Material deprivation and low work intensity statistics

From Statistics Explained

Data from March 2014. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database.

This article describes the non-monetary components of the social inclusion headline indicator "people at risk of poverty or social exclusion" set out in the Europe 2020 Strategy: people living in households with very low work intensity and people severely materially deprived. The monitoring of progress towards the EU 2020 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 European Union (EU) 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, 2012 (1) (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_sip8)
Figure 2: Severe material deprivation rate, 2011-2012 (%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd11)
Figure 3: Population unable to face unexpected financial expenses, 2011-2012
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mdes04)
Figure 4: Population unable to afford a meal with meat, fish, chicken or a vegetarian equivalent every second day, 2011-2012
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mdes03)
Table 1: Severe material deprivation by household type, 2012
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd13)
Figure 5: Severe material deprivation rate for population aged 18 and over by citizenship, 2012
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_mddd15)
Figure 6: People aged less than 60 living in households with very low work intensity, 2011-2012
(%) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvhl11)
Table 2: Proportion of population living in households with very low work intensity by household type, 2012
(% of specified population) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_lvhl13)
Figure 7: Number of persons at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion analysed by type of risks, EU-28, 2012 (1)(2)
(million) - Source: Eurostat (ilc_pees01)
Figure 8: At-risk-of poverty or social exclusion rate, 2011 and 2012
(%) - 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 installments 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.

Slightly less than two out of ten (19.7 %) members of the EU-28 population was materially deprived in 2012, with just half of these (9.9 % of the total population) being considered as experiencing severe material deprivation. The proportion of people that were materially deprived was highest in Bulgaria (61.6 %), Romania (48.0 %), Latvia (44.5 %) and Hungary (44.0 %) 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 Lithuania, Greece and Italy, 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 Member States and Austria were materially deprived (see Figure 1). The same was the case in Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

Focusing upon severe material deprivation (Figure 2), in 2012 only 1.3 % of the population were severely deprived in Luxembourg and Sweden and 3.0 % or less were classified as being materially-deprived in the other Nordic countries and the Netherlands. Switzerland also had a very small percentage (0.8 %) of the population that were classified as being severely materially deprived. On the other hand, in Bulgaria, more than 40.0 % of the population were found to be severely materially deprived, while more than 20.0 % of the population in Romania, Hungary and Latvia fell within this category. Overall at the EU-28 level, the rate of severe material deprivation increased by 1.0 pp (and by 0.8 pp in the Euro area countries) between 2011 and 2012. The largest increases among the EU countries, were observed in Greece (4.3 pp), Italy and Cyprus (both 3.3 pp), the United Kingdom (2.7 pp), Hungary and Malta (both 2.6 pp). Severe material deprivation decreased significantly in Latvia (-5.4 pp).

Factors of material deprivation rate

Inability to afford unexpected financial expenses, followed by inability to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian equivalent every second day showed the greatest variability between 2011 and 2012

Among the factors (‘items’) that are considered in determining the material deprivation rate, facing unexpected expenses and inability to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or a vegetarian equivalent) every second day showed the greatest absolute difference at EU-28 level between 2011 and 2012. In 2012, around 40.2 % of the EU population reported difficulties in facing such unexpected expenses, which represents an increase of 2.1 pp compared with 2011 (Figure 3). Regarding the inability to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish (or vegetarian equivalent), in 2012 11.0 % of the EU population reported that they could not afford this item. This represents an increase of 1.3 pp compared with 2011 (Figure 4). Changes in the deprivation item are in some cases correlated with the decrease in income in the lowest quintiles.

There is considerable variation among Member States for both items. The percentage of people reporting difficulties to face unexpected expenses is 25.0 % or less in Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, Luxembourg and Malta as well as in Norway and Switzerland; while it is above 60.0 % in Lithuania, Croatia, Bulgaria and Latvia reaching a maximum of 74.3 % in Hungary. Compared with 2011, the percentage of people reporting difficulties in facing unexpected expenses increased by more than 6 pp in Greece (6.1 pp), the United Kingdom (6.2 pp), but these may, at least in part, reflect methodological changes causing a break in series in 2012 and Portugal (6.8 pp). At the same time it fell by more than 2 pp only in Latvia (-6.8 pp), Cyprus (-2.4 pp) and Malta (-2.2 pp). Also Iceland reported a large decrease (-2.8 pp).

The percentage of people reporting the second deprivation item ranged from less than 3.0 % in the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg to 25.3 % in Latvia, 32.0 % in Hungary and a maximum of 51.9 % in Bulgaria. Norway and Switzerland had also values lower than 3.0 %. Compared with 2011, the percentage of people reporting that they could not afford such a meal every second day increased by 5.0 pp in Greece, 4.4 pp in Italy and the United Kingdom. At the same time it fell by more than 1 pp only in Latvia (-5.6 pp) and Slovenia (-1.5 pp).

Severe material deprivation by household type

Single person households with dependent children 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-28 level, the most severely materially-deprived persons lived in single person households with dependent children (21.3 %) followed by single male and single female households (both 12.2 %) and households with two adults and three or more dependent children (11.8 %). 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 (5.6 %) 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 Slovenia and Croatia, 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 while in Hungary and Italy the percentage of severely materially-persons living in single person households with dependent children was similar to the percentage of those living in households with two adults and three or more dependent children.

In Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia, 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, Italy and Romania particularly, the most affected were those households with two adults with three or more dependent children, while in Lithuania, Slovenia and Croatia the most affected were single males.

Severe material deprivation rate by citizenship

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 5). This is evident in the majority of EU countries. The only exceptions are Germany, Malta, Slovakia and Hungary, Bulgaria where deprivation rates for foreign citizens were reported to be 0.7 pp, 3.9 pp, 1.4 pp, 21.2 pp and 0.4 pp respectively, lower than the respective rates for the citizens of the declaring country. However, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland and Bulgaria have expressed concerns about the reliability of these figures. On average, at the EU-28 level, severe deprivation rates were 3.4 pp higher in the population of foreign citizens (12.6 % compared to 9.2 % for citizens of the reporting country). This rate has actually increased between 2011 and 2012 for both foreign citizens (from 12.0 % in 2011 to 12.6 % in 2012) and for citizens of the declaring country (from 8.3 % in 2011 to 9.2 % in 2012). The largest difference between foreigners and citizens of the declaring country in 2012 was reported by Greece (30.1 pp), followed by Portugal (15.5 pp), Belgium (14.5 pp), Slovenia (13.1 pp) and Italy (12.0 pp).

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 dependent children 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 20.0 % of their total potential during the previous 12 months.

Following this definition, the proportion of people living in households with very low work intensity remained relatively stable in 2012 as compared to 2011 and accounts for 10.3 % of the population. However this rate varies between Member States (Figure 6). On the one hand, less than 7.0 % of the target population was living in households with very low work intensity in Sweden, Luxembourg, Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Poland. In Switzerland and Iceland, rates were also relatively low (3.4 % and 6.1 % respectively). On the other hand, the indicator exceeded 12.0 % in Bulgaria, Hungary, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Greece, Spain and Croatia.

Although relatively stable at EU level, the indicator rose by more than 2 pp in Greece (2.2 pp) while it decreased by more than 1 pp in Lithuania and Germany (both -1.3 pp) and Sweden (-1.2 pp). Switzerland also reported a relatively large decrease (-1.3 pp).

Very low work intensity is most common in single person households with dependent children and in single person households (28.7 % and 23.8 % respectively at EU level), while households of two adults with one dependent child reported the lowest rates (5.5 %) (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 are greater by more than 10 pp than the rates of the population of single person households with dependent children (Denmark, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia). On the other hand, in Malta, the United Kingdom and Greece very low work intensity rates for single households with dependent children are much higher than the rates for single households (27.4 pp ,18.5 pp and 15.0 pp respectively). By contrast, in Bulgaria, very low work intensity rates were higher in households that had two adults with three or more dependent children when compared with households of a single person with dependent children or with single person households.

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. In 2012, there were 48.0 million people in the EU-28 living in households that faced income poverty (but neither severe material deprivation, nor very low work intensity), 22.8 million persons experiencing severe material deprivation (but neither of the other two risks) and 13.2 million people living in households with very low work intensity (but facing neither of the other two risks). People are considered to be at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion if they face at least one of the three risks – although 40.3 million of those at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion within the EU-28 faced a combination of two or even all three of these risks (Figure 7). In addition, 31.0 million people lived in households facing two out of three of these risks, while a further 9.3 million people lived in households where all three of these risks were present. In 2012, 377.2 million people faced none of the above-mentioned risks, as opposed to 378.0 million in 2011.

The evolution of poverty and social exclusion during 2011 - 2012

In 2012, there were 124.2 million people in the EU-28, equivalent to 24.8 % of the entire population, who lived in households facing poverty or social exclusion (Figure 7 and Figure 8). This is an increase of 0.5 pp (equivalent to approximately 2.7 million people) compared to 2011.

The latest developments between 2011 and 2012 show that the proportion of the population at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion fell in Latvia, the Netherlands, Finland, Lithuania, Sweden, Poland, Germany, France and Slovakia as well as Norway and Iceland. All of the remaining EU Member States reported an increase in the proportion of persons at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion in 2012 as compared to 2011. The largest increases occurred in Greece (3.6 pp) followed by Cyprus (2.5 pp).

In absolute terms, the figures for Italy and the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent those for Greece, Spain and Romania had the greatest upward impact on the number of persons considered to be at risk-of-poverty or social exclusion in the EU-28 in 2012. In particular, Italy and the United Kingdom reported an increase of 1.08 and 1.03 million respectively in the number of persons at-risk-of poverty or social exclusion between 2011 and 2012, followed by Greece, Spain and Romania (increases of 392 000, 299 000 and 277 000 respectively).

Data sources and availability

The data used in this section are primarily derived from microdata 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-28 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.

See also

Further Eurostat information

Publication

Main tables

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion (Europe 2020 strategy) (t_ilc_pe)
Living conditions (t_ilc_lv)
Material deprivation (t_ilc_md)

Database

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)

Dedicated section

Methodology / Metadata

Source data for tables and figures (MS Excel)

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

External links

Views