Archive:Material deprivation and low work intensity statistics

Data from November 2012, most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database. The monitoring of progress towards the Europe2020 headline target, namely to reduce substantially the number of people at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion, will be based on past trends of the headline indicator number of people at-risk-of-poverty or exclusion (AROPE), for the total population and for the main groups at risk at the EU-27 level. The non-monetary components of the headline indicator, which are material deprivation and work intensity, are primarily examined. These measures of poverty and social exclusion are analysed together with the monetary component (at-risk-of poverty rate) in order to acquire a deeper understanding of poverty.

Figure 1: Material deprivation rate - proportion of persons who cannot afford to pay for selected items, 2010 (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_sip8)

Figure 2: Severe material deprivation rate, 2009-2011 (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_sip8)

Figure 3: Population unable to face unexpected financial expenses, 2009-2011
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mdes04)

Table 1: Severe material deprivation by household type, 2010 (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd13)

Figure 4: Severe material deprivation rate for population aged 18 and over by citizenship, 2010 (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd15)

Figure 5: People aged less than 60 living in households with very low work intensity, 2009-2011 (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvhl11)

Table 2: Proportion of population living in households with very low work intensity by household type, 2010 (% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvhl13)

Figure 6: Number of persons at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion analysed by type of risks, EU-27, 2010 (1)
(million) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_pees01)

Figure 7: Population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion, 2009-2011 (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_peps01)

Main statistical findings

Material deprivation and severe material deprivation

Alongside income-related measures of poverty, a broader perspective of social inclusion can be obtained by studying other measures, for example, those relating to material deprivation. An analysis of material deprivation provides a more absolute rather than a relative analysis, as used for income poverty. The definition of material deprivation is based on the inability to afford a selection of items that are considered to be necessary or desirable, namely: having arrears on mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, hire purchase instalments or other loan payments; not being able to afford one week’s annual holiday away from home; not being able to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day; not being able to face unexpected financial expenses; not being able to buy a telephone (including mobile phone); not being able to buy a colour television; not being able to buy a washing machine; not being able to buy a car; or not being able to afford heating to keep the house warm. The material deprivation rate is defined as the proportion of persons who cannot afford to pay for at least three out of the nine items specified above, while those who are unable to afford four or more items are considered to be severely materially deprived.

About one in every six (17.5 %) members of the EU-27 population was materially deprived in 2010, with just under half of these (8.1 % of the total population) being considered as experiencing severe material deprivation. The proportion of people that were materially deprived was highest in Bulgaria (55.6 %), Romania (49.2 %) and Latvia (46.1 %) among the EU Member States, with more than half of the materially-deprived persons in each of these countries experiencing severe material deprivation. Similarly, in Hungary, Lithuania and Poland (which reported the next three highest material deprivation rates), more than half of those considered as materially deprived experienced severe material deprivation. Less than one in ten people in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Nordic and Switzerland were materially deprived (see Figure 1).

Focusing upon severe material deprivation (Figure 2), in 2010 only 0.5 % of the population were severely deprived in Luxembourg, 1.3 % fell into this category in Sweden and 3 % or less were classified as being materially-deprived in the other Nordic countries and the Netherlands. Switzerland also had a very small percentage (2.0 %) of the population that were classified as being severely materially deprived. On the other hand, in Bulgaria and Romania, more than 30% of the population of Bulgaria were found to be severely materially deprived, while 20 % of the population in Hungary and Latvia fell within this category. Moreover, while at the EU-27 level, the rate of severe material deprivation remained stable between 2009 and 2010, it increased in the Baltic countries (by 5.5 pp in Latvia, 4.4 pp in Lithuania, 2.8 pp in Estonia), in the UK (1.5 pp), Hungary (1.3 pp) and Malta (1.0 pp), while it decreased in Bulgaria (-6.9 pp) and to a lesser extent in Romania (-1.2 pp). Comparing 2010 with 2011 values, where available, the largest increase (8.6 pp) was reported by Bulgaria while the greatest decrease was reported by Romania (-1.6 pp).

Inability to afford unexpected financial expenses showed the greatest variability between 2009 and 2010

Among the factors (‘items’) that are considered in determining the material deprivation rate, facing unexpected expenses showed the greatest absolute difference (1.1 pp) at EU-27 level between 2009 and 2010. This measures the ability of a household to cover an unexpected expense from their own resources, amounting to one-twelfth of the poverty threshold. The amount varies between countries from about €100 in Romania to about €1600 in Luxembourg. In 2010, around 36 % of the EU population reported difficulties in facing such unexpected expenses. This represents an increase of 1 pp compared with 2009 (Figure 3).

There is considerable variation among Member States. The percentage of people reporting such difficulties is 25 % or less in Austria, Luxembourg, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden as well as in Norway and Switzerland; while it is above 60 % in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Hungary, reaching a maximum of 77.6 % in Latvia. Croatia has also reported a high rate (61.8 %). Compared with 2009, the percentage of people reporting difficulties in facing unexpected expenses increased by more than 5 pp in Estonia (14.0 pp), Lithuania (9.5 pp), Cyprus (7 pp), Latvia (6.8 pp) and Bulgaria (6.7 pp). At the same time it fell by more than 2 pp only in Sweden (-2.7 pp). Comparing 2010 with 2011 values, where available, the largest increase (6.2 pp) was reported by Greece while the largest decline was reported by Slovakia (-2.4 pp).

Single person households with dependent children who are mostly classified as being severely materially-deprived

The rates of severe material deprivation are not uniformly distributed between the different household types. Table 1 shows how the rates of severe deprivation vary between different household types. Overall at the EU-27 level, the most severely materially-deprived persons lived in single person households with dependent children (17 %) followed by single male households (11.2 %) and households with two adults and three or more dependent children (11 %). On the other hand, persons living in households with elderly people (two adults, at least one aged 65 years or over) were overall the least affected (4.7 %) most probably due to the accumulation of durable goods during their working lives and more opportunities to save money. This is more or less the picture in most EU countries, although with some exceptions. In Greece, Lithuania and Romania, the percentage of the population that was found to be severely materially-deprived in single person households was similar to the percentage of those found in single person households with dependent children. In Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Portugal, households with two adults and one dependent child were the least affected ones by severely material deprivation, not those households with elderly people. In Bulgaria and Romania particularly, the most affected were those households with two adults with three or more dependent children.

Foreign citizens mostly affected by severe material deprivation

Severe material deprivation affects foreign citizens to a greater extent than the citizens of the declaring country (Figure 4). This is evident in the majority of EU countries. The only exceptions are Lithuania and Malta, where deprivation rates for foreign citizens were reported to be almost 1 pp lower than the respective rates for the citizens of the declaring country. On average, at the EU-27 level, severe deprivation rates were 4.5 pp higher in the population of foreign citizens (12 % compared to 7.5 % for citizens of the declaring country). The largest difference (20.7 pp) was reported by Greece, followed by Portugal (14.5 pp), Belgium (11.7 pp) and Slovenia (11.6 pp). Croatia also reported a large difference (16.6 pp) in the rates of severe material deprivation between foreign citizens and domestic citizens of the declaring country. .

Low work intensity

Work intensity is the ratio between the number of months that household members of working age (person aged 18-59 years, with the exclusion of students in the age group between 18 and 24 years) worked during the income reference year and the total number of months that could theoretically have been worked by the same household members. For persons who declared that they worked part-time, the number of months worked in full time equivalent roles is estimated on the basis of the number of hours usually worked at the time of the interview.

People living in households with very low work intensity are defined as people of all ages (from 0-59 years) living in households where the members of working age worked less than 20 % of their total potential during the previous 12 months.

Following this definition, 10 % of the EU-27 population lived in households with very low work intensity in 2010, with some variation between Member States (Figure 5). On the one hand, less than 6 % of the target population was living in households with very low work intensity in Sweden, Luxembourg and Cyprus. In Iceland and Switzerland, rates were also relatively low (5.6 % and 4 % respectively). On the other hand, the indicator exceeded 12 % in Latvia, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Ireland the latter reported the highest rate in 2010 (22.9 %).

Overall, at the EU-27 level, the indicator increased slightly (1 pp) between 2009 and 2010, which is equivalent to 3.6 million people. This increase could be explained by the impact of the economic crisis on the employment characteristics of households. The indicator rose by more than 2 pp in Latvia (5.5 pp), Estonia (3.3 pp), Ireland (3.1 pp), Spain (2.8 pp), Slovakia and Lithuania (both 2.3 pp) while it decreased slightly in Romania (-0.9 pp) and Luxembourg (-0.8 pp). A notable increase was also reported by Iceland (3.5 pp). Comparing 2010 with 2011 values, where available, the largest increase (4.3 pp) was reported by Greece while the largest decrease was reported by France (-0.5 pp).

Very low work intensity is most common in single person households with or without dependent children (27.6 % and 22.7 % respectively at EU level), while households with two adults and one dependent child reported the lowest rates (5.8 %) (Table 2). This is the overall pattern in the majority of countries. The only discrepancies worth mentioning are cases where rates in the population of single person households differ by more than 10 pp from the rates of the population of single person households with dependent children (Romania, Lithuania and Slovakia). On the other hand, in Malta, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, very low work intensity rates for single households with dependent children are much higher than the rates for single households without dependent children (28 pp, 15.7 pp and 11.1 pp respectively). By contrast, in Slovakia, very low work intensity rates were higher in households that had two or more adults without dependent children when compared with households of a single person with dependent children.

At-risk-of poverty or social exclusion

Severe material deprivation and very low work intensity are two out of the three components of the Europe 2020 Poverty and Social exclusion indicator. The third component is being at-risk-of-poverty, the monetary element of poverty and social exclusion. People are considered to be at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion if they face at least one of the three risks – although 35.3 % of those at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion within the EU-27 faced a combination of two or even all three of these risks (Figure 6). In 2010, there were 48 million people in the EU-27 living in households that faced income poverty (but neither severe material deprivation, nor very low work intensity), 18.7 million persons experiencing severe material deprivation (but neither of the other two risks) and 13.7 million people living in households with very low work intensity (but facing neither of the other two risks). An additional 27.9 million people lived in households facing two out of three of these risks, while a further 7.5 million people lived in households where all three of these risks were present. In 2010, 377.9 million people faced none of the above-mentioned risks.

The evolution of poverty and social exclusion during 2009 - 2011

In 2010, there were 115.7 million people in the EU-27, equivalent to 23.4 % of the entire population, who lived in households facing poverty or social exclusion (Figure 6 and Figure 7). This is an increase of 0.3 pp (equivalent to approximately 2 million people) compared to 2009.

The latest developments between 2009, 2010 and 2011 – subject to data availability – show that the proportion of the population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion fell in Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Romania. All of the remaining EU Member States reported an increase in the proportion of persons at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion during the most recent year for which data are available. By far the largest increases occurred in Bulgaria (7.5 pp in 2011) and Ireland (4.2 pp in 2010), followed by Greece (3.3 pp in 2011), Latvia (2.0 pp in 2011) and Spain (1.5 pp in 2011).

In absolute terms, the figures for Spain, the United Kingdom and France had the greatest upward impact on the number of persons considered to be at risk-of-poverty or social exclusion in the EU-27 in 2010. These Member States reported increases of 1.02 million, 820, 000 and 493, 000 respectively in the number of persons at-risk-of poverty or social exclusion between 2009 and 2010.

Data sources and availability

The data used in this section are primarily derived from micro-data from EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC). The reference population is all private households and their current members residing in the territory of the Member State at the time of data collection; persons living in collective households and in institutions are generally excluded from the target population. The EU-27 aggregate is a population-weighted average of individual national figures.

Context

At the European Council held on 17 June 2010, the Member states’ Heads of State and Government endorsed a new EU strategy for jobs and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, known as the Europe 2020 strategy. The strategy will help Europe to recover from the crisis and come out stronger, both internally and at the international level, by boosting competitiveness, productivity, growth potential, social cohesion and economic convergence.

The poverty issue is a milestone in the Europe 2020 strategy. One of the headline targets is "Reduction of poverty by aiming to lift at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion" and "European platform against poverty" is one of the seven flagship initiatives. The eradication of poverty also remains a major challenge of sustainable development, and the social dimension is one of the pillars of the EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS).

This page describes two of the three components of the social inclusion headline indicator "People at risk of poverty or social exclusion" set out in the Europe 2020 Strategy. It also provides an overview of the composition of the headline indicators.

Further Eurostat information

Publication

Main tables

Living conditions and welfare (t_livcon), see:

Income and living conditions (t_ilc)

Database

Living conditions and welfare (livcon), see:

Income and living conditions (ilc)

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (Europe 2020 strategy) (ilc_pe)

Main indicator - Europe 2020 target on poverty and social exclusion (ilc_peps)

Intersections between sub-populations of Europe 2020 indicators on poverty and social exclusion (ilc_pees)

Living conditions (ilc_lv)

Health and labour conditions (ilc_lvhl)

Material deprivation (ilc_md)

Material deprivation by dimension (ilc_mddd)

Economic strain (ilc_mdes)

Other information

Regulation 1177/2003 of 16 June 2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC)
Regulation 1553/2005 of 7 September 2005 amending Regulation 1177/2003 concerning Community statistics on income and living conditions (EU-SILC)
Regulation 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Regulations and Decisions in the fields of ... statistics, ..., by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania