Friday

15th Nov 2019

Opinion

Europe 2020 and the battle against poverty: back to square one?

When EU leaders adopted the Lisbon strategy in 2000, they were confident of making a decisive impact on poverty by 2010.

However, things did not turn out as expected. The results are, to say the least, disappointing. Poverty rates are generally at a standstill and even showed an upward trend in some member states, despite favorable economic conditions in the pre-crisis period.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 year's of archives. 30-day free trial.

... or join as a group

  • About 80 million people are deemed poor in the European Union (Photo: EUobserver)

To replace the failed Lisbon Agenda, the European Council agreed on 17 June to adopt the so-called Europe 2020 strategy. Five key priorities were formulated including a poverty target. This is not surprising, because the quest for a ‘Social Europe' and the reduction of poverty has always been at the heart of EU-speak, but for the first time the target has been made explicit - some 20 million people should be lifted out of the risk of living in poverty and social exclusion.

Given the 80 million poor throughout the Union, this amounts to a poverty reduction of 25%. The quantification of the poverty target is however highly controversial and the result of a fierce political battle.

A dangerous compromise

Until now, poverty has been measured using the so-called at-risk-of-poverty indicator, meaning that people are considered poor if their household income falls below a certain threshold (set at 60% of the national median level). This threshold reflects the minimum level of income considered necessary to live a decent life with an acceptable standard of living, relative to the society in which people live. The indicator is also widely used in academic and policy-making circles due to its comparability.

When the Commission first formulated the EU2020 targets at its March gathering, Central and Eastern European member states (the ‘Visegrad Four' together with Bulgaria and Romania), but also France, expressed their concerns about setting explicit targets on poverty reduction based on the at-risk-of-poverty indicator and aimed to remove them from the ten-year plan.

They called the target ‘unattainable' and ‘illusory' and argued that poverty reduction should be a result rather than a target of the European strategy. A compromise arose. The target is preserved, although no longer solely based on the relative at-risk-of-poverty indicator but complemented by two non-monetary indicators (the number of people ‘materially deprived' and the number of people living in ‘jobless households'), supposedly reflecting other dimensions of poverty and exclusion.

Within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy, an aggregate of these three indicators is being applied. This compromise, however, has the dangerous potential of dooming the European rhetoric about poverty reduction to failure.

Circumventing the poverty target

By using an aggregate of three indicators instead of one to define the poverty target, the number of ‘poor' in Europe (according to the aggregate) increases from 80 million to 120 million while the target remains exactly the same: reducing the people at risk of poverty by 20 million. This amounts to a reduction of 17% instead of the original 25%. In other words, by the ‘innocent' decision to use three instead of one indicator, the poverty reduction target has already been undermined.

But even the likelihood of reducing the number of poor by (a modest) 17% is doubtful because member states are free to choose which indicator(s) they will use to set their national targets.

This is far-reaching because the two new indicators are measures of growth and reflect general living standards while the original poverty indicator is a measure of the societal position of people at the bottom of the income distribution.

This has consequences for the policies that are necessary to make progress on these indicators. To decrease the number of materially deprived or people living in jobless households, economic growth and employment has to be boosted.

To decrease the number of poor according to the at-risk-of-poverty indicator, however, countries have to redistribute the generated wealth and, consequently, reduce inequality. As such it is a measure of the efficiency and adequacy of a country's social protection system. Briefly summarised: while the material deprivation and jobless households indicators are about economic and employment growth and generating wealth, the poverty indicator is about distributing the fruits of the wealth.

Although Eastern European countries state that boosting growth and employment will automatically lead to poverty reduction, research has shown that the so-called ‘trickle-down' effect is bogus.

There is no automatic correlation between economic growth and lifting people out of poverty, and progress on one indicator does not necessarily lead to progress on another. Moreover, huge differences in the number of people in poverty according to one of the three indicators prevail between member states. Consequently, it is perfectly possible for a country to choose one the new indicators representing the lowest number of ‘poor' to define their national targets and subsequently solely focus on economic or employment growth without having genuine intentions to fight poverty.

Consider the example of Bulgaria where 9 percent of the people live in a jobless household, 21.4 percent are at-risk-of-poverty and 31.4 percent are materially deprived. Depending on the indicator of choice, this amounts to a reduction of ‘the poor' by 116.896, 277.952 or 407.836 respectively.

It can easily be assumed that, given the current economic circumstances, the Bulgarian government will prefer the easiest target and go for employment growth. But giving people jobs does not equate with lifting people out of poverty (think about the working poor in this respect). Otherwise stated: a country can reach the EU2020 poverty target by carefully choosing an easy-to-reach target while avoiding the need to implement redistributive policies.

Finally, there is the issue of comparability. For the past ten years, poverty has been measured using the at-risk-of-poverty indicator which allows for comparisons between countries and the measurement of progress within countries. However, allowing member states to choose their appropriate indicator will hamper comparisons of progress in the future and make it more difficult to monitor progress within the framework of the open method of coordination.

Which road to take?

From the point of view of comparability and poverty reduction, the best solution would be to adopt the common poverty indicator best reflecting the reality of social exclusion in Europe (and currently this is the at-risk-of-poverty indicator).

However, if that turns out not to be feasible at the political level, another solution could be to redefine the poverty reduction target in such a way that progress has to be made on all three indicators simultaneously, taking into account varying circumstances in different countries. Several scenarios to achieve this are already circulating in the policy-making circles of the European Commission's Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG. Moreover, the parliament has the right to be consulted on the EU's employment policy guidelines and so could also play an important role in this regard.

In the end, however, it all depends on the willingness of member states to make a genuine contribution to the eradication of poverty. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and member states are now expected to map out their national strategies for the Europe 2020 targets.

But given the fact that the Commission does not have the power (except for the "policy warnings") to punish failing member states, the reluctance of some countries to provide more than lip services to the battle against poverty and the technical possibilities offered by the adoption of three separate ‘poverty indicators' to circumvent the agreed poverty reduction target, it can easily be assumed that most countries will choose the path of least resistance. Consequently, it would be back to square one for Europe's poor.

The writer is a PhD student at the Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy of the University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Corruption in the Balkans: the elephant in the room

Over the years, both real and perceived levels of corruption in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia have remained high. The necessary reforms in those countries, to put it mildly, are not yet effectively carried out.

Israeli labelling ruling lets consumers make choice

Beyond the Israel-specific dimension of this decision, the EU court places ethics back at the heart of European consumer choices and reminds us that our daily, mundane purchases may have considerable and unforeseen geopolitical implications, particularly as regards occupied territories.

Cleaning up both the EU and Western Balkans

There has been little substantial analysis, since the Macron veto, of why so much money and effort in the Balkans has failed to result in the political and economic transformation needed to prepare candidates for full membership.

EU 'all bark and no bite' on disinformation

The list of suspects orchestrating foreign influence campaigns is growing. The likes of China, Iran, India, Saudi Arabia are also tapping into Russia's disinfo playbook.

News in Brief

  1. Catalan politicians extradition hearing postponed
  2. Germany: EU banking union deal possible in December
  3. EIB: no more funding of fossil-fuel projects
  4. UK defence chief: Russia could trigger World War III
  5. Hungary's Varhelyi will face more questions
  6. Police put former Berlusconi MEP Comi under house arrest
  7. MEPs criticise Poland for criminalising sex education
  8. UK will not name new commissioner before election

'A game of roulette' - life as a journalist now in Turkey

Turkey has more journalists behind bars than any other country in the world. The authorities seem to equate journalism with terrorism: everyone has the right to express themselves, but, in their eyes, legitimate journalism is a threat to security.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersEarmarked paternity leave – an effective way to change norms
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Climate Action Weeks in December
  3. UNESDAUNESDA welcomes Nicholas Hodac as new Director General
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersBrussels welcomes Nordic culture
  5. UNESDAUNESDA appoints Nicholas Hodac as Director General
  6. UNESDASoft drinks industry co-signs Circular Plastics Alliance Declaration
  7. FEANIEngineers Europe Advisory Group: Building the engineers of the future
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersNew programme studies infectious diseases and antibiotic resistance
  9. UNESDAUNESDA reduces added sugars 11.9% between 2015-2017
  10. International Partnership for Human RightsEU-Uzbekistan Human Rights Dialogue: EU to raise key fundamental rights issues
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersNo evidence that social media are harmful to young people
  12. Nordic Council of MinistersCanada to host the joint Nordic cultural initiative 2021

Latest News

  1. Key moments for new commission This WEEK
  2. EU threatens legal action against UK over commissioner
  3. Corruption in the Balkans: the elephant in the room
  4. Green MEPs unconvinced by Romanian commissioner
  5. EU states fell short on sharing refugees, say auditors
  6. Hungary's commissioner-to-be grilled over loyalty to Orban
  7. Widow's plea as EU diplomats debate Magnitsky Act
  8. Leftist MEPs call on EU to address crisis in Chile

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Vote for the EU Sutainable Energy AwardsCast your vote for your favourite EUSEW Award finalist. You choose the winner of 2019 Citizen’s Award.
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersEducation gets refugees into work
  3. Counter BalanceSign the petition to help reform the EU’s Bank
  4. UNICEFChild rights organisations encourage candidates for EU elections to become Child Rights Champions
  5. UNESDAUNESDA Outlines 2019-2024 Aspirations: Sustainability, Responsibility, Competitiveness
  6. Counter BalanceRecord citizens’ input to EU bank’s consultation calls on EIB to abandon fossil fuels
  7. International Partnership for Human RightsAnnual EU-Turkmenistan Human Rights Dialogue takes place in Ashgabat
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersNew campaign: spot, capture and share Traces of North
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersLeading Nordic candidates go head-to-head in EU election debate
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersNew Secretary General: Nordic co-operation must benefit everybody
  11. Platform for Peace and JusticeMEP Kati Piri: “Our red line on Turkey has been crossed”
  12. UNICEF2018 deadliest year yet for children in Syria as war enters 9th year

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic commitment to driving global gender equality
  2. International Partnership for Human RightsMeet your defender: Rasul Jafarov leading human rights defender from Azerbaijan
  3. UNICEFUNICEF Hosts MEPs in Jordan Ahead of Brussels Conference on the Future of Syria
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic talks on parental leave at the UN
  5. International Partnership for Human RightsTrial of Chechen prisoner of conscience and human rights activist Oyub Titiev continues.
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic food policy inspires India to be a sustainable superpower
  7. Nordic Council of MinistersMilestone for Nordic-Baltic e-ID
  8. Counter BalanceEU bank urged to free itself from fossil fuels and take climate leadership
  9. Intercultural Dialogue PlatformRoundtable: Muslim Heresy and the Politics of Human Rights, Dr. Matthew J. Nelson
  10. Platform for Peace and JusticeTurkey suffering from the lack of the rule of law
  11. UNESDASoft Drinks Europe welcomes Tim Brett as its new president
  12. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers take the lead in combatting climate change

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us