COMBATIENDO LA POBREZA Y LA EXCLUSIÓN SOCIAL: UN RETRATO ESTADÍSTICO EN LA UE 2010

8/14/2019 COMBATIENDO LA POBREZA Y LA EXCLUSIN SOCIAL: UN RETRATO ESTADSTICO EN LA UE 2010

1/120

Statistical books

Combating poverty and social exclusion

2010 edition

A statistical portrait of the European Union 2010

ISSN 1830-7906


2/120


3/120

Statistical bks

Cmbating pvety an scial exclusin

2010 eitin

A statistical ptait the Eupean Unin 2010

ISSN 1830-7906


4/120

Europe Direct is a service to help you fnd answersto your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbersor these calls may be billed.

More inormation on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be ound at the end o this publication.

ISBN 978-92-79-13443-2

European Union, 2010

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Printed on white chlorine-ree paper

European Commission

Luxembourg: Publications Ofce o the European Union

Foreword photo: Statistiches Bundesamt (Destatis)

All other photos were submitted or a charity photography competition organised in June 2009

by European Commission trainees, with the ollowing copyrights: cover: Jakub Kodym; Chapter 1:

Michele Rinaldi; Chapter 2: Kevin Jackson; Chapter 3: Gerhard Stees; Chapter 4: KatalinMolnar; Chapter 5: Laura Marinangeli


5/120

1Combating poverty and social exclusion: a statistical portrait of the European Union 2010

ForEword

It has become a tradition or Eurostat to draw on a wide arrayo data to publish a statistical portrait o the European Union

and through this contribute to the European Year initiative.Te year 2010 has been designated the European Year orCombating Poverty and Social Exclusion designed to promotean inclusive Europe, which is considered a key element orsustained economic growth, more and better jobs, and greatersocial cohesion. Te Lisbon European Council o March 2000launched the development o a set o indicators which can beused to measure progress in relation to poverty and socialexclusion throughout the European Union, by looking at their

evolution in relation to a set o benchmarks. Tis publicationprovides these indicators together with a range o otherstatistics which highlight various aspects o poverty and socialexclusion. Data are supplied or the 27 Member States o theEuropean Union, as well as or the candidate and EFA countries.

I would like to acknowledge the important role played by the Directorate-General orEmployment, Social Aairs and Equal Opportunities in providing their expertise andeditorial support. Te inormation presented only oers an idea o the comprehensive rangeo European statistics available in this domain. I would thereore hope that readers arestimulated to consider not only the issues raised, but also to consult additional data andpublications all o which are reely available on our website.

Walter RadermacherDirector-General, Eurostat


6/120

2 Combating poverty and social exclusion: a statistical portrait of the European Union 2010

Combating poverty and soCial exClusion:

a statistiCal portrait of the european union 2010

Eitial team:

eresa Bento, Isabelle Engsted-Maquet(Directorate-General Employment, SocialAairs and Equal Opportunities), DianaIvan, Maria-Liviana Mattonetti, JukkaPiirto, Ulrich Wieland, Pascal Wol

Tis publication has been produced thanksto the assistance and support o manyEurostat sta members, including: LucianAgaei, Elodie Cayotte, Luis del Barrio,Didier Dupr, Sabine Gagel, Anne Herm,Dorota Kawiorska, Sylvain Jouhette,Piotr Juchno, Monica Marcu, Lene Mejer,Baudouin Quennery, Fernando Reis,Anna Rybkowska, Heidi Seybert, Paolourchetti, Katya Vasileva

Equally, it would not have been possible toproduce the publication without editorialassistance rom Directorate-GeneralEmployment, Social Aairs and EqualOpportunities, and in particular: AntoniaCarparelli, Elodie Fazi, Christine Kotarakos,Katarina Lindahl

Puctin:INFORMA srl ([email protected]):Giovanni Albertone, Simon Allen, GemmaAsero, Edward Cook, Andrew Redpath

data cveage, symbls an iect links

t the atabase:

Te data presented within this publicationwas extracted rom 10 to 15 July 2009.

An italic ont has been used in statisticaltables to denote any data that may change inthe uture (estimates, provisional data andorecasts).

A data code has been inserted under eachtable and graph as part o the source this can be used to obtain direct access tothe most recent data on Eurostats websiteat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database

F me inmatin:

Eurostat, the statistical oceo the European Union,5, rue Alphonse Weicker2721 Luxembourghttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostatE-mail: [email protected]

All statements on policies within this

publication are given or inormationpurposes only. Tey do not constitute anocial policy position o the EuropeanCommission and are not legally binding.o know more about such policies, pleaseconsult the European Commissions websiteat: http://ec.europa.eu/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database


7/120


TABLE oF CoNTENTS

1. Poverty and social exclusion: an introduction 5

1.1 Te issues 6

1.2 Te main players and the EUs policy goals 7

1.3 Te main instruments or tackling social exclusion and poverty 10

1.4 Perceptions and challenges ahead 12

2. Inequalities 15

2.1 Income inequalities 16

2.2 Consumption inequalities 19

2.3 Employment inequalities 21

2.4 Gender inequalities 25

2.5 Inequalities among minorities 29

3. Poverty 37

3.1 Persons at-risk-o-poverty 38

3.2 Child and youth poverty 443.3 In-work poverty 49

3.4 Elderly poverty 52

3.5 Poverty seen through material deprivation 55

4. Social exclusion 63

4.1 Labour market exclusion 64

4.2 Education-related exclusion 71

4.3 Health-related exclusion 76

4.4 Housing-related exclusion 84

4.5 Exclusion rom social networks and the inormation society 90

5. Social protection 95

5.1 Social protection expenditure 96

5.2 Eect o social transers on at-risk-o-poverty rates 100

5.3 Social protection receipts 103

Glossary and abbreviations 105


8/120


9/120


Each year since1983, the EuropeanParliament and theCouncil have ocused

the attention o boththe public and nation-al governments on aspecic theme. TeEuropean years des-ignated or the periodbetween 2005 and2010 have been close-

ly allied to the social agenda. Aer the European year orworkers mobility (2006), equal opportunities or all (2007),intercultural dialogue (2008), and creativity and innovation(2009), the year 2010 has been designated as the Europeanyear or combating poverty and social exclusion (1).

Te goals o the European year or combating poverty and socialexclusion cover our broad objectives and guiding principles:

- a recognition o rights or all people, but especially thosein a situation o poverty and social exclusion, to live indignity and take part in society;

(1) Decision No. 1098/2008/EC.

Pvety an scialexclusin: an intuctin


10/120

1 Poverty and social exclusion: an introduction


- a shared responsibility and participation,emphasising both collective and indi-vidual responsibilities in the ght againstpoverty and social exclusion;

- promoting cohesion, emphasising thebenets or all society o an eradicationin poverty and greater social inclusion,and;

- establishing commitment or concreteaction or the eradication o poverty andsocial exclusion at all levels o govern-ance.

Tis Eurostat (the statistical oce o theEuropean Union) publication presents anoverview o the broad range o statistics thatare available to the European Commission,national governments and individuals onthe topic o poverty and social exclusionor policy purposes and general interest.Tese statistics help establish a picture othe current situation regarding poverty andsocial exclusion in the EU and how this has

changed over time in terms o both numbers,composition and orm.

1.1 The issues

Equality is a undamental right within theEU. However, deep-rooted disadvantagesaced by certain groups o society, coupledwith ingrained attitudes and belies o

others, means that legislation alone isunlikely to achieve the goal o creatinga society which genuinely oers equalopportunities to all and is totally reerom discrimination. Despite legislation,inequalities still exist in terms o gender,race or ethnic origin, religion or belie,disability, age or sexual orientation, andsocial exclusion tends to perpetuate itsel ina cycle o deprivation rom one generation

to the next. Tese inequalities maniestthemselves across many aspects o daily

lie, such as education, the workplace,healthcare, or in terms o access to goodsand services o general interest. A rangeo indicators measuring such inequalities

are presented in Chapter 2 as a basis orexploring the issues o poverty and socialexclusion.

what is pvety?

Poverty can be dened in a number o dierentways: at an aggregated level these dierentmeasures can be categorised as either relativepoverty or absolute/extreme poverty.

At the World Summit on Social Developmentin Copenhagen in 1995 (2), absolute orextreme poverty was dened as: acondition characterised by severe deprivationo basic human needs, including ood, saedrinking water, sanitation acilities, health,shelter, education and inormation thereore, mainly depending on access to arange o services.

Te EUs social inclusion process uses arelative denition o poverty that was rstagreed by the European Council in 1975 (3):people are said to be living in poverty i theirincome and resources are so inadequate as topreclude them rom having a standard o livingconsidered acceptable in the society in whichthey live. Because o their poverty they mayexperience multiple disadvantages throughunemployment, low income, poor housing,inadequate health care and barriers to lielonglearning, culture, sport and recreation. Teyare oen excluded and marginalised rom participating in activities (economic, socialand cultural) that are the norm or otherpeople and their access to undamental rightsmay be restricted.

(2) For more inormation: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/index.html.

(3)

For more inormation: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/inal_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pd.
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/index.htmlhttp://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/index.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdfhttp://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/index.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_inclusion/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdf


11/120

1Poverty and social exclusion: an introduction


While extreme poverty aects certain groupswithin the EU, most notably the Roma in someMember States, the more widespread orm opoverty within the EU tends to be relative

poverty, both in monetary and non-monetaryterms (or example, material deprivation). Techaracteristics o relative poverty can varybetween genders, age groups, household types,etc. A range o relative poverty indicators arepresented in Chapter 3.

what is scial exclusin?

Social exclusion relates to being unable to

enjoy levels o participation that most osociety takes or granted. It is a complex,multi-dimensional, multi-layered anddynamic concept that the EUs socialinclusion process (see ootnote 3 on pre-vious page) dened as: a process wherebycertain individuals are pushed to the edgeo society and prevented rom participating ully by virtue o their poverty, or lack obasic competencies and lielong learning

opportunities, or as a result o discrimination.Tis distances them rom job, income andeducation opportunities as well as social andcommunity networks and activities. Tey havelittle access to power and decision-makingbodies and thus oen eeling powerless andunable to take control over the decisions thataect their day to day lives.

Social exclusion is multi-dimensional in

that it encompasses income poverty, un-employment, access to education, inorma-tion, childcare and health acilities, livingconditions, as well as social participation. Itis multi-layered insoar as the causes o ex-clusion can be at the national, community,household or individual level. A broad rangeo social exclusion indicators are presentedin Chapter 4.

Te EU and the national governments oMember States work closely together to

provide a coordinated response to the issueso poverty and social exclusion, some owhich are detailed later in this introduction.Te allocation o nancial resources to

help alleviate poverty and social exclusionis presented in Chapter 5, along with somemeasures o their relative success.

1.2 The main playesan the EUs plicy gals

At the Eupean Unin level

Since the ounding reaty o Rome in 1957,the EU has developed an increasinglyocused set o policies within the eld osocial cohesion. Initial policies looked at thereedom o movement or migrant workers,social security arrangements and theestablishment o the European Social Fund.In 1974, the European Council adoptedits rst programme o social action, whichlooked to improve the living and working

conditions or particularly vulnerable groupsin society. Te Single European Act, whichwas signed in February 1986, emphasised theimportance o strengthening economic andsocial cohesion in the Community, which wasrefected in new Articles 158-161 (130a-d).Te Community charter o the undamentalsocial rights o workers was adopted in 1989.Te Amsterdam reaty (1997) integrated anagreement on social policy and inserted a

chapter on employment. Te Lisbon strategy,which was set out in March 2000, aimedto make the EU the most dynamic andcompetitive knowledge-based economy in theworld capable o sustainable economic growthwith more and better jobs and greater socialcohesion, and respect or the environment by2010. In July 2008, the European Commissionadopted proposals or a renewed social

agenda (

4

), which included priority actions(4) COM(2008) 0412 nal.


12/120



or ghting discrimination and combatingpoverty and social exclusion.

Tere are a range o views among Europeangovernments concerning the structuralreorms necessary to reach the goalsoutlined above, it was thereore agreedthat a voluntary, fexible and decentralisedorm o co-operation the so-called openmethod o coordination (OMC) would beadopted.

So what is the role o the EU in the OMCramework? Te EU coordinates the actiono the Member States, who have agreed to

common objectives (or example, the activesocial inclusion o all) and to common indi-cators that can be used to monitor progressand compare best practices (encouragingeach Member State to critically examinetheir own policies, in part by highlightinghow other countries act). On the one side,thereore, the Member States translate thecommon goals into their own strategies and

regularly report on policies they have putin place. On the other, the EU analyses andassesses national strategy reports, drawingup common policy conclusions and den-ing the main challenges or social policy ineach country, that are jointly adopted by theEuropean Commission and Member States.It is important to underline, thereore, thatunder the OMC social policy remains un-der the competency o Member States.

Concerning the social inclusion strand, theEU aims to make a decisive impact on theeradication o poverty and social exclusion byensuring:

- access or all to the resources, rights andservices needed or participation in society,preventing and addressing exclusion,and ghting all orms o discriminationleading to exclusion;

- the active social inclusion o all, both by

promoting participation in the labourmarket and by ghting poverty andexclusion;

- that social inclusion policies are well co-ordinated and involve all levels o govern-ment and relevant actors, including peopleexperiencing poverty: that they are e-cient and eective and mainstreamed intoall relevant public policies, including eco-nomic, budgetary, education and trainingpolicies and structural und (notably ESF)programmes.

In addition, the EU can draw on a

Community programme (PROGRESS) tosupport mutual learning through a varietyo instruments, such as the inancingo stakeholder networks, peer reviews,or meetings with people experiencingpoverty. his has changed the basis orpolicy-making by involving a range oactors, such as NGOs, social partners,local and regional authorities and those

working with people in poverty. As such,the OMC oers a orum or developinga consensus over key priorities thatneed to be addressed in the ight againstpoverty and social exclusion. hese havebeen included within the social inclusionstrategy which aims to take action in theollowing areas:

- child poverty: a child growing up inpoverty and exclusion runs a higherrisk o becoming marginalised in turn,thus becoming entangled in a cyclethat passes rom generation to genera-tion. Child poverty and exclusion en-tails inequality o access to resourcesand opportunities, and is oen linked todiscrimination. It may restrain childrenrom achieving their ull potential, ad-versely aecting their health, inhibiting

their personal development, educationand general well-being;


13/120



- active inclusion: a process to promotethe integration o people urthest awayrom the labour market, entailing theprovision o an adequate level o income

support, as well as better access to serv-ices, with the aim o ensuring that socialprotection policies contribute to mobi-lising people who are capable o workingwhile achieving the wider objective oproviding a decent living standard andopportunities or social participation tothose who are and will remain outsidethe labour market;

- decent housing or all:homelessness andhousing deprivation are some o the mostextreme examples o poverty and socialexclusion in European society, resultingrom a wide range o actors that include alack o aordable housing, low-paid jobs,unemployment, as well as substance abuse,mental illness or domestic violence;

- inclusion o vulnerable groups: some

groups within society ace a higher risko poverty and social exclusion comparedwith the general population, including, orexample, people with disabilities, migrantsand ethnic minorities (including Roma),homeless people, ex-prisoners, drugaddicts, people with alcohol problems,isolated older people and children;

- fnancial exclusion and over-indebted-ness (5): many people in poverty cannotaccess nancial services, such as havinga bank account, being able to make banktransers, being able to save, or takingout insurance. Tey ace diculties,thereore, relating to economic and socialintegration. By way o example, having a

(5) The Economic and Social Committee denes this as coveringhouseholds that are objectively unable, on a structural andongoing basis, to pay short-term debts, taken out to meetneeds considered to be essential, rom their habitual income

provided by work, nancial investments or other usualsources, without recourse to loans to nance debts contractedpreviously.

bank account is oen a requirement oran employment contract.

Te EU is seeking to improve the eectivenesso its actions, and proposed reinorcingthe OMC or social protection and socialinclusion in July 2008 (6).

At the natinal an eginal level

Within the OMC, Member States areresponsible or transerring commonobjectives into national action plans (NAPs)or the three areas o social inclusion,pensions, and health and long-term care.Tese plans, which should cover a period othree years, are submitted to the EuropeanCommission in the orm o national reportson strategies or social protection andsocial inclusion; the latest reports coverthe period between 2008 and 2010. TeseNAPs draw on the experience o non-governmental organisations (particularlycharities working on poverty and social

inclusion), regional and local authorities, aswell as other stakeholders. In a number oMember States, NAPs are supported by andeed into regional and local plans at lowergovernmental levels, aiming to providecoordinated and integrated actions at thelevel o towns, cities and regions that arecoherent with broader national objectives.

At the intenatinal level

At the 2000 UN Millennium Summit,189 heads o state and government romaround the world signed the MillenniumDeclaration, committing them to a globalproject designed to denitively reducemany aspects o extreme poverty. EightMillennium Development Goals were set:

- eradicating poverty and hunger in theworld, with the target o halving, between

(6) COM(2008) 0418 nal.


14/120



1990 and 2015, the proportion o peoplewhose income is less than USD 1 a day;

- achieving universal primary education,with the target o ensuring that, by 2015,children everywhere, boys and girls alike,will be able to complete a ull course oprimary schooling;

- strengthening gender equality, with thetarget o eliminating gender disparityin primary and secondary education,preerably by 2005, and in all levels oeducation no later than 2015;

- reducing child mortality, with the targeto reducing by two thirds, between 1990and 2015, the under-ve mortality rate;

- improving maternal health, with thetarget o reducing by three quarters,between 1990 and 2015, the maternalmortality rate;

- combating HIV/AIDS, malaria andother diseases, with the target o halting

by 2015 and beginning the reverse o thespread o HIV/AIDS thereaer;

- ensuring environmental sustainability,with the target o integrating the princi-ples o sustainable development into coun-try policies and programmes and revers-ing the loss o environmental resources,through specic targets or biodiversity,water access and slum dwellings;

- developing a global partnership ordevelopment.

A Communication (7) rom the EuropeanCommission in April 2005 took stock othe EUs progress made towards thesespecic goals. Tis stressed that whilst theCommunity and its Member States hadalready made a substantial contribution tothe eorts o the international community,

(7) COM(2005) 132 nal.

being the largest aid donor (55 % o globaloverseas development aid), progress shouldspeed-up. Te proposals suggested thatmore economic resources were needed

(rising to 0.56 % o the EUs gross nationalincome by 2010 and 0.7 % by 2015), whilebetter-quality aid was required, alongsidethe development o non-aid policies thatprovide other orms o assistance, with aparticular ocus on Arica. Tese proposalswere translated into operational terms in aCommunication released in April 2008 (8)concerning the EU a global partner ordevelopment speeding up progress towards

the Millennium Development Goals.

1.3 The main instuments tackling scial exclusinan pvety

Social policy remains in the hands oMember States, who devoted an average oabout 27 % o their GDP in 2006 to social

protection, the main instrument o solidar-ity within Member States. Social protec-tion is a means or redistribution, helpingto provide some insurance against the -nancial implications o social risks as wellas cushioning people against poverty andsocial exclusion. All aspects o social pro-tection (including pensions and healthcareexpenditure) play a preventive role againstpoverty and social exclusion, althoughsome specic unctions such as unemploy-ment benets, housing and social assist-ance schemes are more directly targeted atalleviating poverty and social exclusion. Ananalysis o social protection expenditure ispresented in Chapter 5.

Te EU has a range o active legislation,policies, programmes and awareness raisinginitiatives to help combat poverty and social

(8) COM(2008) 177 nal.


15/120



exclusion at regional, national, Europeanand international level.

Only an overview o the package o policiesand programmes is presented here. Te keybackground policy document to combatingpoverty and social exclusion is the EuropeanCommissions so-called social policyagenda or 2006-2010 (9) and the renewedsocial agenda presented in July 2008 (10).Te communication on which this is basedidenties the priorities that should guidethe EUs action in the development o theEuropean social model and the intention to

promote social cohesion. It is in conormitywith and set against the backdrop o theLisbon programme and the sustainabledevelopment strategy that aims to meet theneeds o the present without compromisingthe ability o uture generations to meettheir own needs.

Te principal nancial instruments tosupport Member States in their ght against

poverty and social exclusion at the EU levelare the structural unds and cohesion unds,the most relevant o which is the EuropeanSocial Fund (ESF). Te ESF provides unds,among others, to programmes that increasethe adaptability o workers and enterprises,enhance access to employment and partici-pation in the labour market, reinorce socialinclusion by combating discrimination andacilitating access to the labour market or

disadvantaged people, and promote partner-ship or reorm in the elds o employmentand inclusion. In the ESF cycle between2007 and 2013, about EUR 75 billion will beallocated to the Member States.

National governments also commit resourc-es to poverty and social inclusion projects.Te level o ESF unding varies between re-gions, depending on relative wealth and on

(9) COM(2005) 33 nal.

(10) COM(2008) 412 nal.

whether it is or a convergence objective orregional competitiveness and employmentobjective. Tere is always co-nancing bythe EU and Member States, commonly on

the basis o a 50 % partnership, although EUcommitments can rise to 85 %.

Working alongside the ESF, the Communityprogramme or employment and social soli-darity PROGRESS (11) started in 2007and will run until 2013. Many Communityactivities on combating poverty and socialexclusion were brought together under thisprogramme, which has a total budget o

EUR 743 million, and is based around vesections: employment; social protection andinclusion; working conditions; diversity andcombating discrimination; and equalitybetween men and women. PROGRESS sup-ports, in particular, activities that promotemutual learning and policy transer, thatexpand the knowledge-base and statisti-cal tools, that monitor the implementationo policies and engage with stakeholders.PROGRESS targets Member States, localand regional authorities, public employ-ment services and national statistics oces.Specialised bodies, universities and researchinstitutes, as well as social partners and non-governmental organisations can participate.

Specic programmes have been establishedto ocus on particular aspects o poverty andsocial exclusion, some examples o which aregiven here. Regarding young people, as parto the Lisbon strategy, the European YouthPact was adopted in March 2005 to improvethe education, training, mobility, employ-ment and social inclusion o young people.Tis was supplemented by the adoption bythe European Parliament and Council othe Youth in Action programme (12) inNovember 2006 to support non-ormal learn-

(11) Decision No. 1672/2006/EC.

(12) Decision No. 1719/2006/EC.


16/120



ing activities or young people aged between15 and 28 years. Building on the HELIOSaction programmes o previous years, aEuropean action plan or the period 2004

to 2010 regarding equal opportunities orpeople with disabilities was established by aEuropean Commission Communication (13)o October 2003. Action programmes con-cerning the elderly have been run since1991 to strengthen solidarity between thegenerations, the latest o which is based ona Communication (14) rom the EuropeanCommission in May 2007. Regarding equal-ity between men and women, a roadmap or

the period between 2006 and 2010 was set outin a Communication (15) rom the EuropeanCommission in March 2006 with six prior-ity areas: equal economic independence orwomen and men; reconciliation o privateand proessional lie; equal representation indecision-making; eradication o all orms ogender-based violence; elimination o genderstereotypes; and promotion o gender equal-ity in external and development policies.

Raising awareness o poverty and socialexclusion is carried out at the EU andnational level. At the EU level, one o themain awareness raising instruments is theuse o European Year campaigns, which arebased on a chosen theme and announced inadvance to help prepare dierent Europeanand national campaigns. Other nationalawareness schemes have also been directlysupported by the European Commission,such as those in 2006 that were ocused onsocial inclusion and social protection, suchas mainstreaming poverty and exclusioninto national planning, making pensionsystems understandable, providing citizenswith the inormation they need to plan theirretirement, or improving accessibility and

(13) COM(2003) 650 nal.

(14) COM(2007) 244 nal.

(15) COM(2006) 92 nal.

inormation provided to citizens in relationto health and long-term care.

Although there is legislation to preventorms o discrimination on the grounds orace or ethnic origin (the Racial EqualityDirective (16)) and on the grounds o belie,disability, age or sexual orientation (theEmployment Framework Directive (17)),it is unlikely that legislation alone willcreate more tolerant societies ree romdiscrimination. Similarly, although thereis legislation on minimum wages, povertystill exists particularly in relative terms. For

these reasons, policy developments are oenbacked by policy programmes and awarenessinitiatives that play a more hands-on role inchanging perceptions and attitudes.

1.4 Peceptins an challengesahea

A special Eurobarometer survey (number

279) was conducted between February andMarch 2007 in relation to Europeans attitudestowards poverty and social exclusion. Povertywas generally seen as a widespread problemin Europe, with respondents perceiving thatone in ten people (10 %) in their area lived inextreme poverty and about one in every threepeople (29 %) in poverty, with a urther onein three people at risk o alling into poverty(31 %). Te perception o poverty in the localarea was twice as high among respondentsrom the countries that have joined the EUsince 2004 than in the ormer EU-15 MemberStates (63 % compared with 32 %). However,it should be noted that the perception opoverty within the ormer EU-15 MemberStates rose by 12 percentage points between2002 and 2007.

(16) Council Directive 2000/43/EC.

(17) Council Directive 2000/78/EC.


17/120



Overall, injustice in society was the mostrequently mentioned cause o poverty(37 %). One in ve respondents elt thatpeople lived in poverty because o laziness

and/or a lack o willpower (20 %) witha similar proportion (19 %) attributingpoverty to bad luck. A lower proportion(13 %) o Europeans perceived poverty as aninevitable part o progress.

Work-related actors were the principal expla-nations given as to why people were poor orexcluded rom society, the three main reasonsbeing long-term unemployment (35 % o

respondents giving it as one o up to threereplies), insucient pay (34 %) and insucientsocial benets or pensions (34 %). Otherkey reasons given by respondents to explaintheir perceptions o why people are poor orexcluded rom society included addictions(29 %), a lack o education (23 %), sueringrom a long-term illness or disability (22 %),or having gone through a amily break-up ora death within the amily (21 %).

Social challenges that lie ahead or the EUwere surveyed by a Flash Eurobarometer

survey (number 227) conducted in April2008. Almost hal (49 %) o those interviewedin the EU thought that lie would be worse inthe uture, with less than two in ve citizens

(38 %) anticipating a better lie in 20 years.Respondents rom the countries that havejoined the EU since 2004 were signicantlymore optimistic about an improvement in20 years than respondents rom the EU-15Member States (59 % compared with 32 %respectively). Respondents were most likelyto agree that in 20 years the gap betweenthe rich and the poor in their respectivecountries would be wider (82 %) and that

peoples working lives would be extended(80 %). A minority o respondents (37 %)thought that people would give more timeto others and to social causes within thistimerame. Men, persons aged 15-24, thehighly-educated and city dwellers tended tobe more positive about the uture outlook.Tere was a widespread ear o long-termimpoverishment as more than two hs(44 %) o all respondents agreed stronglythat uture policies should aim to reduce thegap between the rich and the poor.


18/120


19/120


Nowadays, societies cannot combat poverty and socialexclusion without analysing the inequalities within thesociety, whether they are economic in nature or social.

Economic inequality comprises the disparities in thedistribution o monetary resources (assets and income)within a population. Tis gives a picture o the dierencebetween average (mean or median) income, and what thepoorest and richest people earn. o enable comparisonsbetween households o dierent sizes and across the MemberStates, equivalised incomes that are dened as the householdstotal disposable income divided by its equivalent size (18)are widely used within this publication. Data on economicinequality becomes particularly important or estimating

relative poverty, because the distribution o economicresources may have a direct bearing on the extent and deptho poverty. Income inequalities are explored and analysedwithin Subchapter 2.1.

Such economic inequalities tend to infuence the consump-tion o goods and services by individuals and households, interms o both volumes and quality. As a result, some people

(18) A quotient is attributed to each household member (including children) on the basiso the OECD modied scale. A weight o 1.0 is given to the rst adult, 0.5 to otherpersons aged 14 or over who are living in the household and 0.3 to each child agedless than 14.

Inequalities


20/120


Inequalities2

in poverty are unable to aord basic servicessuch as heating, whereas others who are atleast ortunate enough to be able to aordsuch basics, nevertheless, need to concen-

trate a much higher proportion o their ex-penditure on essentials such as housing,heating, ood or drink, leaving little or nodisposable income or additional purchases.In contrast, people with higher incomes arelikely to consume more goods and services,and to attribute a ar higher proportion otheir expenditure to non-essentials suchas holidays, visits to restaurants, or otherleisure activities. Household consumption

expenditure inequalities are introduced andanalysed within Subchapter 2.2.

Social inequality encompasses a range oinequalities that mean that dierent groupsin society do not have equal social status.Social inequality is closely linked to socialexclusion in that it restricts people romparticipating ully and equally in society.Exclusion rom the labour market is a key

orm o exclusion, most visible in the ormo unemployment, which has a direct impacton income inequalities. However, exclusioncovers a range o issues rom gender andrace, to citizenship and health status, toname but a ew. It is a considerable challengeor ocial statistics to encompass all these varied orms o social inequality and theEuropean Commissions Eurobarometersurveys are oen used as a complementarysource. Tese aspects are introduced andanalysed in Subchapters 2.3 to 2.5.

2.1 Incme inequalities

Tere were considerable dierences inaverage equivalised disposable incomesbetween the Member States in 2007, evenwhen adjusting or dierences in price

levels between countries by using thearticial currency unit o the purchasing

power standard (PPS); mean incomes inRomania (PPS 3 526 per capita) and Bulgaria(PPS 3 871 per capita) were a little less thanone h o those in the United Kingdom,

Cyprus, Ireland, Austria, the Netherlandsand Germany, and about one ninth o thatin Luxembourg.

Within countries the distribution oincome can be measured to some degree bycomparing mean and median income levels:generally the larger the relative dierencebetween these measures (as in Portugal andLatvia) the less equitable the distribution.

Tere were also notable dierences inthe average incomes o various types ohousehold. Households comprising a singleadult with dependent children (aged up to 17years) had a median equivalised disposableincome that was 12.8 % less than that o singleperson households across the EU-27 in 2007.Households comprising two adults with onedependent child had a median equivalised

disposable income that was 13.5 % higherthan the median equivalised disposableincome o a household comprising twoadults and at least three dependent childrenand almost one third (32.8 %) higher thanthat o a household composed o a singleparent with dependent children.

Another indication o income inequalitiescan be obtained by looking at how minimumwages correspond to average earnings. Notall Member States have national legislationsetting statutory minimum wages (see theootnote below Figure 2.2) but in thoseMember States that do have such laws, theminimum monthly wage in 2008 accountedor less than one third o average monthlyearnings in industry and services inPoland, Estonia and Romania. In contrast,they represented more than 50 % o average

monthly earnings in industry and servicesin Malta and Luxembourg.


21/120


Inequalities 2

A relative assessment can be made by com-paring the income o individuals with thehighest incomes with those with the low-est incomes. Tis measure is oen used

as an indicator o social cohesion, and itshows that in 2007 the total income re-ceived by the richest 20 % o the EU-27spopulation was ve times higher than that

received by the 20 % o the population withthe lowest incomes. Tis ratio varied con-siderably across the Member States, rom alittle less than 3.5 in Slovenia and Sweden

to more than 6.0 in Bulgaria, Portugal andLatvia and a high o 7.8 in Romania. Suchincome inequalities are not conned tothe countries with relatively low GDP per

Table 2.1: Mean and median equivalised disposable incomes, 2007 (1)

Meanincme

(EUr)

Meanincme

(PPS)

Meianincme

(EUr)

Meianincme

(PPS)

Meian incmeby age (PPS)

Meian incmeby gene (PPS)

18-24 25-49 50-64 Female Male

BE 19 129 18 217 17 563 16 726 16 444 18 586 17 558 16 332 17 171

BG 1 714 3 871 1 480 3 343 3 345 3 697 3 633 3 250 3 405

CZ 6 139 10 098 5 419 8 913 9 170 9 743 9 689 8 715 9 101

DK 25 113 18 245 23 341 16 958 13 529 18 099 20 065 16 609 17 391

DE 20 208 19 787 17 707 17 338 16 633 18 727 18 861 16 947 17 777

EE 5 304 8 069 4 447 6 765 7 322 7 854 6 922 6 445 7 177

IE 26 043 20 978 22 152 17 843 18 322 20 484 18 303 17 260 18 238

EL 12 126 13 763 10 200 11 577 10 596 12 440 12 598 11 275 11 849

ES 13 613 14 753 12 005 13 011 13 493 14 264 14 095 12 684 13 375

FR 18 481 17 411 16 563 15 604 13 949 16 260 17 700 15 258 15 911

IT 17 213 16 725 15 005 14 580 13 606 15 568 16 502 14 131 15 073CY 18 500 21 100 15 984 18 230 18 931 19 384 19 732 17 962 18 555

LV 4 086 6 823 3 350 5 594 6 112 6 477 5 693 5 371 5 855

LT 3 939 7 037 3 276 5 854 6 396 6 721 6 260 5 663 6 154

LU 34 213 33 539 29 881 29 292 26 324 30 656 33 967 28 932 29 706

HU 4 374 7 369 3 936 6 631 6 362 6 843 7 240 6 576 6 682

MT 9 954 13 714 9 125 12 572 14 226 13 552 13 080 12 364 12 805

NL 20 753 20 196 18 207 17 718 17 327 18 999 19 599 17 273 18 146

AT 20 302 20 280 18 153 18 133 18 644 18 913 19 946 17 752 18 629

PL 4 149 6 756 3 502 5 704 5 294 5 956 6 187 5 646 5 760

PT 9 918 11 699 7 573 8 933 8 885 9 572 9 952 8 817 9 104

RO 1 987 3 526 1 658 2 942 2 948 3 293 3 135 2 894 2 975

SI 10 719 14 388 9 907 13 298 13 379 13 934 13 914 13 021 13 586

SK 4 376 7 592 3 971 6 888 6 909 7 456 7 566 6 699 7 089

FI 20 587 17 099 18 507 15 372 13 429 16 973 17 644 14 867 15 829

SE 19 869 17 101 18 554 15 968 13 485 16 881 20 011 15 642 16 332

UK 24 625 22 262 20 954 18 943 19 429 21 595 20 889 18 387 19 525

IS 33 716 24 062 28 709 20 489 20 437 21 188 25 013 20 197 20 760

NO 30 298 21 909 28 775 20 808 16 725 21 846 25 177 20 411 21 266

(1) The income reerence period concerns the year preceding the survey year or the majority o countries.

Source: Eurostat (ilc_di03)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di03&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di03&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di03&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di03&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di03&mode=view


22/120


Inequalities2

Figue 2.1: Median equivalised disposable incomes o various types o household, EU-27,

2007 (EUR) (1)

(1) The income reerence period concerns the year preceding the survey year.


0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000

Single person

Single person with dependent children

Two adults with one dependent child

Two adults with two dependent children

Two adults with three or more dependent children

Two adults, al least one aged 65 years and over

Three adults

Figue 2.2: Minimum monthly wage as a share o average monthly earnings in industry

and services (NACE Rev. 1.1 Sections C to K), 2008 (%) (1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

MT

LU

FR

SK

NL

SI

ES

BG

IE

PT

UK

HU

LT

CZ

LV

PL

EE

RO

US

(1) Denmark, Germany, Italy, Cyprus, Austria, Finland and Sweden have no legislation setting statutory minimum

wages. France, Poland, Romania and Slovakia, 2007; Estonia, 2006; the Netherlands, 2005; Belgium and Greece,

not available.

Source: Eurostat (earn_minw_avg)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_minw_avg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_minw_avg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_minw_avg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_minw_avg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_minw_avg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di04&mode=view


23/120


Inequalities 2

capita gures, as the distribution o in-

come was relatively equitable in Slovenia,Slovakia and the Czech Republic, while itwas relatively asymmetrical in Italy andthe United Kingdom.

2.2 Cnsumptin inequalities

Statistics on the nal consumption expen-diture o households cover expenditure ongoods and services that are used or the sat-isaction o individual needs. Te data may

be broken down (at a rst level) into 12 di-

erent headings according to the Divisionswithin the classication o individual con-sumption according to purpose (COICOP).

Progressively, households with lower levelso income tend to spend an increasingly highshare o their household budget on basicsand a correspondingly low share on non-essentials. For example, the lowest incomequintile (the 20 % o the EU-27 populationwith the least income) devoted 54.9 % otheir household expenditure to housing,

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

EU-27

ROBG

PT

LV

EL

LT

EE

IT

UK

ES

PL

DE

IECY

LU

NL

BE

FR

MT

AT

DK

HU

FI

CZ

SK

SE

SI

IS

NO

Figue 2.3: S80/S20 income quintile share ratio, 2007 (1)


http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di11&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di11&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di11&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di11&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_di11&mode=view


24/120


Inequalities2

Table 2.2: Breakdown o household consumption expenditure by income quintile and

COICOP level 2, EU-27, 2005 (%)

Source: Eurostat (hbs_str_t223)

1stquintile

2nquintile

3quintile

4thquintile

5thquintile

Food & non-alcoholic beverages 22.2 20.1 18.4 16.5 12.9

Alcoholic beverages & tobacco 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.0

Clothing & ootwear 5.0 5.1 5.5 5.8 6.1

Housing, water, electricity, gas 32.7 30.5 28.8 27.2 24.4

Furnish., household equip. & maintenance 4.0 4.7 5.0 5.4 6.7

Health 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.7

Transport 8.1 9.6 11.1 12.1 14.4

Communications 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.0

Recreation & culture 6.4 7.3 8.2 8.7 9.4

Education 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2

Restaurants & hotels 4.0 4.5 4.9 5.5 6.2

Miscellaneous goods & services 7.0 7.8 8.2 8.8 9.9

Source: Eurostat (hbs_str_t221)

Table 2.3: Breakdown o consumption expenditure by socio-economic category o the

reerence person and COICOP level 2, EU-27, 2005 (%)

Sel-employed

Inustyan sevices

Un-employed

Manualworker

Non-manualworker Retired

Food & non-alcoholic beverages 15.1 16.5 13.1 17.1 17.9

Alcoholic beverages & tobacco 2.1 2.8 2.0 2.0 3.2

Clothing & ootwear 6.1 5.9 6.5 4.2 5.3

Housing, water, electricity, gas 25.4 26.7 25.3 33.6 32.6

Furnish., household equip. & maintenance 5.7 5.3 6.0 5.7 4.1

Health 2.7 2.4 2.9 4.9 2.6

Transport 13.3 13.7 13.8 9.0 10.0

Communications 3.2 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.8

Recreation & culture 8.4 8.4 9.7 7.9 7.0

Education 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.2 1.0

Restaurants & hotels 5.9 5.4 6.3 4.1 5.0

Miscellaneous goods & services 10.4 8.5 9.7 8.4 7.4
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t223&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t223&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t223&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t223&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t221&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t221&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t221&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t221&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t221&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hbs_str_t223&mode=view


25/120


Inequalities 2

utilities, ood and non-alcoholic beverages

in 2005, whereas the top income quintile

(the 20 % o the population with the highest

incomes) used 37.3 % o their (considerably

higher) expenditure on these items. Incontrast, the top income quintile devoted

40.4 % o their expenditure to transport,

recreation, urnishings, restaurants and

hotels, compared with 25.5 % or the lowest

income quintile.

he dierences in relative consumption

patterns can also be analysed by socio-

economic category, although these may

well also re lect relationships between theaverage income levels and the categories

used. Across the EU-27, both the retired

and the unemployed spent more than

50 % o their household expenditure on

housing, utilities, ood and non-alcoholic

beverages in 2005, in contrast to 38.4 %

or non-manual workers in industry and

services. his latter group allocated a

higher proportion (than any o the othersocio-economic groups) o their household

expenditure to transport (13.8 %), recrea-

tion and culture (9.7 %), restaurants and

hotels (6.3 %), clothing and ootwear

(6.5 %) and urnishings (6.0 %).

2.3 Emplyment inequalities

Te total employment rate is calculated by

dividing the number o persons aged 15 to 64

in employment by the total population o the

same age group. Te employment rate in the

EU-27 was 65.9 % in 2008, which was below

the Lisbon target rate o 70 % set or 2010.

Employment rates were above this target in

only eight Member States (Denmark, the

Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, the United

Kingdom, Finland, Cyprus and Germany)

but below 60 % in Poland, Romania, Italy,Hungary and Malta.

Te average employment rate or women

in the EU-27 was 59.1 % in 2008, which

was relatively close to the employment

policy target rate o 60 % set or 2010

and up rom 53.6 % in 2000. However, itremained well below the employment rate

or men (72.8 %). More than hal (15) the

Member States recorded employment rates

or women in 2008 above the 60 % target;

in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands

rates exceeded 70 %.

Policy guidelines also set a target employ-

ment rate or older workers (aged between

55 and 64 years) o 50 % by 2010. Teemployment rate o older workers across

the EU-27 was 45.6 % in 2008, with the

target being exceeded in 12 o the Member

States, most notably in Estonia (62.4 %) and

Sweden (70.1 %).

Labour market disparities can be measured

on the basis o the dispersion o employment

or unemployment rates across the regions o

an individual country or in relation to thewhole o the EU; generally these disparities

tend to be wider between regions in the

same country than they are across the

national economies o the Member States.

In the period between 2001 and 2007, labour

market disparities across all European re-

gions became more uniorm; the EU-27 dis-

persion o employment and unemployment

rates declined by 2.1 and 21.4 percentage

points respectively. Te widest dispersion

o regional employment and unemployment

rates in 2007 was recorded in Italy (refect-

ing a divide between north and south), while

Belgium and Germany also recorded con-

siderable regional disparities or unemploy-

ment. Te EU seeks to promote a uniorm

level o regional development, through con-

vergence, competitiveness and employmentobjectives.


26/120


Inequalities2

Figue 2.4: Employment rates, 2008 (%)

Source: Eurostat (lsi_emp_a)

0 25 50 75 100

EU-27

SE

EE

LV

UK

DK

FI

CY

DE

IE

LT

NL

PT

CZ

BG

ES

RO

EL

AT

SK

FR

BE

IT

LU

SI

PL

HU

MT

IS

NO

CH

HR

TR

Older workers

Lisbontargeto

f

50%by2010

0 25 50 75 100

EU-27

DK

SE

NL

FI

EE

AT

UK

DE

LV

SI

CY

PT

LT

FR

IE

BG

CZ

BE

LU

ES

SK

RO

PL

HU

EL

IT

MT

IS

NO

CH

HR

TR

Women

Lisbontargeto

f

60%by2010

0 25 50 75 100

EU-27

DK

NL

SE

AT

UK

FI

CY

DE

EE

LV

SI

PT

IE

CZ

FR

ES

LT

BG

LU

BE

SK

EL

PL

RO

IT

HU

MT

IS

CH

NO

HR

TR

Total

Lisbontargeto

f

70%by2010

EU legislation (19) has since 2000 laid downdirectives in relation to equality issuesseeking to combat discrimination on thegrounds o sex, racial or ethnic origin,

religion or belie, disability, age or sexualorientation. A Special Eurobarometer survey(number 296) on discrimination in the EU

(19) Directive 2000/43/EC and Directive 2000/78/EC.

asked respondents to consider actors which

put people at a disadvantage when applying

or a job. Te most common reply (multiple

answers recorded) was that the look, dress-

sense or presentation o the candidate wouldbe a disadvantage (50 %), ollowed by their

age (45 %), skin colour/ethnic origin (42 %)

or i they had a disability (41 %).
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsi_emp_a&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsi_emp_a&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsi_emp_a&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsi_emp_a&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsi_emp_a&mode=view


27/120


28/120


Inequalities2

Table 2.5: Dispersion o regional employment and unemployment rates, by NUTS 2

regions (%, coefcient o variation) (1)

Dispersion of employment rates Dispersion of unemployment rates

2001 2003 2005 2007 2001 2003 2005 2007

EU27 1 12.9 11.9 11.1 65.5 58.7 51.1 44.1

BE 8.0 7.7 8.4 8.6 53.7 43.5 48.4 59.2

BG : 6.6 7.2 7.1 : 22.0 20.8 39.1

CZ 5.7 5.8 5.5 4.6 38.9 41.9 45.8 41.9

DK : : : : : : : :

DE 5.8 5.9 5.6 4.8 61.1 45.8 39.6 43.5

EE - - - - - - - -

IE : : : : : : : :

EL 4.3 3.2 4.3 3.5 16.5 15.9 18.3 15.2

ES 10.0 9.0 8.3 7.5 37.6 32.3 30.2 30.6FR 8.3 7.2 7.2 6.6 41.8 37.1 34.8 35.2

IT 17.1 17.0 16.0 16.3 78.3 78.0 59.9 56.7

CY - - - - - - - -

LV - - - - - - - -

LT - - - - - - - -

LU - - - - - - - -

HU 8.8 8.5 9.9 9.7 29.9 32.6 26.9 39.4

MT - - - - - - - -

NL 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.2 19.5 10.7 15.1 16.9

AT 2.6 3.0 4.1 3.8 35.8 42.3 39.6 45.0

PL 7.2 7.2 5.6 4.5 17.9 15.8 14.6 14.2

PT 3.5 3.9 3.3 3.3 29.3 29.6 22.3 20.3

RO 5.6 3.5 4.5 4.6 13.9 13.9 17.3 27.7

SI : : : : : : : :

SK 8.3 7.6 9.8 8.3 24.3 26.7 36.7 38.0

FI 7.0 6.1 5.5 5.6 29.4 22.0 21.9 25.8

SE 4.2 4.3 3.0 2.4 23.9 15.8 12.5 10.1

UK 6.8 6.1 5.7 5.4 32.7 30.5 26.4 24.8

NO 2.2 1.6 1.3 2.5 12.2 6.7 9.6 14.4

(1) Variation of employment (age group 15-64) and unemployment rates (age group 15-74) across regions

(NUTS 2 level) and within countries; the indicator is not applicable for Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania,

Luxembourg and Malta, as these countries comprise only one NUTS level 2 region.

Source: Eurostat (reg_lmder)

3.2
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=reg_lmder&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=reg_lmder&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=reg_lmder&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=reg_lmder&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=reg_lmder&mode=view


29/120


Inequalities 2

2.4 Gene inequalities

As well as setting a target to raise theemployment rate or women, the Lisbonstrategy also requires that the EU aims topromote equality between men and womenin pay, labour market segregation anddecision-making jobs. Te gender pay gapin unadjusted orm is the dierence betweenthe average gross hourly earnings o male

and emale paid employees, shown as a shareo mens earnings. Tere continued to be apay gap in 2007, equivalent to 17.5 % acrossthe EU-27 as a whole. Te gap was highestin Estonia (30.3 %) and Austria (25.5 %) andlowest in Malta (5.2 %) and Italy (4.2 %).

Among the dierent sectors o the EU-27seconomy (as dened by the statisticalclassication o economic activities in the

European Community NACE Rev. 1.1),the unadjusted pay gap was widest in

the activity o nancial intermediation(32.2 %), ollowed some way behind byhealth and social work (24.3 %) bothactivities with a high proportion o emaleworkers. Te pay gap was narrowest ortransport, storage and communications(9.9 %) and construction (5.5 %); bothactivities that have traditionally employeda predominantly male workorce.

Te proportion o women in the EU-27 thatwere sel-employed (7.6 %) in 2008 was wellbelow the corresponding proportion or men(12.5 %). Tis characteristic was refectedin the majority o Member States, butmost notably in Ireland (4.3 % or womencompared with 16.2 % or men) and Romania(12.7 % compared with 24.9 % respectively).It was not the case, however, in Luxembourgand Portugal, where the proportion o

women who were sel-employed in 2008 washigher than that or men.

Figue 2.5: Views on employment discrimination when a company decides between two

candidates with equal skills and qualications, EU-27, February-March 2008

(% o respondents)

Source: Special Eurobarometer 296

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Look, dress sense or presentation

Age

Skin colour or ethnic origin

Disability

General physical appearance

Way of speaking/accent

Expression of a religious belief

Gender

The candidate's sexual orientation

Smoker/non-smoker

Candidate's name

Candidate's address

None of these

Others

Don't know
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdf


30/120


Inequalities2

In terms o an equal gender representation

in decision-making jobs, women accounted

or almost hal (48.9 %) o all proessionals

(ISCO major group 2) across the EU-27

in 2008, with large majorities (about two

thirds o all proessionals) in the Baltic

Member States, Bulgaria and Poland. In

contrast, only about one in every three

(33.2 %) legislators, senior ocials and

managers (ISCO major group 1) across the

EU-27 were women in 2008, this proportion

alling to about one in every six in Malta

and Cyprus.

At arguably the highest orm o decision-making, women represented about onein every our (24 %) members o nationalparliaments in 2008. Te share o womenincreased in almost all Member Statesin the period between 1997 and 2008,but particularly sharply in Belgium andPortugal. Sweden reported the highestproportion o women (48 %) as members oits national parliament in 2008.

Whilst there have been concerted eortsto get more women into work and into

infuential, decision-making jobs, many

Figue 2.6: Gender pay gap in unadjusted orm, 2007 (diference between men and

womens average gross hourly earnings as a percentage o mens average gross hourly

earnings) (1)

(1) EU-27, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Italy and Malta, provisional.

Source: Eurostat (tsiem040)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

EU-27

EE

AT

CZ

NL

SK

CY

DE

UK

EL

LT

FISE

DK

ES

IE

FR

HU

LV

RO

BG

LU

BE

PT

SI

PL

MT

IT
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=tsiem040&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=tsiem040&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=tsiem040&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=tsiem040&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=tsiem040&mode=view


31/120


Inequalities 2

women are held back rom working ull-time by the work that they carry out raising

children, looking aer other persons, orhousework; this was the single largest reason(36.0 %) or women working less than 30 hoursper week in 2007, in contrast to the proportion

(5.0 %) o men or whom this was the reasonthat they worked less than 30 hours per week.

As such, there is policy interest in providingmore accessible and aordable childcare andhome help, as well as promoting more fexibleworking arrangements.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Financial intermediation

Real estate, renting & business activities

Wholesale & retail trade

Manufacturing

Industry & services

Mining & quarrying

Hotels & restaurants

Electricity, gas & water supply

Transport, storage & communication

Construction

Health & social work

Other service activities

Education

Figue 2.7: Gender pay gap in unadjusted orm, by NACE Rev. 1.1 Section, 2007 (%) (1)

(1) Provisional.

Source: Eurostat (earn_gr_gpg)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_gr_gpg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_gr_gpg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_gr_gpg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_gr_gpg&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=earn_gr_gpg&mode=view


32/120


Inequalities2

Figue 2.8: Proportion o women in national parliaments, single/lower house (% o total)

(1) This is the average o women in EU national parliaments; 1997, not available.

Source: Inter-Parliamentary Union (http://www.ipu.org ) or 1997 and Directorate- General Employment, Social Aairs and EqualOpportunities or 2008

0 10 20 30 40 50

EU-27 (1)

SE

NL

FI

BE

DK

ES

DE

PT

AT

LU

EE

BG

IT

PL

LV

SK

UK

CZ

FR

LT

ELCY

SI

IE

HU

RO

MT

IS

NO

MKLI

HR

TR

1997

2008


33/120


Inequalities 2

2.5 Inequalities amngminities

Historically, many EU countries have wel-comed both skilled and unskilled migrantworkers a situation that is likely to contin-ue as the EUs population ages. As arrivals ina new country, migrants oen need time andhelp to participate ully and equally in soci-

ety. Since January 1992, EEA nationals havebeen entitled to work or look or a job in an-other EEA country with the same rights asnationals rom the host country. Across theEU-27, the employment rate o non-nation-als but citizens o other EU-27 countries was69.7 % in 2008, compared with 59.2 % orcitizens rom countries outside o the EU.

However, there are very distinct diferences

among the Member States. Te employmentrate o non-EU citizens in 2008 was relatively

similar to that o non-national EU citizens orindeed higher in the southern European coun-tries (particularly Greece, Spain and Italy) aswell as in those Member States that joinedthe EU since 2004 among those countries orwhich comparable data are available (particu-larly Hungary, but also Cyprus and the CzechRepublic). In contrast, there were considera-ble diferences between employment rates or

the two groups o non-national citizens in theother EU-15 Member States, with particularlylow employment rates or non-EU citizens inLuxembourg and Belgium.

Specically, in its Communication o 17 July2002(20), the European Commission identi-ed the reduction o the employment gap ordisadvantaged groups the percentage pointdierence between the employment rate or

(20) COM(2002) 416 nal.

Source: Eurostat (EU-SILC)

Figue 2.9: Reasons or men and women working less than 30 hours per week,

EU-27, 2007 (%)

0 10 20 30 40

Housework, looking afterchildren or other persons

Do not want to work more

Cannot find a job for more hours

Number of hours in all jobs

are considered as full-time

Personal illness or disability

Undergoing education or training

Other reasons

Women

Men


34/120


Inequalities2

disadvantaged groups, such as non-nation-

als, and that or nationals as a major issue;

the employment rate o non-nationals was,

on average, 3.3 percentage points less than

the employment rate or nationals in the

EU-27 in 2008. Tere was a considerable di-

erence in this gap in some Member States,

with a positive gap (a higher rate o employ-ment among non-nationals than nationals)

o over 10 percentage points in Slovakia,

Poland and Hungary, but a negative gap (a

lower employment rate among non-nation-

als) o over 10 percentage points in Finland,

the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and, in

particular, Denmark.

Asylum applications reer to all persons who

apply on an individual basis or asylum orsimilar protection, irrespective o whether

Figue 2.10: Employment rates o non-nationals (aged 15-64), by groups o citizenship,

2008 (%) (1)

(1) Ranked according to the average employment rate or all non-nationals; Malta and Poland, data unreliable;

Bulgaria and Ireland, not available.

(2) Slovenia and Slovakia, data unreliable; Estonia, Lat via, Lithuania and Romania, not available.

(3) Lithuania, data unreliable; Slovakia, not available.

Source: Eurostat (lsa_ergan)

0 25 50 75 100

EU-27

CZ

PT

CY

EE

EL

UK

SI

IT

HU

LU

ES

LV

NL

AT

DK

SE

FI

RO

DE

FR

BE

IS

NO

CH

Non-nationals but citizens of other EU-27 countries (2)

Citizens of countries outside the EU-27 (3)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=view


35/120


Inequalities 2

they lodge their application on arrival or rom

inside the country, and irrespective o whetherthey entered the country legally or illegally. Anasylum applicant is a person who has requestedprotection under: either Article 1 o theConvention relating to the Status o Reugeeso 28 July 1951, as amended by the New YorkProtocol o 31 January 1967; or within theremit o the United Nations convention againsttorture and other orms o cruel or inhumantreatment (UNCA); or the European

convention on human rights; or other relevantinstruments o protection.

Only a minority o asylum applicants are rec-

ognised as reugees or are granted subsidiaryprotection. On the basis o the provisionaldata available or the Member States in 2007,between six and seven out o every ten ap-plications within the EU were rejected at therst instance. Nevertheless, there were nota-ble dierences between Member States. Over85 % o decisions on asylum applications werenegative in the Czech Republic, France orIreland in 2007, while less than 35 % o asy-

lum decisions were rejections in Denmark,Malta, Poland or Sweden.

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

EU-27

SK

PL

HU

IT

CZ

EL

LU

PT

CY

EE

ES

RO

SI

MT

UK

LV

BE

AT

FR

FI

NL

SE

DE

DK

IS

NO

CH

Figue 2.11: Employment gap between non-nationals and nationals (aged 15-64), 2008

(percentage points diference between the employment rates or non-nationals and

nationals) (1)

(1) Bulgaria, Ireland and Lithuania, not available.

Source: Eurostat (lsa_ergan)
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=lfsa_ergan&mode=view


36/120


37/120


Inequalities 2

Table 2.7: Acquisitions o citizenship by region o origin, 2007

(number and % o total)

(1) 2006.

Source: Eurostat (migr_acqctz )

Ttal

Aica Ameicas Asia EU-27 othe Eupe

(% o

total)

(% o

total)

(% o

total)

(% o

total)

(% o

total)

BE 36 063 15 632 43.3 1 450 4.0 4 635 12.9 6 418 17.8 7 305 20.3

BG 5 966 6 0.1 23 0.4 246 4.1 42 0.7 5 623 94.3

CZ 2 371 59 2.5 13 0.5 143 6.0 1 262 53.2 659 27.8

DK 3 648 560 15.4 77 2.1 1 491 40.9 248 6.8 1 214 33.3

DE 113 030 10 328 9.1 3 610 3.2 26 982 23.9 16 635 14.7 53 314 47.2

EE 4 242 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.1 289 6.8

IE 4 649 721 15.5 2 240 48.2 671 14.4 283 6.1 272 5.9

EL 3 921 124 3.2 104 2.7 207 5.3 325 8.3 3 140 80.1

ES 71 936 10 316 14.3 57 523 80.0 2 208 3.1 1 137 1.6 719 1.0

FR 132 002 82 411 62.4 7 022 5.3 10 783 8.3 12 712 9.6 16 044 12.2

IT 45 485 : : : : : : : : : :

CY 2 780 178 6.4 53 1.9 126 4.5 403 14.5 113 4.1

LV 8 322 2 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.1 9 0.1 8 302 99.8

LT 371 0 0.0 1 0.3 17 4.6 2 0.5 167 45.0

LU 1 236 114 9.2 24 1.9 69 5.6 813 65.8 211 17.1

HU 8 442 42 0.5 31 0.4 192 2.3 6 398 75.8 1 777 21.0

MT 553 72 13.0 49 8.9 24 4.3 183 33.1 71 12.8

NL 30 653 8 573 28.0 2 481 8.1 4 003 13.1 2 215 7.2 5 508 18.0

AT 14 010 380 2.7 160 1.1 670 4.8 1 051 7.5 11 706 83.6PL 1 542 76 4.9 0 0.0 200 13.0 155 10.1 976 63.3

PT (1) 3 627 2 535 69.9 830 22.9 87 2.4 113 3.1 55 1.5

RO 31 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 54.8 2 6.5 9 29.0

SI 1 551 7 0.5 32 2.1 7 0.5 122 7.9 1 378 88.8

SK 1 478 25 1.7 124 8.4 86 5.8 328 22.2 906 61.3

FI 4 824 671 13.9 116 2.4 1 160 24.0 508 10.5 2 271 47.1

SE 33 629 2 752 8.2 2 269 6.7 12 929 38.4 5 937 17.7 5 978 17.8

UK 164 540 51 255 31.2 12 530 7.6 74 020 45.0 5 750 3.5 13 740 8.4

HR 13 240 62 0.5 1 031 7.8 15 0.1 1 373 10.4 10 049 75.9

MK 1 713 2 0.1 17 1.0 9 0.5 141 8.2 1 521 88.8

TR 4 807 67 1.4 64 1.3 2 023 42.1 1 905 39.6 733 15.2

IS 647 29 4.5 70 10.8 172 26.6 263 40.6 107 16.5

NO 14 877 3 488 23.4 466 3.1 6 738 45.3 934 6.3 2 813 18.9

CH 43 889 2 883 6.6 2 372 5.4 4 787 10.9 12 644 28.8 21 127 48.1
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=migr_acqctz&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=migr_acqctz&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=migr_acqctz&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=migr_acqctz&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=migr_acqctz&mode=view


38/120


Inequalities2

and/or language may help explain some othe patterns regarding the acquisitions ocitizenship across the Member States; or ex-ample, a majority o newly-acquired citizen-

ship in France in 2007 was granted to per-sons originally rom Arica (62.4 %), while ahigh proportion (45.0 %) o those acquiringBritish citizenship was bestowed upon per-sons originally rom Asia, and a high shareo new Spanish citizens (80.0 %) came romthe Americas. Member States on the easternborders o the EU tended to report a relativelyhigh share o new citizens originating romother European countries, particularly rom

Balkan countries, the Ukraine or Russia.Finally, another important group o new citi-

zens is those seeking asylum rom war and/orpolitical instability. Tis may help explain therelatively large number o Somali and Iraqicitizens who acquired the citizenship o an

EU Member State in 2006 and 2007.People with disabilities have identical rightsto the remainder o the population; they andare entitled to equal treatment, independentliving and ull participation in society.Te Lisbon strategy aims to improve thecomparatively low participation rates oEuropes disabled people.

Across the EU as a whole, almost one in

ve persons (19.7 %) in employment in 2007suered a long-standing illness or health

Figue 2.12: Prevalence o long-standing illness or health problems among persons in

employment, 2007 (%)

Source: Eurostat (hlth_silc_04)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

EU-27

FI

EE

DE

SE

SI

UK

FR

NL

LV

PT

CY

DK

HU

LU

LT

PL

SK

CZ

BE

AT

IE

ES

BG

IT

MT

EL

RO

NO

IS
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hlth_silc_04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hlth_silc_04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hlth_silc_04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hlth_silc_04&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=hlth_silc_04&mode=view


39/120


Inequalities 2

problem. Tis proportion varied markedly,rom below one in every ten persons inGreece and Romania to over one in everyour in Finland, Estonia, Germany, Swedenand Slovenia. When considering the wholepopulation (including the unemployed andinactive) o the EU-27, closer to one in everythree (30.6 %) persons had a long-standing

illness or health problem, while only arelatively small minority (7.8 %) o the EUpopulation was severely hampered in theactivities that people usually perorm.

A Special Eurobarometer survey (number296) on discrimination in the EU providessome inormation on Europeans attitudes todiversity and, in particular, to the openness osociety as regards social inclusion. Te survey

was carried out in February and March 2008,when respondents were asked about havingvarious minority groups as a neighbour. Ona scale o 1 (very uncomortable) to 10 (totallycomortable), respondents were, on average,quite comortable with having a neighbourwith a disability (9.1 out o 10), a dierent re-ligion or belie (8.5), or a neighbour who washomosexual/lesbian (7.9). Tere was also a

high level o comort about having a neigh-bour rom a dierent ethnic background(8.1), although this dropped when consider-ing the prospect o a Roma neighbour (6.0). Ingeneral, the levels o comort expressed by re-spondents were somewhat lower among thosepersons aged over 55 years (except or neigh-bours with a disability) and among those who

nished their education at 15 years old.

Te same survey asked how comortablerespondents were regarding someone rom various minority groups occupying thehighest political oce in their country. Onaverage across the EU-27, the majority orespondents were very comortable withthis position being occupied by someonewith a dierent religion or belie than the

majority o the population (9.0 out o 10), bya woman (8.9) or by a disabled person (8.0).Tere was rather more reluctance regardinga homosexual/lesbian leader (7.0) or a leaderrom a dierent ethnic origin than themajority o the population (6.4). Age was alsoan issue, especially regarding someone over75 years (5.4), but also someone under 30years (6.4).

(1) A score o 1 denotes very uncomortable, whereas a score o 10 denotes completely comortable.

Source:

Special Eurobarometer 296

Figue 2.13: Perceptions about having someone rom various categories in the highest

elected political position, EU-27, February-March 2008 (average score out o 10) (1)

0 2 4 6 8 10

From a different religion (than the majority)

A woman

A disabled person

A homosexual/lesbian

A person aged under 30

From a different ethnic origin (than the majority)

A person aged over 75
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdf


40/120


41/120


Te open method o coordination (OMC) relies upon thecapacity to analyse thoroughly both the situation o MemberStates in an international context and whether policy toolsand goals identied at a national level are appropriate

to meet commonly agreed objectives. Te politicalendorsement o indicators in this eld was made by headso state and governments at the Laeken European Council inDecember 2001. Te development o indicators is supportedby the Directorate-General or Employment, Social Aairsand Equal Opportunities and Eurostat. Te ramework orstatistics in this eld is provided by the collection o EUstatistics on income and living conditions, EU-SILC (21).

As elaborated in the opening chapter, the EUs concept o

monetary poverty is based on relative measures, which maybe responsive to a range o macro-economic policies, orexample, relating to redistribution and employment. Tecurrent portolio o indicators within this domain includesthe headline poverty indicator, the at-risk-o-poverty rate,analysed in Subchapter 3.1.

In March 2006, EU heads o state committed to takenecessary measures to rapidly and signifcantly reduce childpoverty, giving all children equal opportunities, regardless o

(21) Regulation (EC) No. 1177/2003 o the European Parliament and o the Council.

Pvety


42/120


Poverty3

their social background. Young adulthood isalso considered to be a time o uncertaintyand vulnerability, particularly in thecurrent economic climate. Child and youth

poverty are analysed in Subchapter 3.2.While poverty may be concentrated withina high proportion o jobless households,there is also a risk o poverty amongworking amilies, especially where wagesare low and amily commitments restrictthe availability to work. In-work poverty isanalysed in Subchapter 3.3. Poverty knowsno age barrier, and against the backgroundo an ageing European population, with a

proportionally smaller active populationhaving to support increasing numbers oretired people, it is likely that there will beincreasing pressure to provide adequateand sustainable pensions (both state andprivate). Issues in relation to poverty amongthe elderly are analysed in Subchapter 3.4.

Tese indicators o relative monetarypoverty in the EU are complemented by

a range o absolute material deprivation

measures. Material deprivation is dened asthe enorced lack o a combination o itemsportraying material living conditions, suchas the possession o specic durable goods,

or the capacity to aord a range o basicrequirements. Tese characteristics arepresented and analysed in Subchapter 3.5.

3.1 Pesns at-isk--pvety

National at-risk-o-poverty rates comparethe situations o dierent members o societywithin a Member State. In this respect, at-risk-o-poverty rates are relative to others withinthe same country, which in part refects thegeneral approach to social policy, namely thatthis area is under the responsibility o eachMember State. Tis relative situation must beborne in mind i intra-country comparisonso at-risk-o-poverty rates are not to bemisunderstood. For this reason, the povertythresholds presented here provide the contextagainst which at-risk-o-poverty rates must

be analysed.

Figue 3.1: Poverty thresholds or single person households, 2007 (in EUR and PPS) (1)


Source: Eurostat (ilc_ov1a2)

EUR

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000

20 000

LU

UK

CY

AT IE

NL

DE

DK

BE

SE

FR F

IIT S

IES

MT

EL

PT

CZ

SK

EE

HU L

TPL

LV

BG

RO

PPS
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_ov1a2&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_ov1a2&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_ov1a2&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_ov1a2&mode=viewhttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=ilc_ov1a2&mode=view


43/120

39Co

COMBATIENDO LA POBREZA Y LA EXCLUSIÓN SOCIAL: UN RETRATO ESTADÍSTICO EN LA UE 2010

Documents

Transcript of COMBATIENDO LA POBREZA Y LA EXCLUSIÓN SOCIAL: UN RETRATO ESTADÍSTICO EN LA UE 2010