International Day for the Eradication of Poverty 2011

Print version

In 1992 the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 17 October the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty with the aim to promote awareness of the society and individuals about the problem of poverty in the world and activities for its eradication. This year the central theme is »From poverty to sustainability – people at the centre of inclusive development«. Special attention should be focused on people from the edge of society since only in this way it is possible to provide sustainable development for everyone.

That poverty is a serious global problem can be seen from the World Bank estimate according to which more than a billion people in developing countries are living in extreme poverty. These people live in absolute poverty with less than USD 1.25 per day.

Measuring relative poverty in the EU

In Europe absolute poverty is not measured; what is determined is how many people are relatively poor, i.e. compared to other people. We assume that the poor are those people who can not afford a lifestyle normal for the society in which they live, which leads to social exclusion. These are not only basic goods such as food, clothing, footwear and housing, but also access to communication technology, social events, peers, etc.

According to Eurostat data for 2009, about 16% of the population in EU Member States (80 million people) were living with income lower than the at-risk-of-poverty threshold.

According to latest data, in 2010 254,000 people in Slovenia (12.7% of the population) were living below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. Their net monthly disposable income was below EUR 587 per adult household member.

Poverty in Slovenia among the lowest in the EU

Slovenia has one of the lowest at-risk-of-poverty rates in the EU as well as one of the lowest income inequalities among households.

Despite the fact that in 2010 income in Slovenia was slightly more unevenly distributed among households than in the previous year, both income inequality indicators (Gini coefficient and the quintile share ratio) are still among the lowest in the EU. The relatively low income inequality is without any doubt the result of the welfare state with its redistributive function, which with various forms of social transfers mitigates the distress of low-income households. Without a functioning welfare state the situation in Slovenia would be much worse, since the at-risk-of-poverty rate would almost double and income inequality would also increase.

According to the data for 2009, the at-risk-of-poverty threshold was between around 2,000 PPS (purchasing power standards) in Romania and 16,200 PPS in Luxembourg. In Slovenia it stood at 7,100 PPS. The comparison of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in PPS, which takes into account differences in price levels among countries, shows that all new Member States (except Cyprus) have lower at-risk-of-poverty thresholds than Slovenia and among old Member States only Portugal and Greece. Poor people in countries with lower at-risk-of-poverty thresholds were living at a lower standard of living than the poor in Slovenia, while in other Member States they were living at a higher standard of living than the poor in Slovenia.

In Slovenia households without working members and with dependent children are the most vulnerable

Data on the at-risk-of-poverty rate of various socio-demographic categories of persons and households show that households without working members (40.1% of people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold), especially those with dependent children (74.8%) were the most vulnerable.

As regards the type of household, one-member households (38.5%) and single-parent households (31.4%) and couples with three or more children (13.6%) were the most vulnerable.

As regards the most frequent activity status, unemployed persons (44.1%) and retired persons (18.3%) were the most vulnerable. The at-risk-of-poverty rate was also high for women aged 65+ (27.1%) and for tenants (27.6%).

As expected, the at-risk-of-poverty rate was the lowest for work intensive households, i.e. households in which all adult household members were in employment (3.5%), and for persons in employment (5.3%). Despite the fact that the at-risk-of-poverty rate was low for persons in employment, almost a fifth of all persons who were living below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold were persons in employment.

Lower material deprivation and overcrowding of dwellings

Compared to 2009, in 2010 the at-risk-of-poverty rate went up by 1.4 percentage points, while the material deprivation rate and the overcrowding rate slightly decreased. This means that more people than a year before could afford some goods needed for a decent life and that more people than before lived in large enough dwellings. Households that have certain goods keep them in the period of crisis.

Data show that not all people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold experienced material deprivation, while some people above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold experienced material deprivation.

Among selected goods, personal computers and passenger cars the least available

In 2010, 66% of households in Slovenia had a personal computer and 6% could not afford it. There are clear differences between households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and above it. 36% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and 73% of households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold had a PC, while 16% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and 4% of households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold could not afford it.

A passenger car is also a commodity where differences between households below and above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold were observed. 81% of households in Slovenia had a passenger car; for households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold the share was 89% and for those below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold the share was 47%. Only 3% of households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold could not afford a passenger car, while the share for households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold was 16%. The highest share of households that could not afford a passenger car was that of single-parent households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (31%).

As regards colour TVs and washing machines, differences between households above and below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold are minimal. About 2% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold could not afford these goods, while practically all households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold could afford them.

Housing conditions of poor households

As regards poverty, it is also important in what dwellings people live. In 2010, 47% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and 30% of households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold experienced at least one of the following problems: leaking roof, damp walls/floors/foundation or rot in window frames or floors.

A review of buildings in which people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold live shows that such problems were the most important for households living in multi-apartment buildings with fewer than 10 dwellings (59%).

15% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold could not afford adequate heating; for households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold the share was much lower (4%).

Financial situation of poor households

61% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold had difficulties or severe difficulties making ends meet. Only 3% of such households made ends meet without problems. Single-parent households and one-member households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold experienced the greatest difficulties (74% and 65%, respectively).

71% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and 28% of households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold could not afford one week annual holiday away from home. Most of those who could not afford one week annual holiday away from home were among one-member households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (77%), followed by households with two adults and no children and other households without dependent children.

Differences are evident also as regards the diet. 24% of households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold and 8% of households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold could not afford a meal with meat or vegetarian equivalent every second day.

A rather high share of households that could not afford unexpected financial expenses in the amount of EUR 545 was observed among households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (79%) as well as among households above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (42%). Here too one-member households and single-parent households were the most vulnerable.

Men spend more on themselves than women

Average monthly amount spent by people in 2010 for leisure activities, clothing, personal care, alcohol and tobacco was EUR 106. Men spent EUR 21 more per month than women.

People below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold spent on themselves EUR 72 and people above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold EUR 109. Women below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold spent on average EUR 64 and women above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold EUR 98, while men below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold spent EUR 81 and men above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold EUR 120.

People spent more on children (EUR 184 per month) than on themselves, e.g. on school lunch, kindergarten, children’s leisure activities, education, health, toys, hobbies and personal care. On average, people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold spent on children EUR 161 and people above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold EUR 187. In general, women spent EUR 12 more per month on children than men. The difference is even more evident for people below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, where women spent EUR 24 more on children than men (men EUR 149, women EUR 173).