.0
23.9
53.4
-1.1
0.3
-5.4
-16.2
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
306
Change
20082013
6
-0.2
6.2
4.6
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
80,4
55,3
-25,1
Low income
86,8
58,5
-28,3
High income
57
39,8
-17,2
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
65,9
65,6 / 46,7
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
63,9
43,6
(100/0/0)* (61/39/0)*
63,9
43,6
(100/0/0)* (61/39/0)*
47,5
32,8
(100/0/0)* (61/39/0)*
52,8 / 58,3
41,2 / 46,5
59,5 / 52,2
47,7 / 40,5
50,2
-15,7
48,2
51,7 / 35,9 (-13,9/-10,8) 48,2 / 36,2
-20,3
-20,3
-14,7
38,6
-9,6
38,6 / 29
(-9,6/-7,2)
77,6
61,2
-16,4
58,3
49,4
-8,9
82 / 54,9
65 / 44,3
(-17/-10,6)
58,3 / 43
49,4 / 37,1
(-8,9/-5,9)
68,8
47,5
-21,3
51,1
35,9
-15,2
56,8
44,8
-12,0
40,3
33,2
-7,1
59,4
44,9
-14,5
42,3
33,4
-8,9
63,5
43,7
-19,8
47,5
32,2
-15,3
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
:
:
:
44,7
37,0
-7,7
48,2
15,8
-32,4
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
LV
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
51.8
54.6
4.9
5
67
77.8
13
17.9
9.7
44.5
930.6
6.6
2009
52.8
56.2
4.8
5.7
68.1
78
13.4
18.2
9.6
47.5
823.9
6.8
2010
53.5
56.7
4.9
5.6
68.6
78.4
13.3
18.2
14.8
49.1
2011
53.7
56.6
4.8
5
68.6
78.8
13.4
18.7
16.1
46.8
2012
54.6
59
5.3
6.4
68.9
78.9
13.6
18.5
12.3
46.6
6.5
6.1
5,9*
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA) and PVO vēl nav publicējis datus. Note: * provisional figure
307
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS166
LV
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
eurostat
Unemployment benefit
persons receiving unemployment benefit
thousands of recipients
State Social Insurance Agency
Social assistance benefit
persons in household receiving municipal GMI benefit
thousands of recipients
annual statistical reports from local municipalities
Disability benefit
persons receiving disability pension
thousands of pensioners
State Social Insurance Agency
166
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only a selection of
benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard definition by the ILO) and the
number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
308
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
309
LITHUANIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion to 814,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey (while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
310
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
LT
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
20.0
20.3
20.5
19.2
18.6
20.6
2.0
0.6
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
671
647
645
586
559
611
9.3
-8.9
84877
83462
% of total pln
5.1
7.2
9.5
12.7
11.4
11.0
-0.4
5.9
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
135
178
229
296
259
246
-5.0
82.2
39644
40189
% of total pln
12.3
15.6
19.9
19.0
19.8
16.0
-3.8
3.7
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
414
497
624
580
596
476
-20.1
15.0
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.4
1.8
2.2
3.1
2.1
2.8
0.7
1.4
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
47
56
68
94
63
84
33.3
78.7
13552
13504
% of total pln
4.6
5.0
5.2
4.0
4.1
5.2
1.1
0.6
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
154
159
164
122
124
153
23.4
-0.6
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.3
2.2
2.6
3.2
3.5
2.6
-0.9
1.3
1.8
1.8
42
71
81
99
106
78
-26.4
85.7
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.2
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.8
-0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
6
21
37
39
40
23
-42.5
283.3
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
311
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
LT
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure on benefits
(% of GDP)
2008 2009
2.9 -14.8
-1.7
-7.7
5.8 13.8
1.3
3.3
2010
1.6
-5.3
17.8
7.4
2011
6.0
0.5
15.4
8.0
2012
3.7
1.8
13.4
6.6
15.6
18.3
16.3
15.7
20.6
2013
3.3
1.3
11.8
5.1
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2
-0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS);
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
LT
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
15.6
4.6
1.6
6.4
0.5
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.2
2009
20.6
5.5
2.1
8.3
0.7
2.8
0.9
0.0
0.4
2010
18.3
4.8
1.8
7.4
0.6
2.2
0.8
0.0
0.7
2011
16.3
4.5
1.6
6.7
0.5
1.7
0.6
0.0
0.8
2012
15.7
4.3
1.5
6.9
0.5
1.4
0.4
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.7
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
15.3
4.6
1.6
6.4
0.5
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
20.1
5.5
2.1
8.3
0.7
2.7
0.9
17.4
4.8
1.8
7.4
0.6
1.9
0.8
15.4
4.5
1.6
6.7
0.5
1.5
0.6
14.8
4.3
1.5
6.8
0.5
1.2
0.4
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
312
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
LT
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.7
3.2
2
0.6
377
241
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
27.6
20.0
4170
29.6
20.3
4289
34.0
20.5
3611
33.1
19.2
3641
32.5
18.6
4034
30.8
20.6
4411
8756
12.3
9008
15.6
7583
19.9
7645
19.0
8472
19.8
9264
16.0
792
-3.8
508
3.7
5.1
10.9
25.7
20.0
7.2
11.7
23.8
19.2
9.5
7.6
32.6
28.8
12.7
7.5
29.0
32.2
11.4
12.3
22.6
27.4
11.0
-0.4
5.9
24.8
25.7
2.2
-1.7
26.5
5.9
4.8
29.0
6.4
5.6
34.5
7.3
10.6
36.4
5.8
11.1
34.5
5.3
8.9
32.0
6.1
8.2
7.6
-12.2
-0.3
1.0
1.2
4.8
313
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
-0.9
5.7
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-2.5
0.8
-0.7
5.54
0.2
3.4
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
3.6
-2.8
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
LT
Children
(0-17)
LT
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
3.5
6.0
6.1
4.1
1.6
6.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.4
22.8
12.3
30.8
23.3
15.8
35.8
24.8
20.0
34.6
25.2
16.7
31.9
20.8
16.9
35.4
26.9
18.5
3.6
28.1
5.4
27.8
5.7
36.6
11.7
29.0
9.3
24.3
9.8
25.8
0.5
1.5
6.2
-2.3
29.9
64.3
36.3
65.2
43.1
61.9
37.3
31.7
41.1
30.4
33.9
43.2
-7.2
12.8
4.1
-21.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.5
17.8
13.5
28.9
18.4
14.2
36.3
23.5
20.1
38.0
24.4
19.5
35.9
20.2
23.1
30.4
19.2
13.3
3.0
6.4
4.0
12.4
5.2
6.3
5.4
8.7
16.7
5.9
8.8
11.8
10.2
18.1
9.1
12.2
6.1
9.2
16.1
9.8
10.8
5.8
7.8
14.9
9.7
10.3
7.0
6.9
15.2
7.9
314
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-5.5
1.9
-1.0
1.4
-9.8
-0.2
-0.5
1.2
-0.9
0.3
-1.8
7.3
0.6
2.9
2.8
2.7
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
LT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
LT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.4
4.8
1.1
2.2
-4.9
3.3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.5
16.8
11.3
27.7
18.4
14.7
34.6
22.2
18.7
33.3
20.2
18.0
31.7
17.9
19.5
29.3
19.0
14.6
5.6
9.5
30.6
50.8
4.8
7.8
10.5
28.7
48.8
6.0
10.6
12.7
33.9
46.5
11.2
13.1
9.6
30.7
19.6
11.5
12.0
7.7
26.6
19.6
8.6
11.4
9.2
27.5
28.0
7.6
-0.6
1.5
0.9
8.4
-1.0
5.8
-0.3
-3.1
-22.8
2.8
30.9
30.8
32.3
37.3
36.3
35.4
-0.9
4.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
38.1
29.5
16.5
0.71
0.44
27.5
35.3
23.9
18.8
0.73
0.48
26.1
29.8
9.6
24.0
0.93
0.58
24.0
30.9
9.7
25.1
0.90
0.52
6.2
35.7
18.7
24.1
0.78
0.45
5.5
31.7
19.4
18.4
0.81
0.48
12.6
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
315
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-4.0
-6.4
0.7
-10.1
-5.7
1.9
0.03
0.10
0.03
0.04
7.1
-14.9
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
LT
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.4
22.8
12.3
30.8
23.3
15.8
35.8
24.8
20.0
34.6
25.2
16.7
31.9
20.8
16.9
35.4
26.9
18.5
Change
20122013
3.5
6.1
1.6
3.6
5.4
5.7
11.7
9.3
9.8
0.5
12.0
14.3
7.7
10.9
15.7
12.2
12.6
14.5
11.6
9.8
11.9
2.1
-0.3
11.0
10.6
69.1
75.8
70.6
73.9
72.2
77.3
5.1
8.2
67.5
64.9
20.9
20.1
21.9
18.5
15.5
21.2
5.7
0.3
15.9
15.6
1.0
8.0
1.0
9.0
2.0
11.0
1.0
6.0
3.0
5.0
14.0
14.0
7.0
4.0
9.0
9.0
6.0
37.0
55.0
51.0
58.0
56.0
68.0
46.0
28.1
27.8
5.0
36.6
29.0
24.3
6.2
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
25.8
1.5
-2.3
7.9
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
29.9
36.3
43.1
37.3
41.1
33.9
-7.17
4.06
39.3
41.3
5.5
2.9
7.5
1.1
172
27.0
64.3
5.3
4.2
8.7
2.0
181
22.0
65.2
13.3
4.1
7.9
0.3
153
17.8
61.9
10.6
3.6
7.4
1.4
144
12.6
31.7
7.3
3.4
6.5
0.4
118
11.8
30.4
8.8
3.1
6.3
0.6
110
15.2
43.2
1.5
-0.3
-0.2
0.2
-8
3.4
12.8
3.3
0.2
-1.2
-0.5
-62
-11.8
-21.1
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
10.5
6.7
12.0
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
316
Change
20082013
6
4.1
6.2
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
61,5
60,3
-1,2
Low income
78,9
74,7
-4,2
High income
39,2
38,1
-1,1
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2050 Difference
47,7
(96/4/0)*
63,1
(97/3/0)*
29,8
(94/6/0)*
47,1
(87/13/0)*
60,2
(90/10/0)*
29,1
(84/16/0)*
59 / 62
46,3 / 48,2
62,2 / 58,9
48,6 / 46
54,4
52,3
67,6 / 36,9
64,7 / 33
76,8
72,5
95,7 / 51,1
Gross2010
-2,1
40,7
40,8
(-2,9 / -3,9) 52,3 / 26,8
-4,3
-2,9
-0,7
0,1
52,1 / 25,2 (-0,2 / -1,6)
59,7
56,7
89,9 / 45,8 (-5,8 / -5,3) 76,8 / 38,8
-0,6
-3,0
72,5 / 34,9 (-4,3 / -3,9)
67,6
58,6
-9,0
52,6
45,7
-6,9
49,8
58,6
8,8
36,3
45,8
9,5
51,1
56,1
5,0
38,2
43,8
5,6
48
46,2
-1,8
37,3
36,1
-1,2
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
38,7
34,9
-3,7
44,7
37,0
-7,7
38,2
35,7
-2,5
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
LT
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
54.8
59.9
5.8
6.5
66.3
77.6
13.4
18.1
5.5
48.3
1107.53
6.61
2009
57.2
61.2
6.1
6.8
67.5
78.7
13.4
18.4
3.1
49.6
1041.01
7.53
2010
57.8
62.4
6.3
6.7
68
78.9
13.5
18.4
2.5
51.9
1074.88
7.09
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
317
2011
57
62
6.2
6.7
68.1
79.3
14
19.2
2.8
43.9
1163.95
6.85
2012
56.6
61.6
5.6
6.1
68.4
79.6
14.1
19.2
2.3
44.3
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS167
LT
definition
unit
source
link
definition
unit
source
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
eurostat
http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lmhu_m&lang=en
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment benefit recipients
thousands of recipients
National Labour Exchange.
The unemployed have possibility to receive unemployment benefit if he has a minimum
period of insurance: 18 months within 3 years preceding unemployment. (there are
exceptions for certain groups of unemployed people who contributed but have not
acquired the necessary social insurance record due to important reasons). The duration of
payment of Unemployment Insurance Benefit depends on the length of the insurance
record: Service years Duration less than 25 years 6 months ; 25 - 30 years -7 months, 30 - 35
years- 8 months; 35 years and over-9 months. The duration of payment is prolonged for
additional 2 months for elderly persons within 5 years till pension age.
Since 1 January 2013 unemployment benefits are paying from the State Social Insurance
Fund (‘’Sodra”).
The statistical data of on the website at www.sodra.lt or on the special website at
http://atvira.sodra.lt
167
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
318
definition
unit
source
comment
Social assistance benefit
number of recipients of social benefit
thousands of recipients
Ministry of Social Security and Labour, The Social Assistance Information System.
Families and single residents are entitled to Social Benefit if either single resident or one
spouse works or does not work because they are full-time students or pensioners, or
individuals above retirement age, or disabled, or nursing a disabled or sick family
member, or registered at the local office as unemployed and receiving Unemployment
Benefit or are long-term unemployed (more than 6 months), or taking care of a child
under the age of 3 years or under the age of 8 years, or family is raising three or more
children, etc.
Disability benefit
definition
unit
definition
unit
comment
All disability pensions
thousands of pensioners
Early Retirement
The number of recipients of early retirement pensions, thousand
thousands of pensioners
Persons are eligible for early retire-ment pension if: they acquired an insurance period of
30 years, they are registered as unemployed for at least 12 months, the age is less than 5
years to retirement age, have no other incomes, do not receive any other pension or
benefit. Since 2012, the requirement for pre-retirement age persons to be registered in
the Labour Exchange has been cancelled.
319
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
320
LUXEMBOURG
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 6,000.
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
321
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
LU
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
13.4
14.9
14.5
13.6
15.1
15.9
0.8
2.5
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
62
71
71
68
78
80
2.6
29.0
84877
83462
% of total pln*
4.7
6.3
5.5
5.8
6.1
6.6
0.5
1.9
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
18
24
22
24
26
27
3.8
50.0
39644
40189
% of total pln
0.7
1.1
0.5
1.2
1.3
1.8
0.5
1.1
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
3
5
3
6
7
9
28.6
200.0
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.5
0.5
0.9
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
8
10
10
9
10
12
20.0
50.0
13552
13504
% of total pln
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.4
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
1
2
1
3
3
4
33.3
300.0
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
1.8
1.8
1
2
1
1
1
2
100.0
100.0
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
0
0
0
0
0
1
3391
3685
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population and
for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%). ii) In Luxembourg, the poverty risk rate has
increased from 13.6% in 2011 to 15.1% in 2012 and to 15.9% in 2013. The rate therefore exceeds the level recorded in 2009
(14.9%). This statistic is an indicator of income inequality rather than actual poverty or precariousness. Income inequality has
increased as a result of the evolution of specific income components. The weight of capital income (rents and income from
financial investments etc.) is much higher at the top than at the bottom of the income distribution (9.8% in the 10th decile vs.
1.3% in the 1st decile). Capital income has increased much more sharply between 2012 and 2013 (+11.9%) than the other
componenents of income, such as income from work and social benefits, which have a higher weight in lower incomes.. * this is
a percentage of a part of the population, not of the whole population.
322
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
LU
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-0.7
5.0
4.9
1.6
21.0
2009
-5.6
0.9
5.1
1.2
23.9
2010
3.1
1.8
4.6
1.3
22.6
2011
1.9
2.9
4.8
1.4
22.2
2012
-0.2
2.5
5.1
1.6
23.0
2013
2.1
1.7
5.9
1.8
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
LU
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
21.0
5.3
2.4
5.6
1.9
4.2
1.0
0.2
0.4
2009
23.9
6.1
2.7
6.5
2.1
4.3
1.3
0.4
0.5
2010
22.6
5.8
2.6
6.2
2.0
4.0
1.3
0.3
0.5
2011
22.2
5.6
2.6
6.3
2.0
3.6
1.2
0.3
0.5
2012
23.0
5.8
2.6
6.7
2.0
3.7
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
20.4
5.3
2.4
5.6
1.9
4.2
1.0
0.0
0.0
23.0
6.1
2.7
6.5
2.1
4.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
21.8
5.8
2.6
6.2
2.0
4.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
21.3
5.6
2.6
6.3
2.0
3.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
22.1
5.8
2.6
6.7
2.0
3.7
1.3
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
323
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
LU
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.6
3.5
0.8
2.5
412
194
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.5
13.4
16166
17.8
14.9
16265
17.1
14.5
15961
16.8
13.6
15961
18.4
15.1
15948
19.0
15.9
16360
33948
0.7
34157
1.1
33519
0.5
33517
1.2
33490
1.3
34355
1.8
865
0.5
407
1.1
4.7
8.4
16.6
13.4
6.3
8.8
17.6
15.5
5.5
6.0
18.6
14.4
5.8
6.5
15.7
14.6
6.1
7.1
15.0
17.5
6.6
0.5
1.9
17.5
19.3
2.5
1.8
43.2
4.1
3.7
44.8
4.3
3.7
50.2
4.1
4.7
50.0
4.0
4.2
47.9
4.1
4.9
45.9
4.6
5.6
-2.01
0.5
0.7
324
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
0.9
5.9
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
2.7
0.5
1.9
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
LU
Children
(0-17)
LU
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.4
5.1
1.3
4.1
0.7
1.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.9
19.8
0.9
23.7
22.3
1.2
22.3
21.4
0.2
21.7
20.3
1.2
24.6
22.6
1.7
26.0
23.9
2.4
3.2
16.6
4.1
19.6
3.2
18.6
2.9
18.5
4.0
14.9
4.5
18.0
0.5
3.1
1.3
1.4
41.3
10.3
43.7
9.4
50.4
10.7
50.0
9.5
50.7
9.2
46.3
8.1
-4.4
-1.1
5.0
-2.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.4
15.5
0.5
27.3
21.2
1.9
19.1
16.5
0.9
20.8
17.1
2.4
21.9
18.7
1.4
22.3
19.6
1.3
3.9
10.9
5.2
8.6
3.8
10.6
13.3
5.5
7.5
4.8
5.3
9.1
3.5
6.9
5.2
5.0
11.8
4.2
6.5
5.0
4.6
10.2
5.0
7.8
4.1
6.5
11.9
4.0
6.7
5.7
325
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.4
4.9
0.9
4.1
-0.1
0.8
1.9
1.7
-1.0
-1.1
1.6
2.6
1.0
-1.2
-1.9
1.9
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
LU
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
LU
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.2
3.2
0.5
2.1
0.3
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.8
12.9
0.7
18.2
14.2
1.3
17.5
13.9
0.7
17.6
13.1
1.4
18.8
14.5
1.4
19.0
15.0
1.7
5.2
9.4
16.7
8.3
4.3
7.1
10.1
17.6
6.3
4.1
6.4
10.6
18.7
7.8
5.3
6.9
9.8
15.7
6.8
4.7
6.8
10.3
15.7
7.3
5.5
7.4
11.2
17.5
6.4
6.0
0.6
0.9
1.8
-0.9
0.5
2.2
1.8
0.8
-1.9
1.7
44.9
46.2
50.5
50.8
47.3
46.8
-0.5
1.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
5.4
5.4
0.0
0.97
0.58
2.9
6.2
6.0
0.2
1.01
0.62
2.2
6.1
5.9
0.1
1.05
0.68
2.9
4.7
4.7
0.0
1.05
0.74
1.8
6.1
6.1
0.0
1.10
0.79
1.7
7.0
6.2
0.9
1.13
0.78
1.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the
326
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.9
1.6
0.1
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.03
0.16
-0.01
0.20
0.1
-1.1
exception of
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
the poverty threshold, S80/S20
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
LU
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.9
19.8
0.9
23.7
22.3
1.2
22.3
21.4
0.2
21.7
20.3
1.2
24.6
22.6
1.7
26.0
23.9
2.4
Change
20122013
1.4
1.3
0.7
3.2
4.1
3.2
2.9
4.0
4.5
0.5
14.3
14.6
10.3
11.1
10.2
12.2
13.5
14.5
12.5
13.5
14.3
0.8
2.1
11.0
10.6
68.8
69.2
73.4
64.9
66.9
71.3
4.4
2.5
67.5
64.9
18.2
20.3
19.7
19.0
20.8
21.6
0.8
3.4
15.9
15.6
13.0
13.0
22.0
12.0
17.0
19.0
16.0
28.0
21.0
27.0
14.0
14.0
54.0
46.0
42.0
46.0
45.0
37.0
23.0
26.0
37.0
27.0
35.0
46.0
16.6
24.6
19.6
28.4
14.9
21.7
10.2
23.6
3.1
0.4
1.4
-2.5
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
31.8
18.5
26.5
10.0
28.9
18.0
22.1
26.4
18.6
31.5
6.3
34.6
25.1
1.5
-1.3
28.4
27.6
41.3
43.7
50.4
50.0
50.7
46.3
-4.37
5.04
39.3
41.3
3.6
2.6
13.4
1.0
10
2.8
10.3
4.1
3.5
7.7
0.3
14
2.2
9.4
4.1
3.2
7.1
0.3
20
3.1
10.7
3.7
1.7
6.2
0.0
24
2.9
9.5
5.1
2.9
8.1
0.2
15
3.5
9.2
6.0
2.7
6.1
0.9
-0.2
-2
2.4
0.1
-7.3
10.5
6.7
12.0
2.6
8.1
-0.9
-1.1
-0.2
-2.2
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
327
Change
20082013
5.1
4.1
1.5
1.3
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
99,9
83,0
-16,9
Low income
105,6
86,4
-19,2
High income
77,7
64,9
-12,8
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
95,4
Gross2010
91,2
71,7
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
97,6
76,9
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
65,5
51,4
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
83,0/83,0
71,7/71,7
83,0/83,0
71,7/71,7
78,9
-16,5
85,7
67,4
100,6 / 73,9 82,2 / 61,9 (-18,4 / -12) 92,0 / 61,3
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
99,9
105,6/77,7
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2050 Difference
83,0
-16,9
-20,7
-14,1
-18,3
72,5 / 48,2 (-19,5 / -13,1)
91,2
71,7
86,4 / 64,9 (-19,2 / -12,8) 97,6 / 65,6
-19,5
-19,5
76,9 / 51,4 (-20,7 / -14,2)
99,9
78,3
-21,6
91,2
66,6
-24,6
99,9
83,0
-16,9
91,2
71,7
-19,5
97
80,4
-16,6
87,7
68,9
-18,8
86,9
71,5
-15,4
76,0
59,7
-16,3
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
58,7
53,7
-5,0
44,7
37,0
-7,7
78,3
63,2
-15,1
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
LU
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
64.8
64.4
10.7
11.6
78.1
83.1
17.4
21
0.6
74
4541.80
7.34
2009
65.1
65.9
10.8
11.5
78.1
83.3
17.6
21.4
0.6
74
4657.2
8.07
2010
64.4
66.4
10.5
12.4
77.9
83.5
17.3
21.6
0.6
75.2
4651.7
7.64
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
328
2011
65.8
67.1
11.5
11.8
78.5
83.6
17.8
21.6
0.6
72.5
4660.9
7.34
2012
65.8
66.4
11.6
11.9
79.1
83.8
18.4
21.4
0.7
73.8
4577.9
7.13
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.1 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.3
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS168
(Thousands)
LU
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
Total of beneficiary households of the guaranteed minimum revenu (complementary allocation)
thousands of beneficiaries
IGSS
Disability benefit
Total of disability pensions of the general pension scheme (permanent, transitory and "indemnité
d'attente")
thousands of beneficiaries
IGSS
Early retirement
Early retirement beneficiaries
thousands of beneficiaries
IGSS
168
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only a selection of
benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard definition by the ILO) and the
number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
329
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
330
HUNGARY
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 450,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
331
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
HU
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
12.4
12.4
12.3
13.8
14.0
14.3
0.3
1.9
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
1226
1229
1211
1363
1379
1399
1.5
14.1
84877
83462
% of total pln
12.0
11.3
11.9
12.2
12.8
12.6
-0.2
0.6
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
943
870
909
925
964
939
-2.6
-0.4
39644
40189
% of total pln
17.9
20.3
21.6
23.1
25.7
26.8
1.1
8.9
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
1771
2009
2129
2278
2527
2623
3.8
48.1
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.0
-0.9
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
195
152
149
125
113
110
-2.7
-43.6
13552
13504
% of total pln
2.8
3.4
3.3
4.6
4.6
5.3
0.7
2.5
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
276
341
321
450
457
521
14.0
88.8
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
2.7
2.8
3.4
4.0
4.9
4.5
-0.4
1.8
1.8
1.8
263
273
331
396
481
443
-7.9
68.4
9240
9250
% of total pln
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
149
145
169
148
151
159
5.3
6.7
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
332
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
HU
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
0.9
-1.8
7.8
3.6
22.5
2009
-6.8
-2.5
10.0
4.2
23.0
2010
1.1
0.8
11.2
5.5
22.6
2011
1.6
0.3
10.9
5.2
21.9
2012
-1.7
0.0
10.9
4.9
21.6
2013
1.1
0.4
10.2
5.0
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
HU
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
22.5
5.7
2.1
8.8
1.3
2.8
0.8
0.7
0.1
2009
23.0
5.8
2.1
9.1
1.4
3.0
1.0
0.7
0.1
2010
22.6
5.8
1.9
9.1
1.3
2.9
0.9
0.5
0.1
2011
21.9
5.6
1.7
9.3
1.3
2.8
0.8
0.4
0.1
2012
21.6
5.1
1.6
9.9
1.3
2.7
0.6
0.3
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
21.2
5.5
2.1
8.8
1.3
2.8
0.6
21.8
5.6
2.1
9.0
1.3
2.9
0.7
21.5
5.7
1.9
9.1
1.3
2.8
0.6
20.9
5.4
1.7
9.2
1.3
2.7
0.5
20.7
5.0
1.6
9.9
1.3
2.6
0.3
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
333
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
HU
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.1
5.3
0.3
1.9
-128
549
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.2
12.4
3958
29.6
12.4
4097
29.9
12.3
4025
31.0
13.8
4321
32.4
14.0
4635
33.5
14.3
4507
8312
17.9
8604
20.3
8451
21.6
9075
23.1
9733
25.7
9465
26.8
-268
1.1
12.0
7.7
17.3
12.4
11.3
8.6
16.3
11.8
11.9
5.7
16.5
13.7
12.2
8.8
18.3
14.7
12.8
8.4
21.0
14.0
12.6
8.0
21.7
17.2
59.2
3.6
11.6
57.1
3.5
8.9
56.7
3.4
11.3
52.3
3.9
11.8
48.3
4.0
13.5
-2.2
-4.2
-1.9
3.9
-3.5
334
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
1153
8.9
9.9
9.6
-0.2
-0.4
0.7
3.2
0.6
0.3
4.4
4.8
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
45.6
4.2
12.7
-2.71
0.2
-0.8
-13.58
0.6
1.1
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
0.3
3.8
2.5
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
HU
Children
(0-17)
HU
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.1
9.6
0.6
3.5
1.6
13.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
33.4
19.7
21.5
37.2
20.6
25.5
38.7
20.3
28.8
39.6
23.0
29.8
40.9
22.6
33.4
43.0
23.2
35.0
11.1
16.8
11.9
16.7
13.9
16.5
14.1
18.8
15.7
22.5
14.4
21.8
-1.3
-0.7
3.3
5.0
57.7
64.4
55.5
64.8
57.2
66.5
51.6
66.7
47.6
67.5
46.7
66.9
-0.9
-0.6
-11.1
2.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
35.8
18.1
23.1
36.3
17.7
25.2
36.2
17.0
25.6
37.5
18.9
28.4
38.6
19.8
30.1
40.5
20.3
32.9
11.2
6.9
5.0
15.3
13.4
9.8
6.8
6.5
17.9
10.1
8.8
6.4
6.6
16.5
12.2
10.2
5.3
6.4
17.7
12.5
12.8
4.6
7.3
19.5
14.3
12.2
9.9
7.4
20.1
14.4
335
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.9
4.7
0.5
2.2
2.8
9.8
-0.6
5.3
0.1
0.6
0.1
1.0
3.0
2.4
4.8
1.0
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
HU
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
HU
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.6
5.4
0.7
2.3
1.4
9.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.1
12.0
17.6
30.2
11.9
20.1
30.5
11.9
21.3
31.7
13.6
23.1
32.9
13.6
25.6
34.5
14.3
27.0
12.3
5.8
18.1
48.8
11.8
11.1
6.2
16.5
47.1
9.0
11.3
5.4
16.7
47.7
11.6
11.6
6.1
18.6
47.6
12.1
11.9
5.3
21.7
47.7
13.9
12.0
6.6
22.4
46.3
13.3
0.1
1.3
0.7
-1.4
-0.6
-0.3
0.8
4.3
-2.5
1.5
60.3
58.0
57.0
52.3
49.3
45.4
-3.8
-14.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.5
4.3
14.4
1.00
0.61
24.5
17.5
4.6
14.6
1.02
0.62
22.9
16.8
4.1
14.1
1.01
0.60
21.8
18.0
4.5
15.5
1.00
0.59
22.6
20.6
6.0
17.4
0.97
0.58
21.5
19.0
4.4
16.7
1.05
0.61
19.6
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.6
1.5
-1.6
0.1
-0.7
2.3
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.00
-1.9
-4.9
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the exception of the poverty threshold, S80/S20
336
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
HU
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
33.4
19.7
21.5
37.2
20.6
25.5
38.7
20.3
28.8
39.6
23.0
29.8
40.9
22.6
33.4
43.0
23.2
35.0
Change
20122013
2.1
0.6
1.6
11.1
11.9
13.9
14.1
15.7
14.4
-1.3
13.4
16.6
9.0
17.5
15.3
15.9
7.4
8.4
7.2
7.9
6.7
70.9
68.8
69.7
73.7
13.3
14.1
12.4
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
23.0
Change
20082013
9.6
3.5
13.5
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
3.3
9.1
9.3
0.6
2.5
12.8
8.0
1.3
0.6
11.0
10.6
77.9
76.2
-1.7
5.3
67.5
64.9
14.7
12.2
14.1
1.9
0.8
15.9
15.6
1.0
8.0
1.0
7.0
2.0
6.0
14.0
14.0
17.0
14.0
16.0
14.0
37.0
52.0
57.0
65.0
59.0
61.0
46.0
16.8
9.0
16.7
9.7
16.5
9.2
18.8
7.2
22.5
9.0
21.8
8.6
-0.7
-0.4
5
-0.4
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
13.6
14.2
13.7
10.5
13.1
12.3
-0.8
-1.3
28.4
27.6
57.7
55.5
57.2
51.6
47.6
46.7
-0.89
-11.06
39.3
41.3
13.0
5.5
11.7
1.3
553
28.7
64.4
10.0
5.7
11.2
0.4
495
17.5
64.8
11.9
4.8
10.5
0.6
481
27.4
66.5
13.2
4.9
11.2
0.8
433
24.6
66.7
14.9
6.1
11.5
1.0
438
27.5
67.5
14.5
7.1
11.8
-0.4
1
0.3
1.5
1.6
0.1
10.5
6.7
12.0
28.6
66.9
1.1
-0.6
-0.1
2.5
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
337
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
100,1
75
-25
Low income
83
75
-8
High income
88,2
56,3
-31,9
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
83,3
71,8 / 76,7
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
111,5
96 / 102
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
60,2
62,3
(100/0/0)* (64/36/0)*
59,5
62,3
(100/0/0)* (64/36/0)*
49
46,8
(100/0/0)* (64/36/0)*
70,9 / 79,9
58,9 / 66,3
83,7 / 68,7
69,4 / 57
65,5
-17,8
50,1
65,5 / 49,3 (-6,3/-27,4) 51,5 / 42,6
87,2
-24,3
2,8
-2,2
54,4
4,3
54,4 / 40,9
(2,9/-1,7)
72,4
5,4
72,4 / 54,4
(3,6/-2,3)
67
87,2 / 65,4 (-8,8/-36,6) 68,8 / 56,7
2,1
107,3
59,2
-48,1
70,2
49,1
-21,1
66,1
70,8
4,7
41,9
58,7
16,8
81,0
72,5
-8,5
48,8
60,2
11,4
48,2
55
6,8
29,0
45,6
16,6
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
31,2
26,6
-4,6
44,7
37,0
-7,7
38,4
40,3
1,9
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
HU
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
54.8
58.3
5.6
6.4
70
78.3
13.9
18.1
3.4
55.1
1223.54
7.46
2009
55.9
58.2
5.7
5.7
70.3
78.4
14
18.2
2.1
55.9
1217.43
7.74
2010
56.3
58.6
5.4
5.9
70.7
78.6
14.1
18.2
1.7
55
1355.77
8.06
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
338
2011
57.6
59.1
6
6
71.2
78.7
14.3
18.3
2.6
55.9
1417.32
8.03
2012
59.2
60.5
6.4
6.4
71.6
78.7
14.3
18.1
2.8
57.6
1412.63
7.97
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS169
Note: Purple line - the number of people eligible to regular social assistance, from 1 January the number of people
eligible to benefit for persons in active age (regular social assistance + employment substituting benefit + those whose
benefit is suspended (e.g. because of taking part in public work). In the period between February and December 2011,
no data has been collected on the suspended benefits; Blue line - the number of people eligible to benefit for persons in
active age, excluding those whose benefit is suspended.
HU
definition
unit
source
link
definition
unit
source
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lmhu_m&lang=en
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment Benefit recipients - Recipients of jobseekers' allowance and jobseekers' assistance
thousands of recipients
National Employment Office (www.munka.hu)
At the end of 2010 data from 2008 till 2010 about jobseekers' allowance were modified because of
the changes in the functioning of the IT system, which revised the number of recipients of
unemployment benefit.
On the other hand data of 2006, 2007 were also modified because we have found significant
differences between this number of HU jobseekers allowance, assistance receivers and number of
recipients of jobseekers allowance, assistance (were registered by PES).
169
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
339
definition
unit
source
definition
comment
definition
unit
source
definition
Social assistance benefit
Recipients of regular social assistance
thousands of recipients
Hungarian Treasury
Regular social assistance is an income supplement provision in the form of cash, provided by the
local government of the settlement. Its aim to guarantee a minimal standard of living for those who
have no income. From the 1 July 2006 the conditions of the provision and the way of calculation of
the amount of support changed. Before that the local government awarded regular social assistance
to a person who was over 18 years of age, was of active age, and had lost at least 67 per cent of his or
her working ability or received blind persons’ benefit, or to a person who was of active age but not
in employment, in the case that their subsistence was not provided by other means.
By the new terms for the support is entitled only one person in a family. The assessing of the
entitlement and the amount of the assistance based on the income projected to the consumer unit
instead of the previous income per capita. The consumer unit is the rate which shows the structure
of consumption within a family. The first major member of the family and the disabled child’s rate is
1,0 while the ratio of the companion (spouse) and a child is lower (0,9-0,7). The amount of support is
variable and supplements the family’s effective total income to the limit of the entitlement. The
regular social assistance from 1 January 2009 was changed to benefit for active aged which consist of
the regular social assistance and the "support for to be ready to work" (from 1st September 2011
employment substituting benefit). The change in the benefit system was built up completely until
31 March 2009. Persons capable of performing work are entitled to employment substituting
benefit. Persons who belong to this scope are obliged to cooperate with the Public Employment
Service and to take part in public work. The employment substituting benefit is paid, when the
person is not involved into public work. The amount of the benefit is fixed, it is equal to the 80 % of
the minimum old-age pension.
Persons incapable of performing work are entitled to regular social assistance (health impaired,
people who have less than five years to the retirement age, as well as persons who bring up a child
under 14, and the attendance of the child at an institution providing daily care is not ensured.
Furthermore, the competent municipality may set other conditions in its local decree connected to
the family circumstances, health or mental status of the claimant, in which case the person entitled
to benefit for persons in active age is defined as a person incapable of performing work.). The
calculation of regular social assistance is determined on the grounds of the composition and income
of the family.Only one person in a family can be eligible to the benefit for persons in active age,
except for the case when two claimants are entitled to different cash benefits (one person is
entitled to employment substituting benefit, the other to regular social assistance.
Disability benefit
Disability subsidy recipients
thousands of recipients
Hungarian Treasury (www.allamkincstar.gov.hu)
Financial support for severely disabled persons over the age of 18, who are unable to care for
themselves or need permanenet assistance from others.
340
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
341
MALTA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 6,560
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
342
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
MT
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
15.3
14.9
15.5
15.6
15.1
15.7
0.6
0.4
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
61
60
63
63
62
65
4.8
6.6
84877
83462
% of total pln
8.6
9.2
9.2
8.9
9.0
9.0
0.0
0.4
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
28
29
29
28
28
28
0.0
0.0
39644
40189
% of total pln
4.3
5.0
6.5
6.6
9.2
9.5
0.3
5.2
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
17
20
26
27
37
39
5.4
129.4
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.4
-0.1
-0.5
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
12
11
12
12
10
10
0.0
-16.7
13552
13504
% of total pln
0.4
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
0.9
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
2
4
6
5
5
6
20.0
200.0
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.9
2.0
0.1
0.7
1.8
1.8
5
5
7
5
8
8
0.0
60.0
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.3
-0.3
-0.1
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
2
2
2
1
2
1
-50.0
-50.0
3391
3685
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
343
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
MT
2008
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)*
3.3
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)*
2.5
Unemployment rate
6.0
Long-term unemployment rate
2.5
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)* 18.1
2009
-2.5
0.0
6.9
2.9
19.6
2010
3.5
1.7
6.9
3.1
19.1
2011
2.2
2.8
6.4
3.1
18.7
2012
2.5
2.3
6.3
3.1
19.4
2013
2.5
4.0
6.4
2.9
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
MT
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
17.8
5.3
1.0
7.6
1.7
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.4
2009
19.3
5.9
0.9
8.3
1.8
1.2
0.6
0.2
0.4
2010
18.9
5.5
0.8
8.6
1.8
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.3
2011
18.5
5.4
0.8
8.4
1.7
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.3
2012
19.2
5.7
0.7
8.7
1.9
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.3
2.5
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
2.6
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.5
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.5
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.5
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
15.4
4.4
0.8
7.3
1.7
0.8
0.2
16.7
4.9
0.7
8.0
1.8
0.8
0.2
16.4
4.6
0.7
8.3
1.8
0.8
0.2
16.0
4.5
0.6
8.1
1.7
0.7
0.2
16.7
4.7
0.6
8.4
1.9
0.8
0.2
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
344
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
MT
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.9
3.9
0.6
0.4
561
1363
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.1
15.3
7958
20.3
14.9
8146
21.2
15.5
8023
22.1
15.6
8417
23.1
15.1
8760
24.0
15.7
9321
16712
4.3
17106
5.0
16848
6.5
17676
6.6
18397
9.2
19575
9.5
1178
0.3
2863
5.2
8.6
7.7
20.3
15.3
9.2
7.7
16.2
14.8
9.2
9.1
17.3
16.8
8.9
11.4
17.7
15.7
9.0
9.7
16.1
13.8
9.0
0
0.4
19.1
14.4
3
0.6
33.2
4.3
3.3
34.9
4.0
2.8
34.0
4.3
3.7
32.8
4.0
3.0
37.1
3.9
2.6
32.6
4.1
2.6
-4.46
0.2
0
345
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
-1.2
-0.9
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-0.57
-0.2
-0.7
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
MT
Children
(0-17)
MT
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.0
7.0
0.9
3.6
-0.5
5.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
25.0
20.4
6.3
26.5
21.2
7.2
26.7
22.1
7.7
27.8
23.0
7.7
31.0
23.1
12.3
32.0
24.0
11.8
9.8
20.9
10.4
17.2
9.7
15.2
10.0
17.0
10.4
15.0
11.2
20.9
0.8
5.9
1.4
0.0
33.6
5.5
35.0
5.7
31.4
6.4
29.9
7.4
36.0
6.7
28.8
4.6
-7.2
-2.1
-4.8
-0.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
12.6
7.8
4.5
14.5
9.3
5.5
18.7
11.8
8.4
21.1
13.2
7.9
22.2
12.5
11.5
22.8
11.5
11.9
3.7
3.1
6.1
7.7
1.2
5.1
2.9
7.5
11.1
0.9
7.1
4.9
6.7
10.4
2.6
6.1
5.3
6.9
11.0
2.3
7.4
3.7
7.2
11.3
2.4
6.5
4.1
6.9
10.1
1.2
346
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.6
10.2
-1.0
3.7
0.4
7.4
-0.9
0.4
-0.3
-1.2
-1.2
2.8
1.0
0.8
2.4
0.0
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
MT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
MT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.4
5.0
1.2
1.6
0.6
5.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.5
12.0
4.0
18.1
12.1
4.6
19.6
13.1
6.4
20.7
13.1
6.8
21.1
12.4
8.9
22.5
13.6
9.5
8.2
5.1
20.5
3.8
3.1
8.9
5.4
16.2
3.7
2.6
9.0
5.8
17.7
3.9
3.6
8.6
6.1
18.3
4.3
2.9
8.6
5.2
16.9
3.8
2.4
8.3
5.9
19.3
3.9
2.4
-0.3
0.7
2.4
0.1
0.0
37.8
38.3
36.7
35.8
40.1
32.0
-8.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
26.0
24.3
3.1
0.73
0.41
1.7
22.2
19.7
4.1
0.77
0.45
1.5
21.7
18.2
5.0
0.81
0.44
1.5
21.0
17.6
4.7
0.79
0.48
1.0
22.3
17.3
6.4
0.80
0.46
1.3
20.8
14.9
7.1
0.79
0.56
1.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
347
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
0.1
0.8
-1.2
0.1
-0.7
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-5.8
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.5
-5.2
-2.4
-9.4
0.7
4.0
-0.01
0.06
0.10
0.15
-0.1
-0.5
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
MT
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
25.0
20.4
6.3
26.5
21.2
7.2
26.7
22.1
7.7
27.8
23.0
7.7
31.0
23.1
12.3
32.0
24.0
11.8
Change
20122013
1
0.9
-0.5
9.8
10.4
9.7
10.0
10.4
11.2
0.8
11.5
8.6
10.7
15.9
14.1
7.9
9.0
9.7
10.1
10.0
9.7
-0.3
1.8
11.0
10.6
77.2
66.9
79.0
77.9
75.4
72.6
-2.8
-4.6
67.5
64.9
14.1
15.9
16.0
16.9
17.0
17.8
0.8
3.7
15.9
15.6
10.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
4.0
8.0
3.0
16.0
1.0
14.0
14.0
26.0
30.0
25.0
29.0
31.0
37.0
49.0
47.0
49.0
44.0
60.0
46.0
20.9
13.9
17.2
15.9
15.2
14.9
17.0
15.9
15.0
18.2
20.9
16.6
5.9
-1.6
0
2.7
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
17.7
20.3
19.7
21.2
24.6
22.6
-2
4.9
28.4
27.6
33.6
35.0
31.4
29.9
36.0
28.8
-7.23
-4.77
39.3
41.3
3.2
9.3
27.2
0.3
34
1.8
5.5
2.7
8.6
27.1
0.4
22
2.2
5.7
3.6
9.1
23.8
0.5
22
2.1
6.4
3.1
9.0
22.7
0.4
27
2.8
7.4
3.2
10.1
21.1
0.6
22
1.5
6.7
3.5
10.2
20.8
0.7
0.3
0.1
-0.3
0.1
0.3
0.9
-6.4
0.4
10.5
6.7
12.0
1.5
1.5
4.6
0
-2.1
-0.3
-0.9
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
348
Change
20082013
7
3.6
5.5
1.4
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
79,7
70,5
-9,2
Low income
77,7
71,1
-6,6
High income
43,2
39,6
-3,6
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
79,7
77,7 / 43,2
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
67,3
59,5
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
67,3
61,9
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
32,9
29,8
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
70,5 / 70,5
59,5 / 59,5
76,8 / 61,1
64,6 / 51,7
67,4
-12,3
67,3
67,6 / 37,9 (-10,1/-5,3) 67,3 / 32,9
-7,8
-5,4
-3,1
56,5
-10,8
58,8 / 28,3
(-8,5/-4,6)
79,7
70,5
-9,2
67,3
59,5
-7,8
77,7 / 43,2
71,1 / 39,6
(-6,6/-3,6)
67,3 / 32,9
61,9 / 29,8
(-5,4/-3,1)
73,8
68,2
-5,6
61,8
57,4
-4,4
79,7
70,5
-9,2
67,3
59,5
-7,8
79,7
70,5
-9,2
67,3
59,5
-7,8
79,7
67,3
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
EU27 2050 Difference
51,2
47,6
-3,6
44,7
37,0
-7,7
58,5
51,6
-6,9
48,0
39,1
-8,9
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
MT
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
69
72.3
10.5
11.7
77.1
82.3
17
20.1
0.7
74.1
2009
69.4
71
11.4
11.6
77.9
82.7
16.8
20.6
1.3
69.2
2010
70.2
71.6
12
11.9
79.2
83.6
18.4
21.1
1.6
68.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
349
2011
70.3
70.7
11.8
11
78.6
83
17.7
21
1
70.8
2012
71.5
72.2
12.5
12.3
78.6
83
17.6
21
1.2
72.1
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS170
MT
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=une_nb_m&lang=en
Unemployment benefit
1) Unemployment Benefit - UB; 2) Special Unemployment Benefit - SUB; 3) Unemployment Assistance UA
thousands of recipients
Ministry of the Family and Social Solidarity
https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/socprot/mjdf_page/disclaimer.aspx.
1) Unemployment benefit is paid to persons who are registering as unemployed under the Part 1
register as held by the Employment & Training Corporation who have paid or credited an accumulation
of fifty (50) social security contributions in total and an average of twenty (20) social security
contributions in the preceding two (2) years prior to their claim. The unemployment benefit rate which
is paid for a maximum of six (6) months may be increased to a special unemployment benefit rate; 2) If
a person who is in receipt of Unemployment Benefit satisfies the conditions for the award of
unemployment assistance, his benefit is increased to a Special Unemployment Benefit.; 3) Head of
household who is seeking employment and is registering for work under Part 1 of the register with ETC
is eligible for this benefit.
170
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
350
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
source
link
comment
comment
comment
Social assistance benefit
1) Social Assistance - SA; 2) Social Assistance for Carers - SAF; 3) Supplementary Allowance - SPA (only
low income earners are being considered as related to the crisis); 4) Social Assistance for Drug Addicts DAD
thousands of beneficiaries
Ministry of the Family and Social Solidarity
https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/socprot/mjdf_page/disclaimer.aspx.
1) Head of Households, who are incapable of work due to medical reasons, or are unemployed and
seeking employment, given that they fulfill the means and capital resources tests; 2) ATo be entitled
for this benefit, claimant must either be single or a widow (male or female), who are taking care of a
sick relative by themselves on a full time basis. Relatives must be the parents, grand-parents, brothers,
sisters, uncles, aunts, brothers or sisters’ in-laws and father/mother in laws. Claimants and patients are
to give proof that they are residing in the same residence. Case will be referred for a medical
examination; 3) Supplementary Allowance is payable to households where the total income of the
members falls below the limits outlined by the Social Security Act from time to time. In this regard,
not all Supplementary Allowance beneficiaries here are related to the economic crisis but only
beneficiries on low household income. SPA is paid every 13 weeks (roughly each 3 months), being
Dec/Jan, Mar/Apr, Jun/Jul, and Sep/Oct; 4) A person who is undergoing a drug or alcohol rehabilitation
therapeutic programme is eligible for this benefit. An official document from the institution concerned
is received by the Department confirming date when programme was initiated.
Disability benefit
1) Disability Pension - SHP; 2) Pension for the visually impaired - BLD; 3) Disablement Pension (termed
as Injury Pension in Social Security Act CAP 318)- DP; 4) Invalidity Pension - IP
Ministry of the Family and Social Solidarity
https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/socprot/mjdf_page/disclaimer.aspx.
1) Payable to citizens of Malta over 16 years of age. Various types of disabilities are listed under the
Social Security Act; 2) Claimant must be 14 years of age or over, and provide a medical certificate from
an ophthalmologist from Mater Dei Hospital explaining the patient’s visual medical condition. This
Benefit is means tested. Claimant’s income, together with the rate of Pension
for the Visually Impaired must not exceed the National Minimum Wage as applicable to an 18-year-old
person; 3) Payable if injury or disease caused or contracted whilst at work is considered to cause a loss
of physical or mental faculty calculated between 20% & 89%. Rates awarded according to degree of
Disability. Where the degree of disablement is assessed at 90% and over, the person concerned is
automatically awarded an Invalidity Pension at the full rate. 4) Payable to persons deemed
permanently incapable for suitable full-time or regular part-time employment. Various rates according
to different conditions.
“The Maltese economy recorded an increase of 2.5 per cent in real GDP during 2013 emanating
primarily from the domestic side of the economy as the domestic sector contributed 1.5 percentage
points towards overall growth. The annual contribution from the external sector was neutral, yet the
stock building component together with a significant statistical residual contributed positively by 1.0
percentage points. According to latest data by NSO, real GDP growth expanded by 3.2 per cent in the
first half of 2014. According to the latest forecasts by the Ministry for Finance, the Maltese economy is
expected to retain the positive momentum in the second half of 2014. Overall growth in 2014 is
expected to reach 3.0 per cent in real terms. The labour market continued to perform well during 2013,
with the unemployment rate (based on harmonised definition) standing at 6.4 per cent, well below the
EU average rate of 10.8 per cent. The latest Labour Force Survey (LFS) data indicates that during the first
half of 2014, the (LFS) unemployment rate (LFS) stood on average at 5.9 per cent. According to the
above-mentioned forecasts, the unemployment rate is expected at around 6.0 per cent in 2014.”
Due to the favourable conditions in the registered economic activity a declining trend in the number of
unemployment benefit recipients was observed from the second quarter 2010 and continued well
throughout 2011. As from the third quarter 2011 till the third quarter 2013, the number of persons
eligible for unemployment related benefits gradually increased.Following this increase, data from the
Employment and Training Corporation (ETC) indicates that the number of persons registered as
unemployed as at the end of third quarter 2014 stood at 6599, a decrease of 1020, or 13,0 per cent over
the corresponding month in 2013.
351
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
352
NETHERLANDS
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people aged 0-64 living in a jobless household by 100,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: National Statistics, NL (Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
353
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
NL
AROP
VLWI
SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
10.5
11.1
10.3
11.0
10.1
10.4
0.3
-0.1
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
1713
1816
1694
1816
1678
1735
3.4
1.3
84877
83462
% of total pln
8.2
8.5
8.4
8.9
8.9
9.4
0.5
1.2
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
1053
1083
1068
1128
1133
1184
4.5
12.4
39644
40189
% of total pln
1.5
1.4
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.5
0.2
1.0
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
252
237
366
407
387
416
7.5
65.1
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.0
2.8
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.5
0.2
0.5
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
332
456
292
337
391
408
4.3
22.9
13552
13504
% of total pln
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.3
-0.3
0.1
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
37
55
41
72
97
43
-55.7
16.2
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.0
-0.1
1.8
1.8
85
50
100
144
70
62
-11.4
-27.1
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
46
41
111
55
78
110
41.0
139.1
3391
3685
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
354
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
NL
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
1.8
1.5
3.1
1.1
26.9
2009
-3.7
-0.7
3.7
0.9
29.7
2010
1.5
-0.4
4.5
1.2
30.3
2011
0.9
0.7
4.4
1.5
30.5
2012
-1.2
-0.2
5.3
1.8
31.4
2013
-0.8
-1.0
6.7
2.4
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
NL
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
26.9
9.4
2.4
9.7
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.4
1.7
2009
29.7
10.4
2.5
10.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
0.4
2.0
2010
30.3
10.7
2.5
10.7
1.2
1.2
1.6
0.4
2.0
2011
30.5
10.9
2.4
10.8
1.2
1.2
1.5
0.4
2.2
2012
31.4
11.3
2.3
11.3
1.2
1.1
1.8
0.4
2.1
3.9
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
1.7
4.5
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
2.0
4.6
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.4
2.0
4.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.4
2.2
4.8
0.0
0.5
1.1
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.4
2.1
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
23.0
9.3
2.0
8.8
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
25.2
10.3
2.0
9.5
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
25.7
10.6
2.0
9.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
25.7
10.8
1.9
9.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
26.6
11.3
1.9
10.2
1.2
0.9
1.1
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
355
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
NL
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.9
1
0.3
-0.1
229
131
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14.9
10.5
11485
15.1
11.1
11618
15.1
10.3
11288
15.7
11.0
11300
15.0
10.1
11387
15.9
10.4
11616
24119
1.5
24399
1.4
23705
2.2
23730
2.5
23912
2.3
24393
2.5
481
0.2
274
1
8.2
6.4
14.9
10.5
8.5
4.7
16.5
10.6
8.4
8.2
16.2
10.0
8.9
7.7
15.5
11.0
8.9
5.8
17.3
10.7
9.4
0.5
1.2
16.5
11.8
-0.8
1.1
47.2
4.0
13.7
45.9
4.0
13.1
51.2
3.7
14.0
47.4
3.8
14.5
51.0
3.6
14.4
50.0
3.6
15.7
0.0
1.9
-2.3
0.5
-2.1
-1.0
356
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
1.6
1.3
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-0.97
0
1.3
2.76
-0.4
2
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
1.2
-1.0
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
NL
Children
(0-17)
NL
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.1
1.5
-0.6
-0.3
-1.0
0.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.5
12.9
2.2
17.5
15.4
1.5
16.9
13.7
2.0
18.0
15.5
2.9
16.9
13.2
3.3
17.0
12.6
2.3
5.1
12.7
5.4
14.8
5.8
14.7
6.3
15.3
6.4
15.6
6.4
12.1
0.0
-3.5
1.3
-0.6
43.9
1.5
38.9
1.2
45.6
1.9
36.2
1.6
44.5
2.4
47.3
2.5
2.7
0.1
3.4
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
25.5
20.0
1.0
26.5
20.1
1.2
27.9
19.4
4.6
27.1
21.8
3.7
24.1
19.8
2.1
28.0
22.9
2.8
11.6
4.9
3.9
4.6
18.0
12.3
3.5
4.8
5.6
15.6
11.8
6.9
6.0
5.8
18.2
9.2
8.0
5.3
5.0
18.4
8.2
3.2
6.6
5.7
19.7
8.3
5.2
7.7
6.7
21.3
357
Change Change
201220082013
2013
3.9
2.5
3.1
2.9
0.7
1.8
0.1
2.0
1.1
1.0
1.6
-3.3
0.3
3.8
2.1
3.3
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
NL
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
NL
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.6
2.3
0.8
1.0
0.6
1.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.8
9.9
1.6
15.9
10.3
1.6
16.5
10.1
2.7
17.0
10.5
2.8
16.5
10.1
2.4
18.1
10.9
3.0
9.5
4.7
17.1
2.1
14.0
9.7
5.0
20.7
2.3
13.3
9.4
5.1
17.3
2.5
14.6
9.8
5.4
16.7
2.1
15.4
9.9
4.6
18.9
3.1
15.6
10.5
4.2
19.4
3.3
17.2
0.6
-0.4
0.5
0.2
1.6
1.0
-0.5
2.3
1.2
3.2
50.0
49.3
53.5
51.6
53.7
51.3
-2.3
1.3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
9.7
9.4
0.4
0.84
0.43
0.1
8.1
7.7
0.4
0.86
0.44
0.0
6.2
5.9
0.3
0.87
0.47
0.2
6.9
6.5
0.4
0.87
0.46
0.1
6.2
5.5
0.7
0.90
0.47
0.4
6.1
5.5
0.8
0.90
0.49
0.0
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
358
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.1
-3.6
0.0
-3.9
0.1
0.4
0.00
0.06
0.02
0.06
-0.4
-0.1
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
NL
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.5
12.9
2.2
17.5
15.4
1.5
16.9
13.7
2.0
18.0
15.5
2.9
16.9
13.2
3.3
17.0
12.6
2.3
Change
20122013
0.1
-0.6
-1
5.1
5.4
5.8
6.3
6.4
6.4
0
7.8
4.9
15.9
16.6
6.4
5.8
6.8
6.0
6.7
5.5
4.8
-0.7
-1
11.0
10.6
62.6
69.7
53.7
70.2
54.0
49.2
-4.8
-13.4
67.5
64.9
10.1
12.2
11.2
11.8
10.1
10.1
0
0
15.9
15.6
41.0
6.0
43.0
6.0
44.0
6.0
46.0
6.0
39.0
7.0
14.0
14.0
77.0
75.0
76.0
76.0
75.0
37.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
13.0
14.0
46.0
12.7
34.3
10.1
41.9
14.8
14.7
15.3
15.6
12.1
-3.5
-0.6
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
41.0
39.8
38.3
37.1
36.8
-0.3
-5.1
28.4
27.6
43.9
38.9
45.6
36.2
44.5
47.3
2.74
3.37
39.3
41.3
11.5
1.9
11.4
0.5
698
0.6
1.5
13.3
2.1
10.9
0.4
711
0.5
1.2
14.2
2.1
10.0
0.4
695
0.6
1.9
14.1
1.9
9.1
0.7
654
0.4
1.6
13.4
2.0
8.8
0.1
649
0.6
2.4
14.8
2.2
9.2
1.4
0.2
0.4
3.3
0.3
-2.2
10.5
6.7
12.0
1.0
2.5
0.4
0.1
0.4
1
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
359
Change
20082013
1.5
-0.3
0.1
1.3
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
105
101
-4,0
Low income
106,9
103,3
-3,6
High income
97,2
73,1
-24,1
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
98,1
105,5/87,9
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
109,6
Gross2010
84,5
86,3
(48/0/52)* (48/0/52)*
87,4
92,7
(69/0/31)* (68/0/32)*
84,2
61,8
(25/0/75)* (34/0/66)*
101 / 101
86,3 / 86,3
101 / 101
86,3 / 86,3
98,7
0,6
77,9
101,9/71,4 (-3,6/-16,5) 83,4 / 74,7
108,3
-1,3
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
1,8
5,3
-22,4
84,1
6,2
91,2 / 59,8
7,8 / -14,9
93,4
4,5
97,3 / 68,3
7,2 / -22,2
88,9
107,7/102,6 107,6/78,7 (-0,1/-23,9) 90,1 / 90,5
10 years after retirement
Gross2050 Difference
105
101
-4,0
84,5
86,3
1,8
101,5
97,5
-4,0
81,2
83
1,8
102,7
97,5
-5,2
82,3
83
0,7
93,4
89,5
-3,9
73,5
75,2
1,7
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
:
:
:
44,7
37,0
-7,7
:
:
:
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
NL
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
62.4
59.9
9.9
9.7
78.4
82.5
17.4
20.7
0.3
77.3
3772.59
10.99
2009
61.7
60.1
9.5
10.4
78.7
82.9
17.6
21
0.3
77.7
3775.97
11.88
2010
61.3
60.2
9.4
9.5
78.9
83
17.7
21
0.4
78
3847.28
12.15
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
360
2011
64
59
10.4
9.9
79.4
83.1
18.1
21.2
0.4
76.3
3899.28
12.1
2012
63.5
58.9
10
10.1
79.3
83
18
21
0.5
75.6
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS171
171
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
361
NL
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Statline
http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80590NED&
D1=12&D2=0&D3=0&D4=39-50,52-63,65-76,78-89,91-102,104-115,117-128,130141,143-151&HD=141027-1002&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2,G3
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment Benefit recipients (uitkeringen Werkloosheidswet - WW)
thousands of recipients, end of month
Institute for Employee Benefit Schemes (Uitvoeringsorganisatie
http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37789KSZ&D
1=0,7,9&D2=104-115,117-128,130-141,143-154,156-167,169-180,182-193,195206,208-215&HD=141027-1007&HDR=T&STB=G1
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
Social assistance recipients (uitkeringen Wet Werk en Bijstand - WWB en Wet
thousands of recipients, end of month
Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek - CBS)
http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37789KSZ&D
1=0,7,9&D2=104-115,117-128,130-141,143-154,156-167,169-180,182-193,195206,208-215&HD=141027-1007&HDR=T&STB=G1
Disability benefit
Disability benefit recipients (uitkeringen Arbeidsongeschiktheidswetten - AO)
thousands of recipients, end of month
Institute for Employee Benefit Schemes (Uitvoeringsorganisatie
werknemersverzekeringen - UWV)
http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37789KSZ&D
1=0,7,9&D2=104-115,117-128,130-141,143-154,156-167,169-180,182-193,195206,208-215&HD=141027-1007&HDR=T&STB=G1
362
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
363
AUSTRIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 235,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
364
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
AT
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
15.2
14.5
14.7
14.5
14.4
14.4
0.0
-0.8
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
1252
1201
1214
1207
1201
1203
0.2
-3.9
84877
83462
% of total pln
7.4
7.1
7.8
8.6
7.7
7.8
0.1
0.4
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
472
452
497
546
490
496
1.2
5.1
39644
40189
% of total pln
5.9
4.6
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.2
0.2
-1.7
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
485
376
353
333
335
355
6.0
-26.8
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.6
1.7
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
-0.4
0.2
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
132
139
185
181
188
153
-18.6
15.9
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.1
-0.2
-0.5
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
135
110
103
89
111
96
-13.5
-28.9
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.2
0.3
0.0
1.8
1.8
102
91
92
93
73
97
32.9
-4.9
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
39
21
25
37
39
40
2.6
2.6
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
365
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
AT
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
1.4
2.0
3.8
0.9
27.7
2009
-3.8
-0.7
4.8
1.0
29.8
2010
1.8
1.0
4.4
1.1
29.8
2011
2.8
1.7
4.2
1.1
29.0
2012
0.9
1.3
4.3
1.1
29.3
2013
0.3
0.7
4.9
1.2
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
AT
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
27.7
7.3
2.1
11.7
1.9
2.8
1.4
0.2
0.3
2009
29.8
7.7
2.2
12.7
2.0
3.0
1.7
0.2
0.3
2010
29.8
7.6
2.2
12.8
2.0
3.1
1.7
0.2
0.3
2011
29.0
7.4
2.2
12.7
1.9
2.8
1.5
0.1
0.3
2012
29.3
7.5
2.2
13.0
1.9
2.8
1.5
0.1
0.4
2.0
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
2.2
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
2.3
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
2.3
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
2.3
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
25.7
7.2
1.7
11.1
1.8
2.6
1.2
27.6
7.6
1.8
12.0
1.9
2.8
1.5
27.5
7.5
1.8
12.1
1.8
2.8
1.4
26.7
7.4
1.7
12.0
1.8
2.6
1.2
27.1
7.5
1.7
12.3
1.8
2.6
1.2
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
366
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
AT
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.3
-1.8
0
-0.8
175
1196
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.6
15.2
11359
19.1
14.5
11683
18.9
14.7
11710
19.2
14.5
12255
18.5
14.4
12380
18.8
14.4
12555
23855
5.9
24534
4.6
24590
4.3
25735
4.0
25999
4.0
26365
4.2
366
0.2
7.4
5.6
19.9
15.2
7.1
6.2
19.2
13.6
7.8
6.5
21.8
12.9
8.6
5.8
19.1
12.9
7.7
5.8
20.1
13.2
7.8
8.8
21.3
13.7
41.3
4.2
6.1
42.7
4.2
5.6
43.5
4.3
6.5
46.5
4.1
5.5
44.2
4.2
7.0
0.8
-0.1
-0.4
-0.9
1.8
Note: Regarding the indicator “anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate‖ the base year is 2008
367
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
2510
-1.7
9.9
9.6
0.1
3
1.2
0.5
0.4
3.2
1.4
-1.5
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
44.4
4.1
7.2
0.21
-0.1
0.2
3.09
-0.1
1.1
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.9
-3.8
-2.7
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
AT
Children
(0-17)
AT
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.0
0.0
1.1
0.5
0.6
-0.3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
22.9
18.1
6.7
20.8
17.1
5.0
22.4
19.0
5.6
22.1
17.8
5.8
20.9
17.5
5.8
22.9
18.6
6.4
5.5
18.6
5.7
18.9
5.9
20.5
7.0
16.6
6.1
16.3
7.2
18.1
1.1
1.8
51.0
23.6
52.1
20.7
49.7
19.4
54.8
18.6
52.7
21.7
52.9
23.4
0.2
1.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
19.5
14.7
5.9
20.6
15.5
5.9
18.9
15.1
4.9
18.4
15.8
3.9
20.2
17.3
3.3
18.9
15.1
3.4
4.7
8.3
4.9
8.7
7.2
4.9
8.2
6.0
9.5
7.6
6.3
8.0
5.2
8.8
8.9
5.7
9.4
5.0
8.3
8.5
5.6
12.5
5.2
7.8
11.6
4.6
9.8
5.4
8.7
8.7
368
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
1.7
-0.5
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
2.0
-0.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.3
-0.6
-2.2
0.4
0.1
-2.5
-1.0
-2.7
0.2
0.9
-2.9
-0.1
1.5
0.5
0.0
1.5
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
AT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
AT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.1
-1.5
-0.4
-0.4
0.2
-1.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
19.8
13.3
6.0
18.7
13.0
4.9
18.3
12.9
4.5
18.8
13.1
4.0
18.4
13.3
4.1
18.3
12.9
4.3
8.0
8.5
21.3
14.7
6.4
7.5
8.2
21.4
12.7
5.9
8.4
7.5
23.8
11.8
7.0
9.1
7.6
19.1
12.5
6.2
8.2
8.2
23.9
14.2
7.6
7.9
7.9
23.4
14.9
7.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.5
0.7
-0.3
-0.1
-0.6
2.1
0.2
0.9
44.1
45.2
47.1
48.6
45.5
46.3
0.8
2.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.2
18.9
4.4
0.88
0.61
4.9
18.6
17.4
2.8
0.89
0.56
5.4
17.4
16.8
1.9
0.90
0.57
4.7
17.4
16.2
2.1
0.92
0.59
4.3
16.2
15.1
1.9
0.93
0.58
4.7
16.2
15.4
1.8
0.95
0.59
4.9
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
369
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.0
-5.0
0.3
-3.5
-0.1
-2.6
0.02
0.07
0.01
-0.02
0.2
0.0
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
370
EU28
AT
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
22.9
18.1
6.7
20.8
17.1
5.0
22.4
19.0
5.6
22.1
17.8
5.8
20.9
17.5
5.8
22.9
18.6
6.4
Change
20122013
2
1.1
0.6
5.5
5.7
5.9
7.0
6.1
7.2
1.1
4.0
3.7
5.7
4.5
5.7
9.2
9.6
8.8
8.3
9.2
8.6
59.0
64.7
74.8
60.4
15.6
14.2
15.4
4.0
2.0
7.0
2.0
51.0
Change
20082013
0
0.5
-0.3
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
1.7
9.1
9.3
3.5
5.2
12.8
9.4
0.8
-0.2
11.0
10.6
69.9
62.3
-7.6
3.3
67.5
64.9
14.4
14.1
15.3
1.2
-0.3
15.9
15.6
6.0
3.0
11.0
3.0
7.0
7.0
14.0
14.0
58.0
58.0
57.0
57.0
37.0
20.0
21.0
26.0
28.0
23.0
46.0
18.6
34.5
4.3
40.5
18.9
33.8
4.0
39.7
20.5
33.2
4.8
39.1
16.6
33.0
3.6
39.1
16.3
32.8
4.4
38.6
18.1
32.1
4.7
38.1
1.8
-0.7
0.3
-0.5
-0.5
-2.4
0.4
-2.4
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
51.0
52.1
49.7
54.8
52.7
52.9
0.21
1.96
39.3
41.3
4.7
5.4
10.1
0.3
287
7.2
23.6
4.2
5.3
8.7
0.2
289
6.7
20.7
5.6
5.0
8.3
0.5
307
6.9
19.4
3.5
5.3
8.3
0.2
281
6.0
18.6
5.2
4.2
7.6
0.2
252
6.4
21.7
6.3
4.7
7.3
1.1
0.5
-0.3
1.6
-0.7
-2.8
10.5
6.7
12.0
7.4
23.4
1
1.7
0.2
-0.2
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
371
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
85
88,7
3,7
Low income
83,7
83,8
0,1
High income
77,2
72,1
-5,1
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
69,9
68,8
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
69,9
68,8
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
63,9
51,8
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
88,7 / 88,7
68,8 / 68,8
87 / 89,4
69,1 / 68,2
59,5
-1,1
-1,1
-12,1
77,2
79,3
2,1
60,7
-1,2
73 / 68,2
75 / 64,8
( - 2 / -3,4)
59,7 / 54
87,9
97,7
9,8
73,4
88 / 80,4
95,5 / 80,4
( - 7,5 / 0)
71,9 / 66,5
75,2
80,3
5,1
60,4
59,4
-1,0
83
87,9
4,9
67,5
67,9
0,4
84,4
86,8
2,4
69,2
66,8
-2,4
70,1
70,7
0,6
52,5
51,6
-0,9
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
42,3
36,5
-5,8
44,7
37,0
-7,7
47,7
40,3
-7,5
48,0
39,1
-8,9
59,9 / 45,5 ( 0,2 / -8,5)
78,3
4,9
78,3 / 59,2 ( - 6,4 / -7,3)
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
AT
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
58.3
59.7
7.4
7.5
77.8
83.3
17.7
21.1
0.7
69.6
3275.15
10.49
2009
59.5
60.8
8.3
8.2
77.6
83.2
17.7
21.2
0.5
70
3305.67
11.17
2010
59.5
60.7
8.5
7.9
77.9
83.5
17.9
21.4
0.6
69.5
3473.01
11.13
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
372
2011
59.8
60.3
8.3
8.3
78.3
83.8
18.1
21.7
0.4
69.4
3531.24
10.87
2012
60.2
62.5
8.9
9.5
78.4
83.6
18.1
21.3
0.3
70
3680.14
11.1
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS172
Recipients of social assistance benefits/means-tested minimum Income*
Quarterly data (changes in % to the year 2008):
Q1 09
4.7%
Q1 10
9.8%
Q2 09
7.1%
Q3 09
10.6%
Q3 10
11.0%
Q3 11
27.0%
Q4 09
8.7%
Q4 11
37.0%
*The increase can not only be explained by the impact of the crisis, but is also due to the
introduction of the means-tested minimum income scheme, reinforced information policy as well as
statistical improvements. The developments are based on comparable data and cover a very large
proportion but not all recipients.
Recipients of means-tested minimum income benefits
New time series starting 03-2012 (see explanatory table):
March 2012
149461
September 2012
149729
March 2013
168626
September 2013
168644
March 2014
185076
September 2014
184298
Change March 2012 - September 2014: +23,3%
172
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
373
AT
definition
unit
source
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
definition
unit
source
Unemployment Benefit recipients ; Unemployment assistance recipients
thousands of recipients
Public Employment Service Austria (AMS)
comment
An unemployed person is defined as someone without employment who has registered as
seeking work with the public employment service (AMS) and is both willing and able to
work. Claims for transfer payments can only be made by those who have made
employment insurance contributions for an appropriate period. For example, those who
have interrupted their working careers for a long period of time (in particular returners)
and school leavers receive no unemployment insurance benefit. In order to receive benefit
a person must be registered with the AMS. To be entitled to claim unemployment benefit,
a person must be able and willing to work, available for work but unemployed and have
been in insured employment for the appropriate qualifying period. Unemployment
assistance, which is payable on expiry of entitlement to unemployment benefit, combines
the principles of social insurance and welfare. Firstly, the rate of the income support is
calculated on the basis of the unemployment benefit previously received. Secondly,
applicants must be in serious need of financial support, after taking the income of the
partner and exemption limits into account.
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
definition
unit
source
Number of recipients of Social Assistance Benefits/means-tested minimum income
Quarterly data (changes in % to the previous year)
Social Departments of the Federal Provinces
comment
Figures include between six and nine Federal Provinces; the data of the cities with
municipal departments is missing in one of them. The provinces register very diverse
trends. - Social assistance is defined, implemented and administered by the Federal
Provinces (Bundesländer); according to the Austrian Constitution each province has its own
Social Assistance Act, but there are some common basic principles: social assistance is
granted in individual situations of need if a person’s own resources and payments from
third parties are not longer sufficient to allow for a decent way of life. Eligibility depends
on household resources, other relatives have a duty under family law to provide financial
support. All resources are considered in the means and income test (apart from family
benefits). In order to realize the objective of combating poverty in all relevant fields of
policy, a means-tested minimum income has been introduced as a reform of the social
assistance scheme. The federal government and the provincial governments laid down the
salient points of a means-tested minimum income which has been subsequently
implemented in the corresponding national and provincial legislation. Since the 1st of
September 2010 the laws for the means-tested minimum income were introduced in in 7 of
9 federal provinces. The other two provinces have introduced the minimum income
scheme until October 2011. - Due to the nationwide introduction of the means-tested
minimum income scheme, the comparison was started anew in 2012.
Disability benefit
definition
unit
source
Disability benefit recipients
thousands of recipients
Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection
comment
Figures do not include people who reached statutory retirement age due to comparability
reasons; the data untill January 2011 represent an estimation, because the calculation of
the accurate share of disability pensioners only existed for one month (December).
374
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
375
POLAND
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 1,500,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
376
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
PL
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
16.9
17.1
17.6
17.7
17.1
17.3
0.2
0.4
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
6353
6435
6588
6623
6478
6520
0.6
2.6
84877
83462
% of total pln
8.0
6.9
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.2
0.3
-0.8
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
2444
2102
2211
2073
2063
2124
3.0
-13.1
39644
40189
% of total pln
17.7
15.0
14.2
13.0
13.5
11.9
-1.6
-5.8
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
6680
5625
5331
4885
5108
4486
-12.2
-32.8
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
0.1
0.3
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
499
492
568
608
571
620
8.6
24.2
13552
13504
% of total pln
4.7
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.9
3.4
-0.5
-1.3
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
1758
1728
1616
1490
1496
1295
-13.4
-26.3
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.7
0.0
-0.2
1.8
1.8
704
655
684
571
651
643
-1.2
-8.7
9240
9250
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
% of total pln
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
-0.4
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
322
177
168
145
152
183
20.4
-43.2
3391
3685
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
377
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
PL
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
5.1
3.8
7.1
2.4
18.9
2009
1.6
0.4
8.1
2.5
20.1
2010
3.9
-2.7
9.7
3.0
19.5
2011
4.5
0.6
9.7
3.6
18.6
2012
2.0
0.1
10.1
4.1
17.6
2013
1.6
-0.1
10.3
4.4
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
PL
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
18.9
4.5
1.6
9.0
2.0
1.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
2009
20.1
4.7
1.5
9.9
2.0
1.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
2010
19.5
4.5
1.6
9.3
2.0
1.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
2011
18.6
4.3
1.5
9.0
1.9
1.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
2012
17.6
4.2
1.5
8.7
1.9
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
18.1
4.4
1.6
9.0
2.0
0.8
0.3
19.4
4.7
1.5
9.9
2.0
0.9
0.4
18.8
4.5
1.6
9.3
2.0
0.9
0.4
17.9
4.3
1.5
9.0
1.9
0.9
0.3
16.9
4.2
1.5
8.7
1.9
0.4
0.3
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: i) For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs; ii) from 2011 expenditure on public
kindergartens has been added to the Family/Children benefits.
378
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
PL
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.9
-4.7
0.2
0.4
282
1424
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
30.5
16.9
4039
27.8
17.1
4417
27.8
17.6
4547
27.2
17.7
4993
26.7
17.1
5181
25.8
17.3
5463
8482
17.7
9275
15.0
9548
14.2
10486
13.0
10880
13.5
11471
11.9
591
-1.6
2989
-5.8
8.0
10.4
20.6
16.9
6.9
10.2
22.7
13.7
7.3
10.5
22.2
13.0
6.9
10.1
21.4
11.9
6.9
10.7
22.2
11.8
7.2
0.3
-0.8
22.6
12.0
0.4
0.2
32.7
5.1
9.7
27.5
5.0
8.2
27.9
5.0
9.1
26.6
5.0
10.2
25.3
4.9
10.5
24.8
4.9
10.3
-0.55
0
-0.2
379
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
2
-4.9
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-7.89
-0.2
0.6
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
PL
Children
(0-17)
PL
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.5
-3.1
1.7
0.8
-1.9
-5.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
32.9
22.4
17.5
31.0
23.0
15.3
30.8
22.5
14.9
29.8
22.0
13.2
29.3
21.5
13.7
29.8
23.2
11.8
5.0
21.9
4.7
23.7
4.8
24.2
4.1
22.6
4.6
21.5
5.0
22.1
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.2
31.1
63.3
23.6
62.1
26.7
60.6
26.9
59.8
25.6
60.1
22.4
57.5
-3.2
-2.6
-8.7
-5.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
34.4
20.1
19.4
29.9
19.8
15.6
30.4
20.9
14.7
29.1
20.7
12.8
31.2
21.8
14.9
30.8
21.5
14.3
6.7
11.3
5.7
12.3
10.5
5.3
10.8
7.0
13.8
8.7
6.5
12.2
8.2
14.5
8.7
5.8
11.0
8.6
15.4
10.0
6.2
11.6
8.9
15.9
11.4
6.1
11.7
9.1
16.4
10.6
380
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.4
-3.6
-0.3
1.4
-0.6
-5.1
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
-0.8
-0.6
0.4
3.4
4.1
0.1
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
PL
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
PL
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.6
-4.5
0.2
0.4
-1.2
-5.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
30.6
16.3
17.2
27.3
16.0
14.4
27.6
16.9
13.6
27.0
17.1
12.5
26.7
16.5
13.2
26.1
16.7
12.0
8.9
11.5
21.5
50.9
9.8
7.6
11.0
24.0
49.2
7.9
8.1
11.5
23.0
47.6
8.8
7.8
11.2
22.4
47.2
9.9
7.6
10.4
24.0
46.2
10.3
7.8
10.8
24.0
45.0
10.3
0.2
0.4
0.0
-1.2
0.0
34.5
30.4
29.9
28.2
27.0
26.8
-0.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
26.9
11.7
20.8
0.97
0.56
32.0
25.8
14.4
17.3
0.92
0.56
30.1
24.4
14.2
16.5
0.93
0.57
29.2
24.7
14.7
15.4
0.94
0.55
29.9
23.4
14.0
14.8
0.95
0.58
28.2
19.7
12.3
11.5
0.98
0.60
27.7
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
-1.1
-0.7
2.5
-5.9
0.5
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-7.8
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-3.7
-7.2
-1.7
0.6
-3.3
-9.3
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.04
-0.5
-4.3
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the exception of the poverty threshold, S80/S20
381
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
PL
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
32.9
22.4
17.5
31.0
23.0
15.3
30.8
22.5
14.9
29.8
22.0
13.2
29.3
21.5
13.7
29.8
23.2
11.8
Change
20122013
0.5
1.7
-1.9
5.0
4.7
4.8
4.1
4.6
5.0
0.4
15.8
15.8
14.8
12.5
14.2
14.4
13.9
13.9
13.1
12.6
13.7
1.1
-0.7
11.0
10.6
72.5
78.8
83.0
76.2
79.0
78.5
-0.5
6
67.5
64.9
19.8
20.3
19.4
19.7
18.8
20.3
1.5
0.5
15.9
15.6
0.0
3.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
3.0
1.0
5.0
14.0
14.0
8.0
8.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
37.0
27.0
31.0
32.0
34.0
26.0
46.0
21.9
7.6
23.7
7.5
24.2
7.4
22.6
6.8
21.5
6.9
22.1
6.1
0.6
-0.8
0.2
-1.5
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
11.7
11.3
11.0
10.2
10.1
9.0
-1.1
-2.7
28.4
27.6
31.1
23.6
26.7
26.9
25.6
22.4
-3.2
-8.67
39.3
41.3
8.7
2.6
5.0
2.0
2338
22.7
63.3
7.3
3.5
5.3
2.2
2327
19.4
62.1
8.8
3.5
5.4
2.6
2057
17.3
60.6
9.6
3.8
5.6
1.8
1836
14.7
59.8
9.8
3.8
5.7
2.2
1791
13.3
60.1
10.7
3.7
5.6
0.9
-0.1
-0.1
2
1.1
0.6
10.5
6.7
12.0
13.1
57.5
-0.2
-2.6
-9.6
-5.8
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
382
Change
20082013
-3.1
0.8
-5.7
0
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
75,5
43,3
-32,2
Low income
87,1
48,2
-38,9
High income
60,7
32,2
-28,5
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
70,5
81,7 / 56,4
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
78
89,7 / 63,1
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
65,2
(100/0/0)*
75,8
(100/0/0)*
52,3
(100/0/0)*
34,6
(54/46/0)*
38,3
(59/41/0)*
26
(54/46/0)*
41,7 / 45,3
33,2 / 36,3
47,6 / 40,1
38,3 / 31,8
41,2
-29,3
60,8
48,2 / 30,6 (-33,5/-25,8) 71,1 / 48,4
48,6
-29,4
67,5
49,3 / 36,2 (-40,4/-26,9) 78,1 / 54,4
32,8
-30,6
-37,5
-26,3
-28
38,3 / 24,6 (-32,8/-23,8)
39,1
-28
39,1 / 29,4
(-39/-25)
58,4
35,1
-23,3
50,2
27,5
-22,7
67,7
32,4
-35,3
58,4
25,3
-33,1
72,3
40,8
-31,5
62,4
32,4
-30,0
62,9
33,9
-29,0
54,1
26,5
-27,6
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
EU27 2050
Difference
46,7
22,4
-24,3
44,7
37,0
-7,7
49,1
19,6
-29,5
48,0
39,1
-8,9
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
PL
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
58.5
58.3
58.5
59.1
59.2
63
62.5
62.3
63.3
62.9
7
6.9
6.7
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.5
8.3
7.8
71.3
71.5
72.1
72.6
72.7
80
80.1
80.7
81.1
81.1
14.8
14.8
15.1
15.4
15.4
19.1
19.2
19.5
19.9
19.9
6
7.6
8.3
7.9
9
57.7
56.1
57.8
57.6
57.7
1026.93 1095.61 1168.26 1211.24 1258.31
6.89
7.21
7.02
6.87
6.75
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
Note: breaks in series for Healthy life years indicator in 2009; breaks in series for total health care expenditure in 2010
383
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS173
173
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) are given as a background.
384
PL
Unemployment
definition
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
unit
thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
source
eurostat, une_nb_m
Unemployment benefit
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
Total number of registered unemployed possessing benefit rights as of the end
of month.
thousands of recipients, monthly
administrative data, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
http://www.psz.praca.gov.pl./main.php?do=ShowPage&nPID=867997&pT=detail
s&sP=CONTENT,objectID,867970
Table 23, Column F
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
Total real number of social assistance beneficiaries regardless of their type, form,
quantity and source of funding. Both monetary and in kind benefits are included.
It informes about total number of persons who received at least one benefit in a
given year. Double counting problem is addressed, but in division by benefit kind
or form beneficiaries can be enumerated several times.
unit
thousands of recipients, annual
source
GUS, Local Data Bank and administrative data, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
Local Data Bank: http://stat.gov.pl/bdlen/app/strona.html?p_name=indeks
Ministry of Labour and Social Policy data: http://www.mpips.gov.pl/pomocspoleczna/raporty-i-statystyki/statystyki-pomocy-spolecznej/, MPiPS-03 report,
Dział 3 - Polska OGÓŁEM
link
Disability benefit
definition
Total number of beneficiaries of pensions resulting from an inability to work,
from both non-agricultural social security system and farmers social insurance
system.
unit
thousands of recipients, annual averages
source
GUS, Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland 2006-2013 & Concise
Statistical Yearbook of Poland, 2006-2014
link
http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznikistatystyczne/rocznik-statystyczny-rzeczypospolitej-polskiej-2013,2,8.html
http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznikistatystyczne/maly-rocznik-statystyczny-polski-2014,1,15.html
385
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
386
PORTUGAL
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 200,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
387
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
PT
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
18.5
17.9
17.9
18.0
17.9
18.7
0.8
0.2
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
1967
1898
1903
1919
1887
1964
4.1
-0.2
84877
83462
% of total pln
6.3
7.0
8.6
8.3
10.1
12.2
2.1
5.9
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
517
567
700
666
791
950
20.1
83.8
39644
40189
% of total pln
9.7
9.1
9.0
8.3
8.6
10.9
2.3
1.2
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
1029
965
958
881
910
1148
26.2
11.6
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.4
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.5
3.1
0.6
1.7
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
153
197
223
224
263
329
25.1
115.0
13552
13504
% of total pln
3.2
2.9
2.2
2.9
2.6
3.2
0.6
0.0
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
337
311
239
311
278
339
21.9
0.6
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.1
1.2
1.7
1.3
1.6
2.2
0.6
1.1
1.8
1.8
122
123
184
140
168
235
39.9
92.6
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
22
29
39
50
44
47
6.8
113.6
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
388
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
EU28
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2012 2013
0.0 -2.9
1.9 -1.3 -3.2 -1.4 -0.4
0.1
0.5 -2.6 -1.5 -1.5 -4.2 -2.8 -0.2 -0.3
8.7 10.7 12.0 12.9 15.8 16.4 10.5 10.8
4.0
4.7
6.3
6.2
7.7
9.3
4.7
5.1
23.2 25.5 25.4 25.0 25.4
28.3
PT
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
PT
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
23.2
6.5
2.1
10.3
1.7
1.3
1.0
0.0
0.3
2009
25.5
7.3
2.1
11.1
1.8
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.4
2010
25.4
7.0
2.1
11.3
1.8
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.3
2011
25.0
6.3
2.1
11.9
1.8
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.3
2012
25.4
6.4
1.9
12.0
1.9
1.2
1.7
0.0
0.3
2.3
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
2.6
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.4
2.5
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
2.2
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.3
2.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.3
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
20.9
6.5
2.0
9.7
1.7
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
22.9
7.3
2.0
10.4
1.8
0.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
22.8
7.0
1.9
10.6
1.8
0.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
22.8
6.3
1.9
11.3
1.8
0.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
23.2
6.4
1.7
11.4
1.9
0.3
1.5
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
389
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
PT
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.1
1.4
0.8
0.2
202
190
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
26.0
18.5
5702
24.9
17.9
5655
25.3
17.9
5837
24.4
18.0
5773
25.3
17.9
5690
27.5
18.7
5892
11974
9.7
11876
9.1
12258
9.0
12122
8.3
11950
8.6
12373
10.9
423
2.3
399
1.2
6.3
13.1
23.2
18.5
7.0
9.8
23.6
18.1
8.6
13.2
22.7
16.1
8.3
13.6
23.2
17.9
10.1
11.4
24.1
19.4
12.2
2.1
5.9
27.4
22.3
3.3
2.9
25.7
6.1
7.6
26.3
6.0
6.1
32.2
5.6
4.2
29.1
5.7
7.2
29.3
5.8
8.3
26.7
6.0
8.3
1.2
1.5
1.1
-5.3
-3.2
-1.0
390
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
4.2
3.8
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-2.58
0.2
0
0.97
-0.1
0.7
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
2.2
-2.2
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
PT
Children
(0-17)
PT
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
3.8
2.1
2.6
1.6
3.6
2.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.5
22.8
11.8
28.7
22.9
10.5
28.7
22.4
10.8
28.6
22.4
11.3
27.8
21.8
10.3
31.6
24.4
13.9
5.9
26.2
6.2
27.8
8.0
24.8
7.2
25.1
8.5
26.9
9.7
33.1
1.2
6.2
3.8
6.9
24.3
23.5
25.4
21.5
30.4
21.4
27.5
16.8
26.4
15.9
23.0
17.7
-3.3
1.8
-1.2
-5.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
27.5
18.6
11.6
25.9
16.0
11.0
26.1
18.7
9.4
26.5
21.8
9.4
31.3
22.2
9.0
33.1
24.6
13.1
4.1
11.3
6.8
12.7
9.3
5.7
9.2
7.9
14.0
6.9
7.1
8.2
8.2
14.9
4.7
7.0
11.7
11.5
16.0
9.3
11.2
11.0
14.1
18.5
9.8
13.0
13.6
13.3
18.8
9.2
391
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.8
5.6
2.4
6.0
4.1
1.5
1.8
2.6
-0.8
0.3
-0.6
8.9
2.3
6.5
6.1
-0.1
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
PT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
PT
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2.9
4.0
1.5
2.1
2.5
1.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.5
16.3
8.9
23.5
15.8
8.3
24.1
15.7
8.3
23.2
16.2
7.6
25.6
16.9
8.2
28.5
18.4
10.7
6.5
11.3
23.6
16.1
8.0
7.2
10.3
25.9
14.5
6.3
8.8
9.6
25.7
15.0
4.3
8.6
10.2
25.9
11.3
7.3
10.6
9.9
26.9
10.4
8.5
13.0
10.4
31.2
11.8
8.6
2.4
0.5
4.3
1.4
0.1
30.3
30.7
37.7
33.6
34.0
30.0
-3.9
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
27.7
22.3
10.1
0.83
0.51
5.9
26.0
20.1
10.6
0.85
0.50
5.0
26.1
21.0
9.6
0.82
0.53
6.0
24.5
20.0
7.7
0.87
0.56
4.1
22.2
17.4
8.4
0.92
0.58
3.6
20.3
14.6
9.0
0.94
0.59
4.5
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
392
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
6.5
-0.9
7.6
-4.3
0.6
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-0.3
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.9
-7.4
-2.8
-7.7
0.6
-1.1
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.08
0.9
-1.4
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
PT
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.5
22.8
11.8
28.7
22.9
10.5
28.7
22.4
10.8
28.6
22.4
11.3
27.8
21.8
10.3
31.6
24.4
13.9
Change
20122013
3.8
2.6
3.6
5.9
6.2
8.0
7.2
8.5
9.7
1.2
14.2
10.7
19.6
22.8
14.2
13.7
12.5
10.8
12.4
12.0
12.0
0
-1.7
11.0
10.6
74.3
77.5
82.4
74.2
77.6
80.2
2.6
5.9
67.5
64.9
19.5
19.3
17.1
18.3
16.4
18.1
1.7
-1.4
15.9
15.6
2.0
31.0
2.0
34.0
5.0
32.0
1.0
34.0
34.0
14.0
14.0
9.0
8.0
11.0
7.0
5.0
37.0
69.0
73.0
68.0
74.0
81.0
46.0
26.2
5.3
27.8
5.4
24.8
4.1
25.1
5.1
26.9
3.8
33.1
3.2
6.2
-0.6
6.9
-2.1
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
6.9
6.9
5.5
7.3
5.9
5.0
-0.9
-1.9
28.4
27.6
24.3
25.4
30.4
27.5
26.4
23.0
-3.32
-1.22
39.3
41.3
11.7
7.1
34.9
0.4
340
11.3
23.5
9.7
6.8
30.9
1.4
362
7.2
21.5
6.1
6.8
28.3
0.8
255
8.0
21.4
11.3
7.7
23.0
0.5
301
5.7
16.8
12.6
7.2
20.5
1.9
303
7.4
15.9
12.4
7.3
18.9
-0.2
0.1
-1.6
0.7
0.2
-16
10.5
6.7
12.0
8.8
17.7
1.4
1.8
-2.5
-5.8
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
393
Change
20082013
2.1
1.6
2.1
3.8
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
85,8
65,9
-19,9
Low income
81,7
66,6
-15,1
High income
85,2
47,4
-37,8
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
83,9
79,8 / 81,6
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
103,8
102,3/97,4
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
72,5
58,7
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
72,6
59,3
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
67,7
42,1
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
65,9 / 65,9
58,7 / 58,7
76 / 57,6
67,7 / 51,3
63,7
-20,2
70,9
32,8
64 / 45,2 (-15,8/-36,4) 70,9 / 64,8
82,2
-21,6
-13,3
-25,6
-38,1
57,4 / 40,3 (-13,5/-24,5)
90,8
82,6 / 58,7 (-19,7/-38,7) 90,8 / 85,7
-13,9
39,1
-51,7
73 / 51,8
(-17,9/-34)
78
52,1
-25,9
65,5
46,2
-19,3
83,8
64,5
-19,3
70,7
57,4
-13,3
85,7
65,1
-20,6
72,4
57,9
-14,5
64,4
52,1
-12,3
54,4
46,4
-8,0
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
:
:
:
44,7
37,0
-7,7
56,9
48,2
-8,7
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
PT
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
59.1
57.6
6.7
5.5
76.2
82.4
16.9
20.3
1.1
48.3
1924.70
10.22
2009
58.3
56.4
6.8
5.5
76.5
82.6
17.1
20.5
3.3
47.7
1974.09
10.81
2010
59.3
56.6
7.1
5.7
76.7
82.8
17.1
20.6
2
49.1
2054.27
10.8
2011
60.7
58.6
7.8
6.3
77.3
83.8
17.8
21.6
1.4
49.7
1951.84
10.23
2012
64.5
62.6
9.9
9
77.3
83.6
17.6
21.3
3.3
48.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA). Note: break in time series for HLY indicator.
394
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS174
PT
definition
unit
source
link
definition
unit
source
link
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lmhu_m&lang=en
Unemployment benefit
"Unemployment + social unemployment" beneficiaries
thousands of recipients /benefits paid
Institute for Informatics and Statistics of Social Security
http://www4.seg-social.pt/estatisticas
Entitlement to Unemployment Benefit for workers resident in national territory
covered by the general social security scheme for employed depend on the following
conditions: to be capable of and available for work; to be involuntarily unemployed; to
be registered as a job seeker at the local Employment Office; to fulfill the qualifying
period – to have completed, at least, 360 days with registered earnings within the 24
months immediately prior to unemployment situation. Regarding Social
Unemployment Benefit, conditions are the same but it is also subject to means testing
and it is granted in case workers have not completed the qualifying period required for
UB: i) initial social unemployment benefit, to have completed at least 180 days with
registered earnings within the 12 months prior to unemployment; ii) Subsequent
social unemployment benefit, to have exhausted entitlement period for UB.
174
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
395
definition
unit
source
link
note
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
comment
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
"Social assistance / Social Integration Income" beneficiaries
thousands of recipients
Source: Institute for Informatics and Statistics of Social Security
http://www4.seg-social.pt/estatisticas
Important changes were introduced in the Portuguese Means-Testing Scheme, firstly
through Statutory Decree 70/2010 of 16 June 2010, and, more recently, through
Statutory Decree 133/2012 of 27 June 2012, redefining non-contributory social benefits
entitlement conditions, namely those concerning Social Integration Income
(portuguese minimum income scheme).
The benefit paid by Social Security corresponds to a differential between the
individual’s income and a minimum income threshold taken as the baseline. This
minimum income is indexed to IAS, an indexation mechanism for social supports that
replaces the national minimum salary as a reference for calculating and adjusting
pensions, benefits and contributions. Individuals and families who want to have
access to this benefit, have to fulfil a number of conditions: legal place of residency in
Portugal; aged 18 or over , availability for employment, occupational training or
integration activities; not having earnings of one’s own or from the family superior to
minimum income established by law.
Disability benefit
"Disability pension + Disability social pension"
thousands of recipients
Institute for Informatics and Statistics of Social Security
http://www4.seg-social.pt/estatisticas
Disability or Invalidity pension: is a monthly cash benefit designed to protect the
Entitlement to Disability Benefit under the general social security scheme depends if
an employee or a self-employed is considered to be in a situation of permanent
incapacity to work. A worker is considered to be in a situation of relative incapacity
when, due to a permanent incapacity, one in not able to earn more than one-third of
the earning corresponding to the regular practice of their activity. A worker is
considered to be in a situation of absolute incapacity when one has a permanent and
definite incapacity for all kinds of jobs.
Disability pension is not payable if the invalidity is the result of an accident at work or
occupational disease or if the person is entitled to an old-age pension, and is
determined according to the number of years of contributions, the average monthly
earnings and the sustainability factor.
Social disability pension is also subject to a means testing condition.
396
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
397
ROMANIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 580,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
398
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
RO
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
23.4
22.4
21.1
22.2
22.6
22.4
-0.2
-1.0
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
4988
4745
4522
4748
4824
4777
-1.0
-4.2
84877
83462
% of total pln
8.3
7.7
6.9
6.7
7.4
6.4
-1.0
-1.9
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
1413
1299
1176
1135
1215
1079
-11.2
-23.6
39644
40189
% of total pln
32.9
32.2
31.0
29.4
29.9
28.5
-1.4
-4.4
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
7023
6817
6643
6286
6391
6070
-5.0
-13.6
49673
48245
% of total pln
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
-0.4
-0.3
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
191
202
166
204
212
125
-41.0
-34.6
13552
13504
% of total pln
11.8
11.6
10.9
11.2
11.0
10.3
-0.7
-1.5
2.8
2.7
2456
2334
2393
2358
2202
-6.6
-12.9
14249
13558
1000 persons
2527
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
2.4
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.9
0.2
-0.5
1.8
1.8
521
429
357
378
372
407
9.4
-21.9
9240
9250
% of total pln
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
-0.1
-0.3
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
248
235
235
187
208
185
-11.1
-25.4
3391
3685
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
399
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
RO
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate*
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
8.5
0.0
5.6
2.3
14.2
2009
-7.1
-2.0
6.5
2.0
17.0
2010
-0.8
-0.3
7.0
2.4
17.4
2011
1.1
-0.8
7.2
2.9
16.2
2012
0.6
1.3
6.8
3.0
15.2
2013
3.4
-0.1
7.1
3.2
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS; National Statistics Office). Note: Real GDP rowth - data revised
corresponding with SEC 2010, data for year 2013 are semifinal; *Long term unemployment rate - recalculated with the
usually resident population estimated to be comparable with the results of Census 2011
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
RO
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
14.2
3.6
1.4
6.6
0.6
1.5
0.2
0.0
0.3
2009
17.0
4.2
1.6
8.0
0.8
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.2
2010
17.4
4.4
1.6
8.0
0.8
1.7
0.6
0.0
0.3
2011
16.2
4.1
1.5
7.9
0.7
1.5
0.3
0.0
0.2
2012
15.2
4.0
1.3
7.5
0.7
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.2
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
13.6
3.6
1.4
6.6
0.6
1.4
0.0
16.0
4.2
1.6
7.9
0.7
1.6
0.0
16.1
4.4
1.6
7.9
0.7
1.5
0.0
15.4
4.1
1.5
7.8
0.6
1.4
0.0
14.5
4.0
1.3
7.4
0.6
1.2
0.0
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS, National Statistics Office)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
400
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
RO
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.3
-3.8
-0.2
-1
80
399
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
44.2
23.4
1838
43.1
22.4
2056
41.4
21.1
2124
40.3
22.2
2213
41.7
22.6
2157
40.4
22.4
2237
3860
32.9
4318
32.2
4459
31.0
4648
29.4
4530
29.9
4698
28.5
168
-1.4
838
-4.4
8.3
7.7
7.4
18.2
30.9
19.9
-1
-1.9
32.0
18.2
6.7
16.7
31.8
17.9
6.4
32.3
23.4
6.9
18.2
30.6
16.2
32.6
20.4
1.7
0.5
23.8
7.0
18.7
23.0
6.7
15.3
23.3
6.0
15.0
23.7
6.2
9.9
19.3
6.3
16.5
19.4
6.6
15.4
0.13
0.3
-1.1
401
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
0.3
-3
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-4.36
-0.4
-3.3
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
RO
Children
(0-17)
RO
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-3.7
-2.7
-2.5
-0.8
-3.8
-5.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
51.2
32.9
39.2
52.0
32.9
40.3
48.7
31.3
36.7
49.1
32.9
35.8
52.2
34.6
37.9
48.5
32.1
34.1
6.3
38.6
5.6
36.7
4.3
35.4
4.6
34.7
5.1
33.6
4.8
38.2
-0.3
4.6
24.2
73.9
21.9
73.4
20.6
70.0
22.0
70.1
18.0
72.6
19.8
71.3
1.7
-1.3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
44.2
22.9
32.4
42.7
23.2
32.6
42.1
23.9
31.6
44.4
28.2
32.5
45.6
28.9
32.1
46.8
30.2
31.0
6.7
23.3
5.7
13.4
17.0
5.8
24.9
6.4
16.5
14.3
5.9
23.2
6.9
20.0
15.3
5.6
30.7
7.4
20.9
9.7
5.9
31.8
7.0
20.4
14.8
5.4
29.8
7.3
21.2
16.3
402
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
-1.5
-0.4
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
-4.4
-2.6
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.2
2.6
1.3
7.3
-1.1
-1.4
-0.5
-2.0
0.3
0.8
1.5
-1.3
6.5
1.6
7.8
-0.7
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
RO
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
RO
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.8
-1.6
0.5
1.5
-0.7
-2.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
41.0
20.0
29.8
40.5
19.8
29.6
39.7
19.2
29.0
39.0
21.0
27.7
40.2
21.0
27.9
39.4
21.5
27.2
8.9
16.8
31.8
58.5
17.4
8.4
17.3
32.9
57.0
14.7
7.6
17.0
32.0
57.7
14.6
7.3
18.6
33.3
56.7
9.7
8.1
18.9
33.5
53.4
15.9
6.9
17.7
33.3
54.6
15.0
-1.2
-1.2
-0.2
1.2
-0.9
26.5
25.0
26.2
25.8
21.1
20.1
-1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
49.2
26.0
38.9
0.85
0.49
25.0
43.1
21.0
33.8
0.93
0.55
24.4
39.9
16.7
32.4
0.97
0.65
23.8
35.3
14.1
28.6
1.01
0.64
23.7
35.7
15.4
28.6
1.01
0.67
21.5
35.0
15.0
27.5
1.04
0.65
23.4
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
403
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
-2.0
0.9
1.5
-3.9
-2.4
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-6.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.7
-14.2
-0.4
-11.0
-1.1
-11.4
0.03
0.19
-0.02
0.16
1.9
-1.6
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
RO
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
51.2
32.9
39.2
52.0
32.9
40.3
48.7
31.3
36.7
49.1
32.9
35.8
52.2
34.6
37.9
48.5
32.1
34.1
Change
20122013
-3.7
-2.5
-3.8
6.3
5.6
4.3
4.6
5.1
4.8
-0.3
28.6
25.0
31.2
Change
20082013
-2.7
-0.8
-5.1
-1.5
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
19.5
19.6
19.8
21.9
23.2
20.5
-2.7
1
11.0
10.6
82.3
87.9
63.0
76.5
73.1
70.9
-2.2
-11.4
67.5
64.9
29.5
29.8
29.9
30.7
32.6
30.3
-2.3
0.8
15.9
15.6
6.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
11.0
4.0
14.0
14.0
37.0
44.0
49.0
30.0
48.0
37.0
17.0
19.0
17.0
11.0
11.0
46.0
38.6
3.0
36.7
2.9
35.4
2.5
34.7
2.6
33.6
2.1
38.2
2.2
4.6
0.1
-0.4
-0.8
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
6.0
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.2
4.6
0.4
-1.4
28.4
27.6
24.2
21.9
20.6
22.0
18.0
19.8
1.74
-4.44
39.3
41.3
17.5
9.0
15.9
1.1
2434
45.8
73.9
14.5
9.7
16.6
1.4
2250
44.9
73.4
15.2
9.9
18.4
2.6
2078
41.1
70.0
10.7
10.5
17.5
2.3
1850
38.5
70.1
18.2
10.3
17.4
2.1
1812
36.9
72.6
17.0
10.1
17.3
-1.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.5
1.1
1.4
10.5
6.7
12.0
35.5
71.3
-1.4
-1.3
-10.3
-2.6
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
404
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
70,7
45
-25,7
Low income
55,2
45
-10,2
High income
85,3
33,3
-52
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
69,2
53,6 / 84
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
51,4
31,5
(100/0/0)* (75/25/0)*
35,9
31,5
(100/0/0)* (75/25/0)*
67,8
23,7
(100/0/0)* (75/25/0)*
43,9 / 46,2
30,8 / 32,4
53 / 38,5
37,2 / 27
43,3
-25,9
49,9
30,4
43,3 / 32,3 (-10,3/-51,7) 34,2 / 66,2
-19,9
-4,4
-44,1
-19,5
30,4 / 22,8 (-3,8/-43,4)
72,3
66,5
-5,8
53,2
47,1
-6,1
56,8 / 86,9
67,2 / 47,3
10,4/-39,6
37,2 / 68,2
47,1 / 35,4
9,9/-32,8
64,2
32,9
-31,3
44,4
23
-21,4
61,4
43,3
-18,1
42,4
30,3
-12,1
69,3
42,4
-26,9
50
29,8
-20,2
58,7
33,4
-25,3
47,5
23,4
-24,1
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
38,7
28,1
-10,6
44,7
37,0
-7,7
41,6
29,8
-11,8
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
RO
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
60.2
62.8
7.8
7.9
69.7
77.2
14
17.2
10.8
69.3
657.06
5.44
2009
59.8
61.7
7.2
7.1
69.8
77.4
14
17.2
8.5
70.2
644.07
5.66
2010
57.5
57.5
5.9
5
70.1
77.6
14
17.2
10.8
70.7
727.44
5.95
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA,
405
2011
57.4
57
5.4
4.7
71.1
78.2
14.7
17.7
11.9
69.4
709.39
5.6
2012
57.7
57.7
5.9
5.1
71
78.1
14.5
17.7
10.7
70.3
747.97
5.56
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS175
RO
definition
unit
source
link
definition
unit
source
link
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons unemployed - seasonally adjusted
Source: Eurostat
http://nui.epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lmhu_m&lang=en
Unemployment indemnity
Number of unemployment indemnity recipients (indemnizaţie de şomaj),
according to the Law No. 76/2002 regarding the unemployment insurance
system and employment stimulation, with subsequent amendments
Thousands of persons beneficiaries of unemployment indemnity
National Agency for Employment, Romania
www.anofm.ro / Statistics
175
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
406
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
definition
unit
source
link
comment
The recipients of social assistance benefit (ajutor social) are families earning less
then a certain amount set depending on the family structure, as to the Law
no.416/2001 on guaranteed minimum income with subsequent amendments.
The Law provides a set of assets that may exclude some families from
benefitting of social income. The social assistance benefit is equal to the
difference between the amount set by the Law and the familiy income.
Thousands of families recipients of social benefit for
ensuring the minimum guaranteed income
Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly, Romania
http://www.mmuncii.ro/j33/index.php/ro/transparenta/statistici/date-statistice
The upward trend of social assistance recipients is due to the increase of the
minimum guaranteed income by 8.5%, starting with July 2013, and by 4,5%
starting with January 2014, according to Goverment Emergency Ordinance No.
42/2013.
Invalidity pension
A person who is certified as being incapable for suitable fulltime or regular
part-time employment due to a serious disease or bodily or mental impairment
is entitled to an Invalidity pension (pensie de invaliditate), subject to the
relative contribution conditions, as to the Law no. 263/2010 on the Unitary
System of Public Pensions, with subsequent amendments.
thousands of invalidity pensioners
National House of Public Pensions, Romania
http://www.cnpas.org / Social Indicators
Disability benefit
Definition of persons with disabilities: persons which, due to social environment
inadequate to their physical, sensory, psychic, mental and/or associated
impairment, are totally prevented or have limited access with equal chances to
the society life, needing protection measures for social integration and inclusion,
as to the Law no.448/2006 on social protection and promotion of the
persons with disabilities rights, with subsequent amendments.
thousands recipients of complementary personal budget for persons with
severe, major or average disability (buget personal complementar
pentru persoane cu handicap grav, accentuat sau mediu)
Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Protection and Elderly;
National Agency for Social Payments and Inspection, Romania
http://www.mmuncii.ro/j3/index.php/ro/transparenta/statistici/buletin-statistic
Note: one person may receive simultaneously the disability benefit and invalidity
pension
407
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
408
SLOVENIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 40,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
409
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
SI
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
12.3
11.3
12.7
13.6
13.5
14.5
1.0
2.2
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
241
223
254
273
271
291
7.4
20.7
84877
83462
% of total pln
6.7
5.6
7.0
7.6
7.5
8.0
0.5
1.3
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
105
88
111
121
118
125
5.9
19.0
39644
40189
% of total pln
6.7
6.1
5.9
6.1
6.6
6.7
0.1
0.0
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
130
121
119
122
133
134
0.8
3.1
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.9
1.3
2.1
2.3
1.9
2.0
0.1
0.1
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
37
26
41
46
38
41
7.9
10.8
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.8
0.0
0.2
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
32
28
31
29
35
35
0.0
9.4
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
0.2
0.4
1.8
1.8
21
18
21
24
27
30
11.1
42.9
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
5
4
3
6
3
3
0.0
-40.0
3391
3685
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
410
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
SI
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
3.4
2.6
4.4
1.9
20.9
2009
-7.9
-1.8
5.9
1.8
23.7
2010
1.3
-2.2
7.3
3.2
24.4
2011
0.7
-1.6
8.2
3.6
24.6
2012
-2.5
-0.8
8.9
4.3
24.9
2013
-1.1
-2.0
10.1
5.2
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
SI
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
20.9
7.0
1.6
8.0
1.6
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.4
2009
23.7
7.8
1.8
9.2
1.7
2.1
0.6
0.0
0.5
2010
24.4
7.9
1.8
9.6
1.7
2.2
0.7
0.0
0.6
2011
24.6
7.8
1.7
9.8
1.7
2.2
0.8
0.0
0.6
2012
24.9
8.0
1.6
10.1
1.7
2.1
0.8
0.0
0.7
1.8
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.9
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
19.1
7.0
1.6
7.9
1.5
0.6
0.4
0.0
0.1
21.7
7.8
1.7
9.1
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.1
22.4
7.9
1.7
9.5
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.2
22.5
7.8
1.6
9.7
1.6
0.9
0.8
0.0
0.2
23.0
8.0
1.5
10.0
1.7
0.9
0.8
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
411
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
SI
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.8
1.9
1
2.2
8
284
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
18.5
12.3
8287
17.1
11.3
8599
18.3
12.7
8009
19.3
13.6
8364
19.6
13.5
8563
20.4
14.5
8571
17403
6.7
18057
6.1
16819
5.9
17565
6.1
17982
6.6
18000
6.7
18
0.1
6.7
7.7
19.3
12.3
5.6
7.0
20.2
10.2
7.0
6.9
20.2
12.1
7.6
7.5
19.9
13.0
7.5
6.1
19.1
13.5
8.0
7.5
20.4
16.2
46.5
3.4
4.4
48.6
3.2
3.9
47.5
3.4
4.3
43.8
3.5
4.7
46.4
3.4
5.2
2.0
-0.2
-0.6
0.2
-4.2
412
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
597
0
9.9
9.6
0.5
1.4
1.3
2.7
1.3
-0.2
1.1
3.9
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
42.7
3.6
6.0
-3.74
0.2
0.8
-3.83
0.2
1.6
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.2
3.0
-3.2
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
SI
Children
(0-17)
SI
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.1
2.2
1.2
3.1
0.1
0.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.3
11.6
5.2
15.1
11.2
5.4
15.2
12.6
5.1
17.3
14.7
5.3
16.4
13.5
5.9
17.5
14.7
6.0
3.7
16.3
2.5
20.2
3.4
20.6
4.4
19.7
3.2
17.2
4.0
20.4
0.8
3.2
0.3
4.1
50.4
48.4
53.7
47.0
51.4
44.3
45.4
23.4
47.7
21.9
45.2
20.8
-2.5
-1.1
-5.3
-27.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.1
9.7
7.7
14.0
7.7
6.7
16.0
10.0
6.2
16.5
10.3
6.6
18.5
11.5
7.7
20.4
14.2
6.9
5.2
4.5
4.5
7.9
2.6
3.5
2.8
5.6
9.2
2.5
5.1
3.6
5.9
8.9
3.3
5.5
3.4
5.9
8.8
2.7
5.9
6.1
7.1
11.5
3.0
6.7
7.5
7.3
11.5
5.6
413
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.9
3.3
2.7
4.5
-0.8
-0.8
0.8
1.4
0.2
0.0
2.6
1.5
3.0
2.8
3.6
3.0
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
SI
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
SI
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.9
2.6
0.8
2.5
-0.1
-0.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
18.0
10.5
6.9
16.2
9.2
6.2
18.1
11.0
6.1
18.7
11.7
6.2
19.7
12.2
6.9
20.6
13.0
6.8
7.7
5.1
20.2
41.1
4.2
6.5
4.8
20.9
39.7
3.6
8.0
5.3
20.5
36.6
4.1
8.6
6.0
20.1
17.8
4.5
8.8
6.5
19.5
17.6
5.2
9.2
7.1
21.2
16.4
5.9
0.4
0.6
1.7
-1.2
0.7
1.5
2.0
1.0
-24.7
1.7
49.0
52.1
49.8
45.8
49.0
44.9
-4.0
-4.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.4
21.3
7.4
0.84
0.44
21.7
23.3
20.0
6.5
0.86
0.45
20.0
22.8
20.2
6.3
0.87
0.45
16.3
24.2
20.9
6.8
0.87
0.47
5.7
22.8
19.6
6.6
0.87
0.47
6.0
23.0
20.5
6.7
0.87
0.46
6.0
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: Break in series in 2011 for the ―Overcrowding rate‖ indicator
414
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.2
-1.4
0.9
-0.8
0.1
-0.7
0.00
0.03
-0.01
0.02
0.0
-15.7
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
SI
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.3
11.6
5.2
15.1
11.2
5.4
15.2
12.6
5.1
17.3
14.7
5.3
16.4
13.5
5.9
17.5
14.7
6.0
Change
20122013
1.1
1.2
0.1
3.7
2.5
3.4
4.4
3.2
4.0
0.8
6.4
5.7
5.3
9.4
5.0
6.5
5.6
5.3
5.4
6.3
6.4
77.9
77.5
88.8
87.5
9.0
9.5
9.9
4.0
27.0
4.0
27.0
13.0
Change
20082013
2.2
3.1
0.8
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
0.3
9.1
9.3
1.5
0.1
12.8
7.2
0.8
1.6
11.0
10.6
87.4
94.4
7
16.5
67.5
64.9
11.3
11.1
11.4
0.3
2.4
15.9
15.6
4.0
33.0
3.0
34.0
2.0
36.0
14.0
14.0
16.0
14.0
11.0
11.0
37.0
72.0
73.0
77.0
81.0
81.0
46.0
16.3
4.8
20.2
20.6
7.6
19.7
17.2
7.8
20.4
9.2
3.2
1.4
4.1
4.4
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
12.0
12.1
10.5
12.1
1.6
4.4
28.4
27.6
7.7
50.4
53.7
51.4
45.4
47.7
45.2
-2.52
-5.28
39.3
41.3
3.3
3.7
5.1
0.1
52
19.8
48.4
3.4
3.7
5.3
0.0
52
21.8
47.0
4.0
3.7
5.0
0.2
56
19.5
44.3
4.4
3.5
4.2
0.1
64
12.1
23.4
4.3
5.0
4.4
5.7
3.8
3.9
1.4
-1.2
-0.5
2.4
0.1
-1.2
10.5
6.7
12.0
36
11.4
21.9
9.6
20.8
-1.8
-1.1
-10.2
-27.6
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data). Note : Break in series in 2011 for the ―Overcrowding rate‖ indicator
415
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
59,2
53,7
-5,5
Low income
88,6
89,1
0,5
High income
47,7
42,1
-5,6
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
40,5
36,7
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
60,7
61
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
40,5
36,7
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
53,7 / 53,7
36,7 / 36,7
53,7 / 53,7
36,7 / 36,7
-3,8
0,3
-3,8
58,5
48,8
-9,7
40,1
40,3
0,2
88,6 / 42,1
89,1 / 42
0,5 / 0
60,7 / 36,7
61 / 36,7
0,3 / 0
66,6
62,2
-4,4
45,6
42,6
-3,0
88,6 / 55,1
89,1 / 50,7
0,5 / -4,4
60,7 / 45,6
61 / 42,6
0,3 / -3
55,5
53,7
-1,8
38,0
36,7
-1,3
58,5
53,7
-4,8
40
40
0,0
59,2
53,7
-5,5
40,5
36,7
-3,8
58,5
42,6
-15,9
40,1
40,3
0,2
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
19,2
17,3
-2,0
44,7
37,0
-7,7
:
:
:
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050).
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions. Projections
with base year 2010 no longer relevant because pension reform in 2013 significantly changed some facts.
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
SI
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
59.5
60.8
9.2
9.4
75.5
82.6
16.4
20.5
0.2
58.8
1880.59
8.35
2009
60.6
61.5
9.3
9.9
75.9
82.7
16.4
20.5
0.2
59.7
1850.64
9.23
2010
53.4
54.6
6.6
7.2
76.4
83.1
16.8
21
0.1
59.6
1794.83
8.9
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
416
2011
54
53.8
6.2
6.9
76.8
83.3
16.9
21.1
0.1
60.4
1835.51
8.86
2012
56.5
55.6
7.3
6.9
77.1
83.3
17.1
21.1
0.1
63.1
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS176
176
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
417
SI
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment benefit is an insurance based benefit that can be claimed by
the unemployed who was employed (insured) before for at least 9 months in
the last 24 months and did not lose the job by own fault. Statutory basis for
unemployment insurance is Labour Market Regulation Act (Official gazette RS,
no. 80/2010, 40/2012-ZUJF, 21/2013 and 63/2013).
thousands of recipients
Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
Financial social assistance is a means-tested social benefit which acts as a final
safety-net, intended to cover the basic living costs. Financial social assistance is
defined by the Social Benefits Act (Official Gazette RS no. 61/2010, 40/2011,
110/2011, 40/2012, 14/2013) and the Exercising the Right to Public Funds Act
(Official Gazette RS, no. 62/2010, 40/2011, 40/2012, 14/2013).
thousands of recipients
Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
The number given is the number of individual recipients (including children).
In the structure of households receiving the financial social assistance, there
are around 75% single households (single people), around 4% couples and
around 21% families (with children).
comment
definition
unit
source
Disability benefit
Disability benefits beneficiaries – Number of unemployed persons receiving
disability benefits. Included are recipients of disability benefit, temporary
benefit, partial disability pension/partial benefit, benefit for occupational
rehabilitation, before and during retraining benefit and before employment
benefit.
thousands of recipients
Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia
418
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
419
SLOVAKIA
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 170,000
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
420
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
SK
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
10.9
11.0
12.0
13.0
13.2
12.8
-0.4
1.9
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
588
594
651
700
716
694
-3.1
18.0
84877
83462
% of total pln
5.2
5.6
7.9
7.7
7.2
7.6
0.4
2.4
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
225
243
349
331
312
328
5.1
45.8
39644
40189
% of total pln
11.8
11.1
11.4
10.6
10.5
10.2
-0.3
-1.6
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
636
601
621
571
565
554
-1.9
-12.9
49673
48245
% of total pln
0.9
0.7
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.6
0.3
0.7
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
47
40
68
83
72
85
18.1
80.9
13552
13504
% of total pln
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
-0.1
-0.4
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
120
112
104
104
105
96
-8.6
-20.0
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.3
1.9
2.7
2.5
2.7
2.9
0.2
1.6
1.8
1.8
72
104
147
135
144
155
7.6
115.3
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.0
-0.2
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
26
17
38
34
19
14
-26.3
-46.2
3391
3685
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
421
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
SK
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
5.8
3.2
9.6
6.7
15.6
2009
-4.9
-2.0
12.1
6.5
18.3
2010
4.4
-1.5
14.5
9.3
18.1
2011
3.0
1.8
13.7
9.3
17.7
2012
1.8
0.1
14.0
9.4
17.9
2013
0.9
-0.8
14.2
10.0
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
SK
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
15.6
5.1
1.4
5.8
0.8
1.5
0.6
0.0
0.4
2009
18.3
5.8
1.5
6.8
1.0
1.7
1.0
0.0
0.4
2010
18.1
5.5
1.6
6.8
1.0
1.8
1.0
0.0
0.5
2011
17.7
5.4
1.6
6.8
0.9
1.8
0.8
0.0
0.4
2012
17.9
5.5
1.6
7.0
0.9
1.8
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
14.8
5.1
1.3
5.5
0.8
1.4
0.6
17.4
5.8
1.4
6.5
1.0
1.7
1.0
17.2
5.5
1.4
6.5
0.9
1.7
1.0
16.8
5.4
1.4
6.5
0.9
1.7
0.8
17.0
5.5
1.4
6.7
0.9
1.7
0.7
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
422
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
SK
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.7
-0.8
-0.4
1.9
-138
1683
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
20.6
10.9
4058
19.6
11.0
4694
20.6
12.0
5016
20.6
13.0
5385
20.5
13.2
5879
19.8
12.8
5741
8521
11.8
9858
11.1
10534
11.4
11309
10.6
12346
10.5
12055
10.2
-291
-0.3
3534
-1.6
5.2
4.9
18.1
10.9
5.6
5.4
23.2
7.8
7.9
6.0
25.7
7.3
7.7
7.8
22.8
7.0
7.2
8.6
20.5
6.0
7.6
0.4
2.4
24.1
7.4
3.6
1.4
40.8
3.4
5.6
35.7
3.6
9.4
39.4
3.8
7.6
33.3
3.8
8.4
34.0
3.7
8.4
36.3
3.6
8.3
5.1
1.2
2.6
-1.8
-2.1
1.9
423
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
6
-3.5
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
2.32
-0.1
-0.1
-4.44
0.2
2.7
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
4.0
-3.2
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
SK
Children
(0-17)
SK
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.1
1.2
-1.6
3.6
1.1
0.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.3
16.7
12.6
23.7
16.8
12.7
25.3
18.8
13.5
26.0
21.2
12.4
26.6
21.9
11.9
25.5
20.3
13.0
4.4
24.0
5.4
25.8
8.1
33.8
7.3
25.5
7.2
24.0
8.4
29.8
1.2
5.8
4.0
5.8
38.2
54.4
30.3
51.6
35.8
53.2
28.6
52.6
29.8
49.6
33.7
50.8
3.9
1.2
-4.5
-3.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.6
11.9
13.6
21.1
13.3
13.0
22.8
14.7
13.9
22.8
14.8
11.2
21.8
14.4
10.9
23.0
15.1
12.6
3.4
4.6
6.2
14.4
1.8
3.9
3.8
8.6
16.6
7.0
5.5
4.1
10.4
18.6
6.4
5.1
5.5
10.1
18.3
7.5
5.2
5.6
10.4
18.1
6.9
5.9
3.3
10.4
17.8
6.5
424
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.2
1.4
0.7
3.2
1.7
-1.0
0.7
-2.3
0.0
-0.3
-0.4
2.5
-1.3
4.2
3.4
4.7
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
SK
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
SK
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.5
0.1
-0.2
2.6
-0.4
-1.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
19.3
9.5
10.8
18.5
9.6
10.6
20.2
11.2
11.0
20.6
12.4
10.3
19.9
12.3
10.1
19.4
12.1
9.7
5.4
5.8
19.1
44.9
4.1
5.6
5.2
24.2
41.5
8.4
7.9
5.7
26.5
41.7
7.1
7.8
6.3
24.2
41.3
8.0
7.2
6.2
21.2
40.3
7.4
7.3
5.8
24.4
41.5
7.7
0.1
-0.4
3.2
1.2
0.3
43.5
39.2
41.4
34.7
35.6
37.3
1.7
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
21.9
9.9
15.3
0.79
0.54
18.4
19.7
10.8
11.7
0.81
0.55
15.2
16.7
7.7
11.1
0.83
0.61
14.9
14.5
6.3
9.7
0.86
0.62
14.8
16.3
7.8
10.8
0.81
0.56
15.1
13.6
6.0
9.2
0.90
0.61
15.5
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
1.9
0.0
5.3
-3.4
3.6
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
-6.1
35.0
36.2
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.7
-8.3
-1.8
-3.9
-1.6
-6.1
0.09
0.11
0.05
0.07
0.4
-2.9
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
Note: ratio indicators are not expressed in %; all changes are in percentage points' difference with the exception of the poverty threshold, S80/S20
425
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
SK
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
24.3
16.7
12.6
23.7
16.8
12.7
25.3
18.8
13.5
26.0
21.2
12.4
26.6
21.9
11.9
25.5
20.3
13.0
Change
20122013
-1.1
-1.6
1.1
4.4
5.4
8.1
7.3
7.2
8.4
1.2
9.4
4.7
9.3
16.3
16.3
7.6
7.1
7.8
9.3
8.6
7.9
-0.7
0.3
11.0
10.6
82.3
88.9
85.3
86.1
93.8
94.4
0.6
12.1
67.5
64.9
13.7
12.7
13.0
16.1
16.4
13.4
-3
-0.3
15.9
15.6
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
4.0
14.0
14.0
7.0
13.0
8.0
13.0
12.0
37.0
53.0
63.0
64.0
62.0
59.0
46.0
24.0
5.2
25.8
33.8
3.4
25.5
3.4
24.0
2.4
29.8
2.7
5.8
0.3
5.8
-2.5
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
4.8
5.1
3.9
4.3
0.4
-3.1
28.4
27.6
7.4
Change
20082013
1.2
3.6
0.4
4
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
38.2
30.3
35.8
28.6
29.8
33.7
3.85
-4.49
39.3
41.3
4.8
5.5
6.0
0.3
336
8.6
54.4
10.0
5.0
4.9
0.5
346
6.7
51.6
8.9
5.4
4.7
0.6
344
6.8
53.2
10.2
5.9
5.1
1.1
300
8.3
52.6
10.9
5.7
5.3
0.7
321
8.6
49.6
11.0
5.5
6.4
0.1
-0.2
1.1
6.2
0
0.4
10.5
6.7
12.0
7.9
50.8
-0.7
1.2
-0.7
-3.6
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
426
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
74,6
65,4
-9,2
Low income
78,2
64,6
-13,6
High income
56,2
50,7
-5,5
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2050 Difference
58,7
51,3
(100/0/0)* (52/48/0)*
65
53,5
(100/0/0)* (54/46/0)*
42,7
38
(100/0/0)* (51/49/0)*
60,8 / 70,7
47,7 / 55,5
72,9 / 59,6
57,2 / 46,8
-7,5
-11,5
-4,7
63,8
58,2
-5,6
50,2
45,6
-4,6
66,9 / 48
57,5 / 45,1
(-9,4/-2,9)
55,6 / 36,4
47,6 / 33,8
(-8/-2,6)
86,4
73,1
-13,3
68
57,3
-10,7
90,5 / 64,9
10 years after retirement
Gross2010
72,2 / 56,6 (-18,3/-8,3) 75,3 / 49,3
59,7 / 42,5 (-15,5/-6,8)
70
53,8
-16,2
54,2
41,9
-12,3
52,1
53,6
1,5
41
42
1,0
53,6
51
-2,6
42,2
40
-2,2
56
47,6
-8,4
44,1
37,3
-6,8
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
43,7
29,7
-14,1
44,7
37,0
-7,7
50,7
40,2
-10,5
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
SK
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
52.1
52.6
3
2.7
70.8
79
13.8
17.8
1.3
59.5
1502.45
8.02
2009
52.4
52.6
3.5
2.9
71.4
79.1
14.1
18
1.7
61.9
1589.13
9.15
2010
52.4
52.1
3.3
2.8
71.7
79.3
14
18
1.7
63.6
1672.62
8.99
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
427
2011
52.1
52.3
3.5
2.9
72.3
79.8
14.5
18.4
2.2
63.2
1522.64
7.96
2012
53.4
53.1
3.5
3.1
72.5
79.9
14.6
18.5
2.2
65.6
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS177
177
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
428
SK
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
definition
unit
source
link
comment
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
eurostat
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment benefit recipients
thousands of recipients
Social Insurance Agency
http://www.socpoist.sk/pocet-poberatelov-davok-v-nezamestnanosti/1662s
The new softer eligibility criteria on unemployment benefit have come into
effect since 1 September 2010. The minimum necessary condition of
unemployment insurance decreased from 3 years from the last four years into
2 years from the last three years. This change also contibuted to the year-onyear growth of the number of recipients from the second half of Year 2011 and
till the end of the first quarter of Year 2012, but wihtout any dramatic changes.
The latest trend is positive with year-on-year decline of the number of
recipients in Year 2013 (Apr-Dec) and in Year 2014 (Jan-Sept).
Social assistance benefit
social assistance benefit
thousands of recipients
Centre Offiice of Labour, Social Affairs and Familly
Social Assistance Benefit: Recipients are defined as recipients of benefits. In
the system of assistance in material need (social assistance) we are talking
about the recipient, which is the range of jointly assessed persons, i.e.
individual, family with children, families without children, etc. This means that
for one recipient of assistance in material need may be more of jointly
assessed persons. In Year 2014 is evident slight decrease in number of the
recipients of material need based on changes in the system of assistance in
material need applicable from 1 January 2014.
Disability benefit
Disability Benefits recipients
thousands of recipients
Social Insurance Agency
http://www.socpoist.sk/pocet-vyplacanych-dochodkov--v-mesiacoch-/3150s
The number of recipients are without disability benefits from youth ("invalidi z
mladosti") which are funded by state budget. The new lighter conditions on
disability benefit have come into effect since 1 January 2010 (the minimum
pension period on invalidity benefit is required from all career, not only from
last 10 years). This change also contibuted to the year-on-year slightly
increased of the number of recipients in Year 2011, Year 2012 and Year 2013, but
without any dramatic changes. The trend is continuing in Year 2014 (Jan-Sept).
429
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
430
FINLAND
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
770,000 persons living at risk of poverty or social exclusion, equivalent to an absolute decrease
by 140,000 persons
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
431
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
FI
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
13.6
13.8
13.1
13.7
13.2
11.8
-1.4
-1.8
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
709
725
692
725
704
632
-10.2
-10.9
84877
83462
% of total pln
7.5
8.4
9.3
10.0
9.3
9.0
-0.3
1.5
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
296
329
364
389
361
351
-2.8
18.6
39644
40189
% of total pln
3.5
2.8
2.8
3.2
2.9
2.5
-0.4
-1.0
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
181
148
150
170
156
132
-15.4
-27.1
49673
48245
% of total pln
2.4
2.9
3.2
3.4
3.3
2.7
-0.6
0.3
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
127
151
170
178
175
145
-17.1
14.2
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
-0.1
-0.6
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
51
29
30
33
27
24
-11.1
-52.9
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
-0.2
-0.2
1.8
1.8
39
59
49
46
41
33
-19.5
-15.4
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
18
18
19
30
22
27
22.7
50.0
3391
3685
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
432
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
FI
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
0.7
2.2
6.4
1.2
25.4
2009
-8.3
-2.4
8.2
1.4
29.5
2010
3.0
-0.7
8.4
2.0
29.7
2011
2.6
1.3
7.8
1.7
29.2
2012
-1.4
0.9
7.7
1.6
30.4
2013
-1.3
-1.5
8.2
1.7
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
FI
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
25.4
6.8
3.2
8.8
0.9
2.9
1.8
0.4
0.6
2009
29.5
7.6
3.6
10.4
1.0
3.3
2.4
0.5
0.7
2010
29.7
7.5
3.6
10.7
1.0
3.3
2.4
0.5
0.7
2011
29.2
7.5
3.5
10.8
0.9
3.3
2.1
0.5
0.8
2012
30.4
7.7
3.5
11.5
0.9
3.4
2.1
0.5
0.8
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
24.3
6.8
3.2
8.8
0.9
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.3
28.3
7.6
3.6
10.4
1.0
3.3
2.0
0.0
0.4
28.4
7.5
3.6
10.7
1.0
3.3
2.0
0.0
0.4
27.9
7.5
3.5
10.8
0.9
3.2
1.6
0.0
0.4
28.9
7.7
3.5
11.5
0.9
3.3
1.6
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
433
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
FI
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.2
-1.4
-1.4
-1.8
324
1537
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
17.4
13.6
9933
16.9
13.8
10421
16.9
13.1
10327
17.9
13.7
10760
17.2
13.2
11146
16.0
11.8
11470
20860
3.5
21884
2.8
21686
2.8
22596
3.2
23406
2.9
24086
2.5
680
-0.4
7.5
6.8
15.7
13.6
8.4
6.5
15.1
13.0
9.3
7.7
13.8
12.0
10.0
7.5
13.5
12.3
9.3
7.4
15.0
11.6
9.0
7.0
15.0
10.7
50.2
3.8
4.7
47.3
3.7
4.4
51.5
3.6
4.2
50.0
3.7
4.4
50.9
3.7
4.5
2.3
0.8
2.6
1.0
-0.3
434
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
3226
-1
9.9
9.6
-0.3
-0.4
0
-0.9
1.5
0.2
-0.7
-2.9
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
10.7
55.3
3.6
4.9
4.37
-0.1
0.4
5.12
-0.2
0.2
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-0.5
-0.2
-2.8
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
FI
Children
(0-17)
FI
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.9
-2.1
-1.8
-2.7
-1.0
-1.3
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.1
12.0
3.1
14.0
12.1
2.5
14.2
11.4
2.3
16.1
11.8
3.2
14.9
11.1
2.8
13.0
9.3
1.8
4.9
15.5
5.8
15.0
5.9
11.4
7.6
10.5
5.9
12.9
6.1
13.4
0.2
0.5
1.2
-2.1
59.6
4.5
56.5
5.0
61.6
5.1
60.9
5.8
63.0
5.7
68.2
7.1
5.2
1.4
8.6
2.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
30.0
26.2
6.1
28.7
26.2
4.8
30.9
26.8
4.5
30.5
26.5
4.5
29.4
24.9
5.1
28.0
22.5
5.0
7.6
12.5
8.8
9.9
10.1
10.3
5.9
10.9
12.9
9.1
12.5
8.7
10.6
12.5
9.1
10.1
7.9
10.1
11.7
9.5
10.4
8.9
9.8
11.8
9.2
10.0
7.6
10.3
12.6
10.6
435
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.4
-2.0
-2.4
-3.7
-0.1
-1.1
-0.4
-1.3
0.5
0.8
1.4
2.4
-4.9
1.5
2.7
0.5
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
FI
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
FI
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-0.6
0.2
-1.1
-0.5
-0.3
-0.6
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
16.5
11.8
3.7
16.2
12.2
3.1
17.1
12.3
3.3
18.0
12.8
3.5
17.3
12.4
3.4
16.7
11.3
3.1
8.4
5.1
19.2
6.1
4.9
9.3
3.7
19.2
6.4
5.0
10.6
3.7
17.4
6.7
4.8
10.9
3.9
17.9
7.2
5.1
10.6
3.8
18.3
6.7
5.2
10.1
3.8
18.9
7.6
5.2
-0.5
0.0
0.6
0.9
0.0
1.7
-1.3
-0.3
1.5
0.3
54.1
50.8
53.8
52.9
53.4
57.8
4.5
3.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
23.9
22.5
3.2
0.72
0.49
6.2
23.1
22.1
2.2
0.73
0.48
5.0
19.5
18.3
1.7
0.78
0.50
5.1
19.8
18.9
2.1
0.78
0.50
4.9
19.5
18.4
1.5
0.78
0.49
4.1
16.8
16.1
1.1
0.78
0.49
4.4
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
436
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-2.7
-7.1
-2.3
-6.4
-0.4
-2.1
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.3
-1.8
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
FI
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households (% of 0-17
population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households
with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in households at
work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory school age
children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing child
poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.1
12.0
3.1
14.0
12.1
2.5
14.2
11.4
2.3
16.1
11.8
3.2
14.9
11.1
2.8
13.0
9.3
1.8
Change
20122013
-1.9
-1.8
-1
4.9
5.8
5.9
7.6
5.9
6.1
0.2
3.9
2.1
9.1
4.1
3.2
4.4
5.4
4.5
4.3
4.0
3.7
63.1
74.8
68.1
62.9
9.1
7.9
7.6
5.0
21.0
6.0
21.0
20.0
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
1.2
9.1
9.3
1.2
0.5
12.8
3.4
-0.3
-2
11.0
10.6
63.2
54.4
-8.8
-8.7
67.5
64.9
7.5
7.7
6.3
-1.4
-2.8
15.9
15.6
8.0
20.0
6.0
20.0
7.0
22.0
14.0
14.0
20.0
21.0
20.0
20.0
37.0
58.0
57.0
56.0
57.0
57.0
46.0
15.5
9.0
11.4
8.7
13.4
10.4
0.5
1.4
-2.1
1.4
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
12.3
10.5
9.8
2.2
13.9
12.9
9.0
12.7
15.0
8.8
2.0
12.1
12.8
14.9
2.1
2.2
28.4
27.6
59.6
56.5
61.6
60.9
63.0
68.2
5.15
8.55
39.3
41.3
3.8
5.3
9.8
0.2
157
0.4
4.5
3.2
6.3
9.9
1.2
158
0.6
5.0
3.4
4.9
10.3
1.0
140
0.9
5.1
2.6
4.3
9.8
3.1
143
0.4
5.8
2.4
4.3
8.9
4.4
141
0.8
5.7
3.3
5.2
9.3
3.1
0.9
0.9
0.4
-0.5
-0.1
-0.5
10.5
6.7
12.0
0.8
7.1
0
1.4
0.4
2.6
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
437
Change
20082013
-2.1
-2.7
-1.3
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
68,9
62
-6,9
Low income
72,3
62,7
-9,6
High income
63,4
51,7
-11,7
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
60,8
66,3 / 56,6
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
74,7
77,5 / 69,4
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
61,8
54,4
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
66,7
54,4
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
55,8
42,8
(100/0/0)* (100/0/0)*
62 / 62
54,4 / 54,4
63,3 / 60,8
55,8 / 53,1
55,3
-5,5
53,2
47,4
57,2 / 46,1 (-9,1/-10,5) 58,9 / 48,4
68,5
-6,2
-12,3
-13,0
-5,8
47,4 / 36,7 (-11,5/-11,7)
68,1
61,4
68,2 / 57,8 (-9,3/-11,6) 73,1 / 62,2
-7,4
-6,7
61,4 / 49,8 (-11,7/-12,4)
60,2
54,7
-5,5
52,5
46,3
-6,2
64,7
61,3
-3,4
57,2
53,7
-3,5
65,9
60,3
-5,6
58,5
52,7
-5,8
54,4
51,3
-3,1
46,3
42,8
-3,5
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
49,4
45,3
-4,1
44,7
37,0
-7,7
51,8
45,1
-6,7
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
FI
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
58.6
59.5
8
9
76.5
83.3
17.5
21.3
0.8
68.6
2418.86
8.31
2009
58.2
58.6
8.2
9
76.6
83.5
17.3
21.5
3.7
69.0
2400.24
9.17
2010
58.5
58.2
8.8
8.9
76.9
83.5
17.5
21.5
3.9
68.5
2451.22
8.99
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
438
2011
57.7
58.3
8.4
8.6
77.3
83.8
17.7
21.7
4.4
69.1
2552.51
8.95
2012
57.3
56.2
8.4
9
77.7
83.7
17.8
21.6
4.6
67.2
2637.73
9.09
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS178
178
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
439
FI
Unemployment
definition Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
unit
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
source
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
Earnings-related unemployment allowance; Basic unemployment allowance; Labour
definition
market support
unit
thousands of recipients, at the end of the month
source
Social Insurance Institution and the Financial Supervisory Authority (FIN-FSA)
comment Earnings-related unemployment allowance is paid for those who fullfil the eligibility
criterias: Employment conditions and are member of an unemployment fund. This is
voluntary, you have to pay an annual fee. In the case of unemployment the
allowance is related to your salary. Basic unemployment allowance is like earningsrelated allowance, but the difference is that you are not a member of an
unemployment fund or do not qualify for the earnings-related allowance for some
other reason. The basic allowance is flat rate and low. Starting from 2010, basic and
earnings-related unemployment allowances are payable not only during
unemployment but also during participation in a measure of active labour market
policy. Labour market support is flat rate benefit (and low) for those who do not
qualify for the elibility rules of the benefits mentioned above. In practice they are
young people and those who have received the allowances mentioned above for the
maximum period (500 days). Unlike with the unemployment allowance, a
demonstrated need of financial assistance is also required. Although in most cases
labour market support and basic unemployment allowance are the same rate.
A total of 346,000 persons received unemployment benefits at year-end 2013. Of
them, 54% were in receipt of a basic unemployment benefit. The number of
recipients of unemployment benefits started to increase in autumn 2012 and the
increase has continued in 2013 and 2014.
Social assistance benefit
definition Recipients of social assistance (households) by calendar month
unit
thousands of recipients
source
National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL)
comment In 2013, on average 123,000 households per month received social assistance. The
number of households receiving social assistance grew rapidly in the first part of
2009, but subsequently the growth rate came to halt. The numbers were, however,
decidedly more than 10 per cent higher than during the downturn before 2008.
However, in 2013 the number of households receiving social assistance increased by
3 per cent on the previous year.
440
Disability benefit
definition Recipients of disability pension (earnings-related schemes) at the end of the month
unit
thousands of recipients
source
Finnish Centre for Pensions
comment Disability pensions in the earnings-related pension system consist of full and partial
pensions and they may be awarded until further notice or for a specific period of
time (cash rehabilitation benefit). Rehabilitation allowance is the benefit paid
during active rehabilitation measures awarded to a person who is still in working life
and would face a risk of disability in the near future without rehabilitation. The
amount of this allowance is 1.33 times the disability pension and the pension system
pays it, but it is not regarded or classified as a pension.
The number of people receiving disability pensions has been decreasing for a
number of years. During the last year the number of recipients decreased by 6 %.
There are different reasons for this. The incidence of new disability pensions has
decreased. They are applied less than before. According to a recent study people
feel that their ability to work has ameliorated. One reason may also be the
increased rehabilitation measures. The amount of recipients of rehabilitation
allowance has more than doubled in ten years ( from 3055 in 2003 to 7872 recipients
in 2012). In 2013, of those who finished their rehabilitation process 74 percent were
in active working life and 67 percent of them returned back to work. The pension
reform of 2005 introduced some technical reasons: in 2005 the retirement age
changed from 65 to 63-68 years which means that between the ages 63-65 only old
age pensions are awarded and not disability pensions as was the case before 2005.
Also, the disability pension is converted to old age pension in earlier age than before
(at the age of 63 for pensions beginning after 2005), so they end earlier than those
that have begun before the 2005 reform (at the age of 65).
441
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
442
SWEDEN
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Reduction of the percentage of women and men aged 20-64 who are not in the labour force
(except full-time students), the long-term unemployed or those on long-term sick leave to well
under 14%
Source: National Reform Programme (2014)
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) Progress on the target is monitored on the basis of the EU SILC data with a base year 2008 and target data year 2018; ii)
AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population living in
(quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; iii) For the at-risk-of
poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year except for the United Kingdom (survey
year) and Ireland (12 months preceding the survey). Similarly, the share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low work intensity
rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the reference is the
current year.
443
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
EU28
SE
AROP
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
12.2
13.3
12.9
14.0
14.1
14.8
0.7
2.6
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
1121
1215
1212
1333
1372
1440
5.0
28.5
84877
83462
% of total pln
5.5
6.4
6.0
6.9
5.7
7.1
1.4
1.6
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
381
430
418
482
406
505
24.4
32.5
39644
40189
% of total pln
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
0.1
0.0
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
132
144
125
112
124
138
11.3
4.5
49673
48245
% of total pln
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.8
2.5
3.2
0.7
1.4
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
165
204
213
267
243
308
26.7
86.7
13552
13504
% of total pln
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.1
2.8
2.7
1000 persons
26
26
23
32
38
39
2.6
50.0
14249
13558
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.3
1.8
1.8
31
43
44
38
48
63
31.3
103.2
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.1
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
14
14
12
13
6
7
16.7
-50.0
3391
3685
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%).
444
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
SE
Real GDP rowth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-0.6
0.9
6.2
0.8
28.9
2009
-5.0
-2.4
8.3
1.1
31.4
2010
6.6
1.0
8.6
1.6
29.8
2011
2.9
2.1
7.8
1.5
29.1
2012
0.9
0.7
8.0
1.5
29.9
2013
1.6
1.0
8.0
1.5
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS)
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
SE
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011 2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
28.9
7.5
4.4
11.4
0.6
3.0
0.9
0.5
0.6
2009
31.4
7.9
4.6
12.6
0.6
3.2
1.3
0.5
0.7
2010
29.8
7.4
4.1
12.2
0.5
3.1
1.4
0.5
0.7
2011
29.1
7.5
3.9
11.9
0.5
3.1
1.2
0.4
0.7
2012
29.9
7.6
3.9
12.4
0.5
3.2
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.3
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
28.1
7.5
4.4
11.4
0.6
3.0
0.9
0.0
0.3
30.5
7.9
4.6
12.6
0.6
3.2
1.3
0.0
0.3
29.0
7.4
4.1
12.1
0.5
3.1
1.4
0.0
0.4
28.3
7.5
3.9
11.9
0.5
3.1
1.2
29.1
7.6
3.9
12.4
0.5
3.2
1.2
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs.
445
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
SE
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income growth
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.8
1.5
0.7
2.6
517
1636
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14.9
12.2
10680
15.9
13.3
11295
15.0
12.9
10991
16.1
14.0
11284
15.6
14.1
11799
16.4
14.8
12316
22427
1.4
23720
1.6
23082
1.3
23695
1.2
24778
1.3
25864
1.4
1086
0.1
3437
0
5.5
2.6
18.0
12.2
6.4
3.7
20.3
11.7
6.0
4.9
19.7
11.2
6.9
4.1
18.5
11.6
5.7
7.1
1.4
1.6
18.9
10.8
19.8
10.8
0.9
0
57.2
3.5
8.1
50.0
3.7
9.6
51.7
3.5
6.5
49.8
3.6
7.9
48.5
3.7
7.6
45.4
3.7
7.9
-3.15
0
0.3
446
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
1.8
-1.4
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
-11.8
0.2
-0.2
34.5
5
11.2
35.27
5
11
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
SE
Children
(0-17)
SE
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.8
1.6
0.8
2.5
0.5
0.2
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14.6
12.9
1.7
15.1
13.1
1.7
14.5
13.1
1.3
15.9
14.5
1.3
15.4
14.6
1.4
16.2
15.4
1.9
4.1
17.9
4.3
20.5
4.8
20.0
5.5
21.8
4.9
22.4
6.2
20.9
1.3
-1.5
2.1
3.0
62.2
11.6
56.9
10.8
58.4
12.3
54.7
12.3
54.7
12.6
50.6
12.0
-4.0
-0.6
-11.5
0.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.8
27.8
1.1
31.9
29.8
2.7
31.6
29.5
2.2
27.9
25.4
1.5
28.6
27.4
1.3
32.7
29.9
2.3
6.8
20.4
10.7
10.7
21.1
10.1
19.8
12.8
13.1
24.7
9.0
20.1
12.8
10.6
17.0
8.6
16.4
12.1
10.2
15.8
6.1
16.5
12.4
10.5
15.8
8.4
19.4
12.8
9.9
18.2
447
Change Change
201220082013
2013
4.1
2.9
2.5
2.1
1.0
1.2
2.3
2.9
0.4
-0.6
2.4
1.6
-1.0
2.1
-0.8
-2.9
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
SE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
SE
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.4
1.7
1.1
2.8
0.1
0.1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14.8
11.2
1.5
15.6
12.1
1.8
15.0
11.9
1.5
15.4
12.5
1.3
15.1
12.9
1.5
16.5
14.0
1.6
6.2
6.8
23.7
11.6
8.0
7.2
7.0
24.8
12.3
9.4
6.5
6.6
25.5
13.0
6.7
7.5
6.9
21.9
13.3
6.9
6.0
6.7
25.5
12.7
6.9
7.5
7.1
23.1
13.8
8.0
1.5
0.4
-2.4
1.1
1.1
1.3
0.3
-0.6
2.2
0.0
59.1
52.2
54.1
52.8
50.2
47.8
-2.4
-11.4
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
15.5
15.0
0.8
0.78
0.62
2.6
18.0
17.7
0.5
0.77
0.60
4.1
15.9
15.5
0.7
0.79
0.60
3.2
18.6
18.2
0.6
0.77
0.58
3.6
17.9
17.7
0.4
0.78
0.56
2.7
16.5
16.4
0.2
0.81
0.58
2.3
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS)
448
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.4
1.0
-1.3
1.4
-0.2
-0.6
0.03
0.03
0.02
-0.04
-0.4
-0.3
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
SE
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
14.6
12.9
1.7
15.1
13.1
1.7
14.5
13.1
1.3
15.9
14.5
1.3
15.4
14.6
1.4
16.2
15.4
1.9
Change
20122013
0.8
0.8
0.5
4.1
4.3
4.8
5.5
4.9
6.2
1.3
2.0
4.0
4.3
3.4
6.4
6.5
5.9
6.7
6.3
6.0
-0.3
-0.4
11.0
10.6
71.7
72.7
80.5
78.8
88.6
93.7
5.1
22
67.5
64.9
9.6
9.9
9.0
10.1
10.2
9.6
-0.6
0
15.9
15.6
18.0
31.0
26.0
37.0
18.0
33.0
19.0
32.0
17.0
35.0
14.0
14.0
31.0
29.0
29.0
31.0
27.0
37.0
64.0
65.0
65.0
64.0
69.0
46.0
17.9
18.2
6.1
21.9
20.5
20.0
21.8
22.4
62.2
56.9
58.4
54.7
54.7
50.6
-4.02
4.2
4.4
7.9
2.5
272
1.8
11.6
5.6
5.4
7.0
2.5
278
1.2
10.8
3.8
4.0
6.5
2.1
294
2.0
12.3
4.5
4.2
6.6
2.2
235
1.9
12.3
4.2
4.1
7.5
1.8
293
1.8
12.6
3.7
4.0
7.1
1.7
12.0
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
449
Change
20082013
1.6
2.5
0.2
2.1
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
20.9
-1.5
3
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
-11.53
39.3
41.3
-0.5
-0.1
-0.4
-0.5
-0.4
-0.8
10.5
6.7
12.0
-0.1
-0.6
-0.1
0.4
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
60,3
53,0
-7,3
Low income
82,9
53,2
-29,7
High income
57,5
47,9
-9,6
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
54,7
57,9 / 53,5
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
66,4
86,7 / 65,4
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
63,6
54,6
(76/2/22)* (62/13/24)*
72,4
54,6
(79/2/19)* (62/13/24)*
53,7
45,7
(62/2/36)* (52/11/38)*
51,3 / 55
52,6 / 57
64,6 / 45,1
67,2 / 45,9
47,7
-7,0
56,9
48,4
47,3 / 42,8 (-10,6/-10,7) 59,9 / 49,5
63
-3,4
-17,8
-8,0
-8,5
48,4 / 40,6 (-11,5/-8,9)
72,5
61,6
62,6 / 55,8 (-24,1/-9,6) 86,3 / 61,9
-9
-10,9
61,6 / 51,3 (-24,7/-10,6)
58,6
46,3
-12,3
51,7
52,5
0,8
60,1
52,3
-7,8
63,3
53,8
-9,5
59,7
50,8
-8,9
62,6
52
-10,6
57,9
41,2
-16,7
53,2
40,9
-12,3
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
35,3
26,4
-8,9
44,7
37,0
-7,7
35,4
22,7
-12,7
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
SE
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
69.4
69
13.1
14
79.2
83.3
18
20.9
2.4
78.5
2834.31
9.23
2009
70.7
69.6
13.6
14.7
79.4
83.5
18.2
21.2
2
79.7
2807.52
9.94
2010
71.7
71.1
14.1
15.5
79.6
83.6
18.3
21.2
1.8
80
2825.54
9.47
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
450
2011
71.1
70.2
13.9
15.2
79.9
83.8
18.5
21.3
1.4
79.9
2935.56
9.49
2012
70.8
70.6
13.9
15.5
79.9
83.6
18.5
21.1
1.3
80.9
3030.25
9.58
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS179
SE
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
definition
unit
source
Unemployment
Unemployment according to ILO definition - Total
Thousands of persons - seasonally adjusted
Eurostat
Unemployment benefit
Unemployment benefit; labour market measures
thousands of recipients, measured in full year equivalents
Statistics Sweden
Social assistance benefit/means-tested minimum income
Subsistance allowance
measured in full year equivalents (i.e. benefit for 365 days at a 100% withdraw
rate).
Statistics Sweden
Disability benefit (1)
Sickness benefit
thousands of recipients, measured in full year equivalents
Statistics Sweden
Disability benefit (2)
Disability benefits
thousands of recipients, measured in full year equivalents
Statistics Sweden
179
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
451
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
452
UNITED KINGDOM
NATIONAL 2020 TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL
EXCLUSION
Existing numerical targets of the 2010 Child Poverty Act and Child Poverty Strategy 2014-2017, as
follows:
"The Government is committed to our goal of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020. The Child
Poverty Strategy 2014-2017outlines our plans to tackle the root causes of poverty, including
worklessness, low earnings and educational failure. This approach reflects the reality of child
poverty in the UK today and is the only way to achieve lasting change to protect the poorest in
society. We will improve the life chances of children by: raising the incomes of poor children‘s
families by helping them get into work and making work pay; supporting the living standards of
low-income families; and raising educational outcomes of poor children."
The UK Government is responsible for policies in this area in England and when policy areas are
reserved to Parliament in the devolution settlements, for example the welfare system which is only
devolved in Northern Ireland. The Devolved Administrations are responsible for their own policy
direction in all other areas, for example education.
Current level of performance against objectives: The latest indicators that the Government identified in
the Child Poverty Act 2010 are set out in the table below:
Indicator
Target
Current level
Reference period
17 per cent
2012-2013
Absolute low income: proportion of children Less than 5 19 per cent
2012-2013
Relative low income: proportion of children Less than 10
who live in households where income is less per
than 60 per cent of median net equivalised
household income before housing costs for
the financial year.
cent
by
2020-21
who live in households where income is less per
than 60 per cent of the 2010/11 median net
equivalised household income adjusted for
prices, before housing costs.
cent
2020-21
453
by
Low
income
and
material
deprivation: Less than 5 13 per cent
2012-2013
proportion of children living in households per
who experience material deprivation and live in
households where income is less than 70 per
cent of median net equivalised household
cent
by
2020-21
income before housing costs for the financial
year.
Persistent poverty: proportion of children living Less than 7 12 per cent
2005-2008
in households where income is less than 60 per per cent by
cent of median net equivalised household 2020-21
income before housing costs for the financial
year in at least three of the previous four years.
Source: National Reform Programme (2014), additional information from the Member State
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 NATIONAL TARGET FOR THE REDUCTION OF
POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) AROPE - at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate; AROP - at-risk-of-poverty rate; (quasi-)jobless HHs - share of population
living in (quasi-)jobless households, i.e. very low work intensity (VLWI) households; SMD - severe material deprivation rate; ii) For the at-
454
risk-of poverty rate (AROP), the income reference year is the year of the survey. The share of (quasi-) jobless households or the very low
work intensity rate (VLWI) refers to the reference year prior to the survey while for the severe material deprivation rate (SMD), the
reference is the current year; iii) Changes in the survey vehicle and institution in 2012 might have affected the results on
trends since 2008 and interpretation of data on the longer term trend must therefore be particularly cautious;
COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION AT RISK OF POVERTY OR SOCIAL EXCLUSION (2013)
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC),
455
EU28
UK
AROP
VLWI
SMD
AROP+VLWI
AROP+SMD
%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change Change
201220082013
2013
2012
2013
% of total pln
18.7
17.3
17.1
16.2
16.0
15.9
-0.1
-2.8
16.9
16.7
1000 persons
11335
10526
10519
10018
10028
10000
-0.3
-11.8
84877
83462
% of total pln
10.4
12.7
13.2
11.5
13.0
13.2
0.2
2.8
10.5
10.7
1000 persons
4905
5941
6201
5452
6242
6334
1.5
29.1
39644
40189
% of total pln
4.5
3.3
4.8
5.1
7.8
8.3
0.5
3.8
9.9
9.6
1000 persons
2739
2034
2972
3137
4878
5219
7.0
90.5
49673
48245
% of total pln
3.9
4.9
4.4
3.0
2.7
2.4
-0.3
-1.5
2.7
2.7
1000 persons
2356
2983
2699
1845
1714
1496
-12.7
-36.5
13552
13504
% of total pln
1.0
0.7
0.6
1.0
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.6
2.8
2.7
417
390
613
1013
1009
-0.4
70.2
14249
13558
1000 persons
593
AROP+SMD+ % of total pln
VLWI
1000 persons
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.9
1.8
-0.1
0.6
1.8
1.8
748
690
856
762
1161
1113
-4.1
48.8
9240
9250
% of total pln
0.8
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.6
2.0
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.7
1000 persons
463
333
679
581
1001
1235
23.4
166.7
3391
3685
SMD+VLWI
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)
Note: i) change 2012-2013 and 2008-2013 is calculated as difference in percentage points (pp) for % of total population
and for values in 1000 persons the change is indicated in percentage change (%). ii) There was a change in the EU-SILC
survey vehicle in the UK between 2011 and 2012, which may impact on the comparability of figures.
MACRO-ECONOMIC AND LABOUR MARKET CONTEXT
UK
Real GDP growth (y-o-y % change)
Employment growth (y-o-y % change)
Unemployment rate
Long-term unemployment rate
Social Protection expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
-0.3
0.8
5.6
1.4
24.6
2009
-4.3
-1.6
7.5
1.9
27.5
2010
1.9
0.2
7.8
2.5
27.1
2011
1.6
0.5
8.1
2.7
27.6
2012
0.7
1.1
7.9
2.8
28.4
2013
1.7
1.2
7.6
2.7
Source: Eurostat (National Accounts, LFS, ESSPROS (figures at 28 January 2015))
456
EU28
2012 2013
-0.4
0.1
-0.2 -0.3
10.5 10.8
4.7
5.1
28.3
MAIN SOCIAL INDICATORS
SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE
UK
Social protection
expenditure (in % of
GDP)
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Means-tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
Non-means tested
Total
Sickness/Health
Disability
Old age
Survivors
Family/Children
Unemployment
Housing
Social Exclusion n.e.c.
EU28
2011
2012
27.9
28.3
8.3
8.4
2.1
2.1
11.2
11.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
2008
24.6
7.8
2.0
10.9
0.1
1.7
0.6
1.2
0.2
2009
27.5
8.7
2.1
12.2
0.1
1.9
0.8
1.4
0.2
2010
27.1
8.4
2.1
12.1
0.1
2.0
0.7
1.5
0.2
2011
27.6
9.0
2.0
12.2
0.1
1.9
0.7
1.5
0.2
2012
28.4
9.3
1.9
12.7
0.1
1.9
0.7
1.6
0.2
3.7
0.0
0.8
1.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
1.2
0.1
4.2
0.1
0.9
1.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
1.4
0.1
4.2
0.1
0.8
1.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
1.5
0.1
4.1
0.1
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
1.5
0.1
4.1
0.2
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
1.6
0.1
3.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.4
20.9
7.8
1.2
9.8
0.1
1.5
0.4
23.3
8.6
1.3
11.0
0.1
1.6
0.6
23.0
8.4
1.2
11.0
0.1
1.8
0.5
23.5
8.9
1.2
11.1
0.1
1.7
0.4
24.3
9.1
1.2
11.7
0.1
1.7
0.4
24.9
8.2
1.6
10.7
1.5
1.7
1.2
25.3
8.3
1.6
11.0
1.5
1.6
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Source: Eurostat (ESSPROS)
Note: For non-means tested the aggregation Housing and Social Exclusion n.e.c is based only on Housing. The total
figures of social expenditure include all benefits excluding administrative costs. Figures as at 28 January 2015.
457
INCOME AND LIVING CONDITIONS
EU28
UK
Total
population
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Value of threshold (single HH) - in PPS
Value of threshold (2 adults + 2 children
younger than 14 years) - in PPS
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households (0-59)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate
At risk-of-poverty gap
Anchored at-risk-of-poverty rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
S80/S20
Housing cost overburden rate
Real change in gross household
disposable income (growth)
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.7
1.6
-0.1
-2.8
14 -1244
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
23.2
18.7
11126
22.0
17.3
10091
23.2
17.1
9521
22.7
16.2
9466
24.1
16.0
9868
24.8
15.9
9882
23364
4.5
21192
3.3
19995
4.8
19878
5.1
20723
7.8
20751
8.3
28
0.5
-2613
3.8
10.4
13.2
7.4
21.4
21.4
11.5
6.9
21.3
21.9
13.0
8.6
20.9
20.7
13.2
0.2
2.8
21.0
18.7
12.7
8.0
20.6
20.4
19.6
21.2
-1.3
0.5
35.3
5.6
16.3
43.1
5.3
16.3
44.8
5.4
16.5
46.9
5.3
16.4
46.1
5.0
7.3
47.2
4.6
7.9
-0.7
2.3
0.9
-1.9
1.6
-0.2
458
2012
2013
24.8
16.9
24.5
16.7
9.9
9.6
10.7
-1.4
2.5
10.5
10.2
23.5
18.2
1.05
-0.4
0.6
11.9
-1.0
-8.4
34.5
5.0
11.2
35.3
5.0
11.0
-1.7
0.5
-1.1
-0.3
23.8
18.3
EU28
UK
Children
(0-17)
UK
Youth
(18-24)
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
At risk-of-poverty gap
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
Overcrowding rate
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
Youth unemployment ratio (15-24)
NEET rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
1.4
3.0
0.9
-5.1
-0.2
5.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.6
24.0
6.5
27.4
20.7
4.4
29.7
20.4
7.3
26.9
18.0
7.1
31.2
18.0
12.5
32.6
18.9
12.3
13.9
19.7
16.1
19.5
17.1
16.7
14.1
19.8
16.3
15.9
16.7
16.3
0.4
0.4
39.6
10.9
51.6
12.7
54.2
13.0
57.6
12.4
57.0
10.7
57.2
13.2
0.2
2.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
25.2
18.1
8.6
24.4
19.7
4.7
28.1
20.6
7.1
28.7
20.1
8.1
32.9
23.6
13.0
31.7
21.8
13.0
10.6
8.3
9.2
15.4
17.2
12.8
6.6
11.4
17.1
18.6
13.6
5.6
11.6
17.7
19.8
10.8
9.2
12.4
18.4
19.7
14.9
11.7
12.4
18.1
12.5
13.2
7.5
12.1
17.3
10.4
459
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
2.8
-3.4
9.1
23.8
9.3
25.2
17.7
2.3
39.3
41.3
23.1
23.5
EU28
Change Change
201220082013
2013
-1.2
6.5
-1.8
3.7
0.0
4.4
-1.7
-4.2
-0.3
-0.8
-2.1
2.6
-0.8
2.9
1.9
-6.8
2012
2013
31.6
23.1
12.0
31.8
22.7
12.0
10.7
11.9
9.7
17.1
14.1
10.7
11.4
9.9
17.0
13.2
EU28
UK
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Share of people living in very low work
intensity households
Working age
In-work at-risk-of poverty rate
(18-64)
At risk-of-poverty gap
Overcrowding rate
Housing cost overburden rate
Impact of social transfers on poverty
reduction (excl. pensions)
UK
%
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Severe material deprivation rate
Elderly (65+)
Relative median income of elderly
Aggregate replacement ratio
Overcrowding rate
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.4
4.4
-0.6
0.0
0.7
4.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
19.7
14.7
4.7
19.8
14.8
3.6
21.2
14.9
5.0
21.4
14.1
5.5
23.7
15.3
8.0
24.1
14.7
8.7
9.2
8.0
22.5
6.5
15.8
11.4
6.3
22.1
7.1
16.2
11.7
6.7
23.6
7.2
16.6
10.6
7.8
22.9
7.0
16.6
11.9
8.7
22.9
7.2
8.6
12.0
8.2
22.0
8.1
9.0
0.1
-0.5
-0.9
0.9
0.4
2.8
0.2
-0.5
1.6
-6.8
38.0
44.4
45.2
48.0
44.0
46.5
2.5
8.5
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28.5
27.3
1.4
0.74
0.43
0.6
23.1
22.3
1.2
0.80
0.44
0.7
22.3
21.3
1.3
0.81
0.48
0.7
22.7
21.8
1.3
0.81
0.48
0.6
17.3
16.4
1.4
0.88
0.50
1.8
18.1
16.6
2.1
0.87
0.53
1.6
Change Change
201220082013
2013
0.8
-10.4
0.2
-10.7
0.7
0.7
-0.01
0.13
0.03
0.10
-0.2
1.0
2012
2013
25.4
16.5
10.0
25.3
16.4
10.0
10.9
9.1
25.9
18.1
11.6
11.1
8.9
25.8
18.7
11.4
35.0
36.2
EU28
2012
2013
19.4
14.6
7.5
0.91
0.54
6.8
18.3
13.8
7.0
0.93
0.56
6.8
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS),
Note: There was a change in the EU-SILC survey vehicle in the UK between 2011 and 2012, which may impact on the comparability of figures.
460
INVESTING IN CHILDREN
EU28
UK
%
Overall objective of
combating child
poverty and social
exclusion and
promoting child wellbeing
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion (0-17)
At-risk-of-poverty rate (0-17)
Severe Material Deprivation (0-17)
Share of people living in low work intensity households
(% of 0-17 population)
Persistent at-risk-of-poverty (0-17)
in-work poverty rate of people living in households with
dependent children
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households with very low work intensity
At-risk-of-poverty rate for children (0-17) living in
households at work
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 0-3 years children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 0-3 years
Childcare 1-29 hours per week (% 3 years to mandatory
school age children)
Childcare more than 30 hours per week (% 3 years to
mandatory school age children)
Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap (0-17)
Part time due to care responsibilities (total)
Part time due to care responsibilities (male)
Part time due to care responsibilities (female)
Impact of social transfers (excl. pensions) in reducing
child poverty
Housing cost overburden rate (0-17)
NEET rate (15-19)
Early leavers from education and training (18-24)
Self reported unmet need for medical care (16-24)
Infant mortality
Severe housing deprivation (0-17)
Overcrowding rate (0-17)
Access to adequate
resources
Access to quality
services
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
29.6
24.0
6.5
27.4
20.7
4.4
29.7
20.4
7.3
26.9
18.0
7.1
31.2
18.0
12.5
32.6
18.9
12.3
Change
20122013
1.4
0.9
-0.2
Change
20082013
3
-5.1
5.8
13.9
16.1
17.1
14.1
16.3
16.7
0.4
2.8
10.9
7.6
7.6
6.8
10.2
7.9
8.5
9.0
9.8
10.6
0.8
0.4
11.0
10.6
71.7
64.4
56.4
53.1
41.8
38.7
-3.1
-33
67.5
64.9
16.2
12.2
12.7
12.1
13.2
14.8
1.6
-1.4
15.9
15.6
31.0
4.0
31.0
4.0
31.0
4.0
30.0
5.0
24.0
3.0
14.0
14.0
67.0
70.0
67.0
66.0
63.0
37.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
27.0
9.0
46.0
19.7
19.5
16.7
19.8
33.5
5.8
41.9
15.9
33.8
6.2
42.2
16.3
32.7
6.5
40.6
0.4
-1.1
0.3
-1.6
-3.4
2012
2013
28.1
20.7
11.8
27.6
20.3
11.0
9.1
9.3
12.8
23.8
22.7
25.2
22.1
28.4
27.6
39.6
51.6
54.2
57.6
57.0
57.2
0.2
17.69
39.3
41.3
17.4
7.9
17.0
0.7
3663
3.9
10.9
17.0
8.2
15.7
1.2
3563
5.1
12.7
16.8
8.5
14.9
0.4
3416
4.7
13.0
16.1
8.5
15.0
1.6
3386
4.5
12.4
6.3
7.8
13.6
1.4
3347
3.4
10.7
7.8
7.3
12.4
1.5
-0.5
-1.2
-9.6
-0.6
-4.6
10.5
6.7
12.0
4.6
13.2
1.2
2.5
0.7
2.3
10.8
6.9
12.7
1.4
19983
7.6
23.1
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, LFS, Mortality data)
Note: There was a change in the EU-SILC survey vehicle in the UK between 2011 and 2012, which may impact on the comparability of figures.
461
7.6
23.5
LONG-TERM ADEQUACY OF PENSIONS: THEORETICAL REPLACEMENT RATES (2010-2050)
Theoretical replacement rates
(TRR):
40 years career: average income
earner (basecase)
Net 2010
Net 2050
Difference
77,2
75,1
-2,1
Low income
87,1
89,9
2,8
High income
54,1
50,4
-3,7
Lower / higher future rates of
return
Lower / higher future wage
growth
38 years career: average income
Low / high income
42 years career: average income
Low / high income
10 years after retirement
Female worker with 3 years of
career break for childcare
3 years of career break for
unemployment
10 years out of the labour market
Benefit ratio (Public pensions)
Gross replacement rate at
retirement (Public pensions)
Gross2010
Gross2050 Difference
64,6
62,6
(62/0/38)* (59/0/41)*
73,9
76,3
(66/0/34)* (66/0/34)*
43,4
40,4
(57/0/43)* (52/0/48)*
71,2 / 79,9
58,8 / 67,1
81,9 / 70
69,1 / 57,7
-2,0
2,4
-3,0
70,9
72,7
1,8
58,8
60,3
1,5
78 / 51
87,3 / 48,7
9,3 / -2,3
65,9 / 40,7
73,7 / 38,8
7,8 / -1,9
80,3
77,6
-2,7
67,1
64,9
-2,2
90,5 / 56,1
92,6 / 52,2
2,1 / -3,9
77,2 / 45,1
79 / 42
1,8 / -3,1
72,1
68,8
-3,3
58,2
55,5
-2,7
71,5
76,2
4,7
59,7
63,6
3,9
76,6
76,8
0,2
64,0
64,2
0,2
63,4
63,6
0,2
51,5
51,6
0,1
2010
2050
Difference
EU27 2010
:
:
:
44,7
37,0
-7,7
5,1
5,3
0,2
48,0
39,1
-8,9
EU27 2050 Difference
Note: *: Share of statutory DB-NDC / statutory funded / occupational and other supplementary pensions
Source: Joint SPC/EC report on Pension Adequacy in the European Union (2010-2050)
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
UK
Healthy life years at birth (years) - male
Healthy life years at birth (years) - female
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - male
Healthy life years at 65 (years) - female
Life expectancy at birth (years) - male
Life expectancy at birth (years) - female
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - male
Life expectancy at 65 (years) - female
Self reported unmet need for medical examination or treatment
Self-perceived health (%)
Total health care expenditure per capita (PPS)
Total health care expenditure (% of GDP)
2008
65
66.3
10.7
11.8
77.8
81.9
17.7
20.3
1
79.2
2009
65
66.1
10.9
11.4
78.3
82.5
18.1
20.8
1.2
78.3
2010
65
65.6
10.9
11.8
78.7
82.6
18.3
20.9
1
79.4
Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC, Mortality data, SHA)
462
2011
65.2
65.2
11
11.9
79
83
18.5
21.1
1.2
77.5
2012
64.6
64.5
10.5
10.5
79.1
82.8
18.5
20.9
1.4
74.7
EU28
2011 2012
61.7 61.5
62.2 62.1
8.6 8.5
8.6 8.5
77.4 77.5
83.2 83.1
17.8 17.7
21.3 21.1
3.4 3.4
67.9 68.2
TRENDS IN TAKE-UP OF SELECTED BENEFITS180
180
These data have been collected by the SPC in the context of monitoring the social impact of the crisis. It includes only
a selection of benefits which have been considered most reactive to the crisis. The number of unemployed (standard
definition by the ILO) and the number of persons with overdue debt repayments are given as a background.
463
Number of Unemployed (ILO)
definition
Total number of people actively seeking work who cannot find work, seasonally adjusted (thousands)
unit
thousands of claimants
source
Eurostat
link
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/data/database
Click the link directly above. In the drop down menus select "Employment and unemployment (Labour Force
Survey)", then "LFS main indicators", then Unemployment - LFS adjusted series" and then "Unemployment by sex
and age groups - monthly average, 1000 persons". You will need to update the TIME variable to ensure that the
data explorer contains the relevant years. To do this click the + symbol next to the variable TIME, then add the
relevant years, and then select update.
Finding the data
Comment
Jobseeker's Allowance
definition
Total number of 16-64 year olds in Great Britain claiming jobseeker's allowance (thousands)
unit
thousands of claimants
source
NOMIS
link
http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/gor/2092957698/subreports/gor_ccadr_time_series/report.aspx?
Click the link directly above. Then under "monthly time-series" select "Aged 16-64 (total)- monthly". Then copy
figures under "Great Britain"
Universal Credit is a new benefit that was introduced in April 2013. Once income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
ends, many people who would have claimed this benefit will claim Universal Credit instead. Those people
claiming Universal Credit who would previously have claimed Jobseeker's Allowance are not captured in these
figures. The number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance is derived from computerised records and
excludes clerical claims. These clerical claims make up less than one percent of the total number of people
claiming Jobseeker's Allowance.
Finding the data
Comment
Income Support Claimants
definition
Total number of individuals in Great Britain receiving income support (thousands)
unit
thousands of claimants
source
DWP: WPLS
link
http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/100pc/
Click the link directly above. Under "Benefit/Scheme" select "Income Support". Then under "Analysis" select
"Caseload (thousands)"; under "Row" select "Time series"; under "column" you can select any of the options in
the drop down menu; under "subset" select "NONE". Then click "Get Table >>" and copy the figures in the
column marked "Total".
Finding the data
Comment
Since October 2008 Employment and Support Allowance has been replacing Incapacity Benefit, Income Support
awarded on the grounds of incapacity and Severe Disablement Allowance. This is one reason why there has
been a marked fall in the number of Income Support claimants. Many claimants who would have previously
been in receipt of Income Support have claimed or been moved over to Employment and Support Allowance,
which is not captured in these figures. Universal Credit is a new benefit that was introduced in April 2013
Once Income Support ends, many people who would have claimed this benefit will claim Universal Credit
instead. Those people claiming Universal Credit who would previously have claimed Income Support are not
captured in these figures - although the number of claimants affected by this is very small.
definition
Incapacity
and either
Invalidity
benefit benefit or severe disablement
Total number of individuals in Great Britain
receiving
incapacity
allowance (thousands).
unit
thousands of claimants
source
DWP: WPLS
link
http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/100pc/
Click the link directly above. Under "Benefit/Scheme" select "Incapacity Benefit/ Severe Disablement Allowance combined information". Then under "Analysis" select "Caseload (thousands)"; under "Row" select "Time
series"; under "column" you can select any of the options in the drop down menu; under "subset" select
"NONE". Then click "Get Table >>" and copy the figures in the column marked "Total".
Finding the data
Comment
Since October 2008 Employment and Support Allowance has been replacing Incapacity Benefit, Income Support
awarded on the grounds of incapacity and Severe Disablement Allowance. This is one reason why there has
been a marked fall in the number of claimants receiving Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance.
Many claimants who would previously been in receipt of one of these benefits have claimed, or been moved
over to Employment and Support Allowance, which is not captured in these figures.
464
Employment and Support Allowance
definition
Total number of individuals in Great Britain receiving Employment and Support Allowance (thousands).
unit
thousands of claimants
source
DWP: WPLS
link
http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/100pc/
Click the link directly above. Under "Employment and Support Allowance". Then under "Analysis" select
"Caseload (thousands)"; under "Row" select "Time series"; under "column" you can select any of the options in
the drop down menu; under "subset" select "NONE". Then click "Get Table >>" and copy the figures in the
column marked "Total".
Employment and Support Allowance was introduced in October 2008. Since that time Employment and Support
Allowance has gradually been replacing Incapacity Benefit, Income Support awarded on the grounds of
incapacity and Severe Disablement Allowance. Initially only new claimants were placed on Employment &
Support Allowance, but now the majority of claimants already in receipt of Incapacity Benefit, Income Support
awarded on the grounds of incapacity and Severe Disablement Allowance have been migrated to the newer
benefit. Universal Credit is a new benefit that was introduced in April 2013. Once income-related Employment
and Support Allowance ends, many people who would have claimed this benefit will claim Universal Credit
instead. Those people claiming Universal Credit who would previously have claimed income related
Employment and Support Allowance are not captured in these figures - although the number of claimants
potentially affected by this is very small.
Finding the data
Comment
Disability Living Allowance
definition
unit
source
link
Finding the data
Comment
Total number of Working Age adults in Great Britain receiving Disability Living Allowance (thousands). These
figures refer to working age adults receivimng DLA rather than to working age adults entitled to DLA.
thousands of claimants
DWP: WPLS
http://tabulation-tool.dwp.gov.uk/100pc/
Click the link directly above. Under "Benefit/Scheme" select "Disability Living Allowance - cases in payment".
Then under "Analysis" select "Caseload (thousands)"; under "Row" select "Time series"; under "column" you
can select any of the options in the drop down menu; under "subset" select "Working Age/Pension Age split";
then under the next dropdown menu called "subset" select "Working Age". Then click "Get Table >>" and copy
the figures in the column marked "Total".
From April 2013, a new benefit called Personal Independence Payment was introduced to replace Disability
Living Allowance for eligible working age people aged 16-64, which is not captured in these figures.
465
SUMMARY TABLE OF MAIN SOCIAL TRENDS
(*) When no values for 2013 changes are between 2011-2012 and 2008-2012
466
8. References
Eurofound (2014a), Social situation of young people in Europe, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg.
Eurofound (2014b), Access to healthcare in times of crisis, Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2010), ―Youth and segmentation in EU labour markets‖, in: Employment in
Europe, Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
European Commission (2012a). Employment and Social Developments in Europe in 2012
European Commission( 2012b). Employment and Social Quarterly Review, September 2012
European Commission (2013a). Recommendation on Investing in Children
European Commission (2013b). Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review, September
2013.
European Commission (2013c). Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2013.
European Commission (2014). "European Economic Forecast Autumns 2014. " European Economy
7/2014. http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2014/pdf/ee7_en.pdf
Social Protection Committee (2011). Tackling and preventing child poverty, promoting child being.
Social Protection Committee (2012). Social Europe: Current challenges and the way forward.
Social Protection Committee (2013). Social Europe: Many ways, one objective.
Ward, T., Calers, H., Matsaganis, M. (2006), ―Is it too difficult for young adults to become
autonomous?‖, Research Note, Applica
467
9. Definitions and data sources
Indicator
Definition
Data source
At risk of poverty or social
The sum of persons who are: at-risk-of-poverty or severely
Eurostat
exclusion rate
materially deprived or living in quasi jobless households
SILC
–
EU
–
EU
–
EU
–
EU
–
EU
–
EU
(i.e.with very low work intensity) as a share of the total
population
At-risk-of-poverty rate
Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable
Eurostat
income below 60% of the national equivalised median
SILC
income. Equivalised median income is defined as the
household's
total
disposable
income
divided
by
its
"equivalent size", to take account of the size and composition
of the household, and is attributed to each household
member. Equivalisation is made on the basis of the OECD
modified scale.
Severe
material
deprivation rate
Share of population living in households lacking at least 4
items out of the following 9 items: i) to pay rent or utility bills,
ii) keep home adequately warm, iii) face unexpected
Eurostat
SILC
expenses, iv) eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every
second day, v) a week holiday away from home, or could not
afford (even if wanted to) vi) a car, vii) a washing machine,
viii) a colour TV, or ix) a telephone.
Share of population(0-59)
in (quasi-) jobless, i.e. very
low work intensity (VLWI),
People aged 0-59, living in households, where working-age
adults (18-59) work less than 20% of their total work potential
during the past year.
Eurostat
SILC
households
Relative poverty risk gap
Difference between the median equivalised income of
Eurostat
rate
persons aged 0+ below the at-risk-of poverty threshold and
SILC
the threshold itself, expressed as a percentage of the at-riskof poverty threshold.
Persistent
poverty rate
at-risk-of-
Share of persons aged 0+ with an equivalised disposable
Eurostat
income below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in the current
SILC
year and in at least two of the preceding three years.
468
Income
quintile
ratio
S80/S20
The ratio of total income received by the 20% of the
Eurostat
country's population with the highest income (top quintile) to
SILC
–
EU
–
EU
–
EU
–
EU
–
EU
that received by the 20% of the country's population with the
lowest income (lowest quintile). Income must be understood
as equivalised disposable income.
At risk of poverty or social
The sum of children (0-17) who are: at-risk-of-poverty or
Eurostat
exclusion rate of children
severely materially deprived or living in (quasi-)jobless
SILC
households (i.e. households with very low work intensity
(below 20%) as a share of the total population
Impact of social transfers
Reduction in the at-risk-of-poverty rate in % due to social
Eurostat
(excluding pensions) on
transfers, calculated as the percentage difference between
SILC
poverty reduction
the at-risk-of-poverty rate before and after social transfers
At-risk-of-poverty rate for
Share of persons aged (0-59) with an equivalised disposable
Eurostat
the population living in
income below 60% of the national
SILC
(quasi-)jobless (i.e. very
income who live in households where working-age adults
low
(18-59) work less than 20%
work
intensity)
households
equivalised median
of their total work potential
during the past year.
In-work at-risk-of-poverty
rate
Individuals (18-64) who are classified as employed according
to their most frequent activity status and are at risk of
poverty. The distinction is made between ―wage and salary
Eurostat
SILC
employment plus self-employment‖ and ―wage and salary
employment‖ only.
Long-term
Total long-term unemployed population (≥12 months'
unemployment
rate
(active population, 15+)
Youth
ratio
unemployment
Eurostat – LFS
unemployment; ILO definition) as a proportion of total active
population.
Total unemployed young people (ILO definition), 15-24
years, as a share of total population in the same age group
Eurostat - LFS
(i.e. persons aged 15-24 who were without work during the
reference week, were currently available for work and were
either actively seeking work in the past four weeks or had
already found a job to start within the next three months as a
percentage of the total population in the same age group).
Share of persons aged 18 to 24 who have only lower
secondary education (their highest level of education or
Early
leavers
from
education and training
training attained is 0, 1 or 2 according to the 1997
International Standard Classification of Education – ISCED 97)
and have not received education or training in the four
weeks preceding the survey.
469
Eurostat – LFS
NEET (18-24)
Share of young people aged 18-24 not in employment,
Eurostat - LFS
education or training
Employment rate of older
Persons in employment in age group 55-64, as a proportion
workers
of total population in the same age group.
At risk of poverty or social
exclusion rate of the
elderly
The sum of elderly (65+) who are: at-risk-of-poverty or
severely materially deprived or living in (quasi-)jobless
households (i.e. with very low work intensity) as a share of the
total population in the same age group.
Median relative income
ratio of elderly people
Median equivalised disposable income of people aged 65+
as a ratio of income of people aged 0-64.
Aggregate
ratio
replacement
Housing cost overburden
rate
Share of the population
with self-reported unmet
need for medical care
Healthy life years at 65
Change in real gross
household
disposable
income (GHDI)
GDP growth/ GDP per
capita (in PPS)
Eurostat – LFS
Eurostat
SILC
–
EU
Eurostat
SILC
–
EU
Median individual pension income of 65-74 relative to
median individual earnings of 50-59, excluding other social
181
benefits
Eurostat
SILC
–
EU
Percentage of the population living in a household where
total housing costs (net of housing allowances) represent
more than 40% of the total disposable household income
(net of housing allowances).
Total self-reported unmet need for medical examination for
Eurostat
SILC
–
EU
Eurostat
SILC
–
EU
the following three reasons: financial barriers + waiting times
+ too far to travel.
Number of years that a person at 65 is still expected to live in
a healthy condition. To be interpreted jointly with life
expectancy (included in the SPPM contextual information).
Eurostat
Real growth in gross household disposable income (GHDI).
Eurostat
National
accounts
Real GDHI is calculated as nominal GDHI divided by the
deflator of household final consumption expenditure.
Gross domestic product (GDP) is a measure of the economic
activity, defined as the value of all goods and services
produced less the value of any goods or services used in
their creation.
-
Eurostat
The calculation of the annual growth rate of GDP at constant
prices is intended to allow comparisons of the dynamics of
economic development both over time and between
economies of different sizes, irrespective of price levels.
181
Pension income covers pensions from basic (first pillar) schemes, means-tested welfare schemes; early retirement
widow's (first pillar) and other old age-related schemes. Other social benefits includes: unemployment-related benefits;
family-related benefits; benefits relating to sickness or invalidity; education-related allowances; any other personal social
benefits. Work income includes income from wage and salary employment and income from self-employment.
470
Public debt
General government
percentage of GDP.
consolidated
gross
debt
as
a
Eurostat
General
Government data
Employment rate
Persons in employment in age group 15 to 64 as a
proportion of total population in the same age group.
Eurostat-LFS
Unemployment rate
Unemployed population as a proportion of total active
population aged 15 years or more.
Eurostat-LFS
The annual percentage of gross domestic product spent on
social protection.
Eurostat
Esspros
Social
protection
expenditure (by types of
risk)
Old age dependency ratio
-
Social protection encompasses ―all interventions from public
or private bodies intended to relieve households and
individuals of the burden of a defined set of risks or needs,
provided that there is neither a simultaneous reciprocal nor
an individual arrangement involved‖.
Ratio between the total number of people aged 65 and over
and the number of persons of working age (aged 15 to 64).
Eurostat
Definition of the in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate
Individuals who are classified as employed, defined here as being in work for over half of the year
and who are at risk of poverty, i.e. live with an equivalised disposable income after social transfers
below 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income.
In defining in-work (monetary) poverty, the income for people who are employed is calculated for
households, but the poverty status is assigned to the individual. This means that in-work poverty,
when measured, is influenced by both the total disposable income (including non-wage income)
and the household composition. The assumption of equal sharing of resources within households
(giving the so-called equivalised income) that underlies the definition of monetary income poverty
means that the economic well-being of individuals depends on the total resources contributed by
all members of the households. In this respect some income can move from one household
member to the other without affecting the actual income of the individual. Hence, measuring
attachment to the labour market at the level of households provides a better indicator of the
welfare implications associated with labour market status than individual employment rates.
Income/disposable income
Household income comes from different sources. Employment is generally the main source of
income but it is not the only one. Individuals may receive transfers from the state (e.g.
unemployment benefits, pensions, etc.); property income (e.g. dividends from financial assets, etc.);
and income from other sources (e.g. rental income from property or from the sale of property or
goods, etc.).
471
Employed
In EU SILC, people are defined as employed based on the self-declared economic status.
Working full year/less than full year
Working full year corresponds to working during the total number of months for which
information on the activity status has been provided. Less than full year corresponds to working for
more than half, but less than all, the numbers of the months for which information on activity
status is provided.
Full-time/part-time working
This variable refers to the main job with the designation of full-time and part-time work as selfreported by the respondent.
472
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
• Free publications:
• one copy:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps:
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_
en.htm);
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
KE-BG-14-001-EN-N
The report delivers on the core task of the Social Protection Committee (SPC) to monitor the social situation
in the Member States and the European Union. It is prepared by the Secretariat of the Committee and its
Indicators’ Sub-group. The report provides an analysis of recent trends in the social situation in the Member
States and the European Union and shows that there has been little improvement in the overall situation in
the EU, although trends are more mixed than in preceding years. Continuing disparities occur across Member
States and the situation is worsening in several. The report focuses on the results from the latest edition of
the Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM), which is based on a set of key indicators for monitoring
developments in the social situation.
SPC website
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=758&langId=en
You can download our publications or subscribe for free at
http://ec.europa.eu/social/publications
If you would like to receive regular updates about the Directorate-General for Employment,
Social Affairs and Inclusion sign up to receive the free Social Europe e-newsletter at
http://ec.europa.eu/social/e-newsletter
https://www.facebook.com/socialeurope
https://twitter.com/EU_Social