ECONOMICS OF THE WELFARE STATE
Sponsored by a Grant TÁMOP-4.1.2-08/2/A/KMR-2009-0041 Course Material Developed by Department of Economics,
Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest (ELTE) Department of Economics, Eötvös Loránd University Budapest
Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Balassi Kiadó, Budapest
2
Authors: Róbert Gál, Márton Medgyesi Supervised by Róbert Gál
June 2011
Week 2
Income inequalities in Hungary International comparison 1985–2005, 2006 and latest
developments 2005–2010
Income inequalities in Hungary, Gini coefficient
0,19 0,21 0,23 0,25 0,27 0,29 0,31 0,33
1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005
Source: Tóth, 2006
3
Income inequalities in Hungary
Interpretation exercise: In which part of the income distribution did changes occur between 2003 and 2005?
0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32
1987 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 2010
Source: Tóth, 2010
1987198719871987 1992199219921992 19961996 19961996 2000200020002000 2003200320032003 2005200520052005 20072007 20072007 2009200920092009
Indices sensitive to higher incomes
P90/P50 1,69 1,86 1,90 1,92 1,92 1,91 1,74 1,81
GE(2) 0,116 0,168 0,236 0,207 0,261 0,260 0,205 0,155 A(0,5) 0,046 0,059 0,071 0,072 0,078 0,073 0,064 0,062
Indices sensitive to middle incomes or symmetrically sensitive to tails
S10/S1 4,55 5,52 6,62 6,63 7,30 6,68 6,00 6,35
P90/P10 2,8 3,1 3,6 3,5 3,58 3,42 3,16 3,53
GE(0) 0,092 0,119 0,143 0,147 0,156 0,145 0,127 0,128 GE(1) 0,097 0,127 0,156 0,155 0,175 0,163 0,140 0,128 Gini 0,236 0,263 0,290 0,292 0,302 0,291 0,271 0,272 A(1) 0,088 0,112 0,133 0,137 0,144 0,135 0,119 0,120
Indices sensitive to lower incomes
P10/P50 0,60 0,59 0,54 0,55 0,54 0,56 0,55 0,51
A(2) 0,164 0,219 0,244 0,294 0,259 0,243 0,228 0,233
Source: Tóth, 2010
4
Employment rate in the working age population
(men: 15–59, women: 15–54)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
19 8
0 19 9
0 19 9
1 19 9
2 1 9 9
3 19 9
4 19 9
5 19 9
6 19 9
7 19 9
8 19 9
9 20 0
0 20 0
1 20 0
2
Employee Unemployed Pensioner
Student On maternal leave Other inactive
Source of data: Munkaerőpiaci Tükör, 2003
5
Employment rate by level of education, 2003
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PT SE MX DK FR FI USA GR IE ES UK DE TR CZ PL HU SK
Primary, lower secondary Upper secondary Tertiary
Source: OECD, 2005
6
Earnings premia at different levels of education
(Primary level = 100%, Based on Mincer regressions)
Relative unemployment rate by region
100=national unemployment rate
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
1989 1992 1995 1999 2002
Vocational secondary Upper secondary school Tertiary education
Source: Kézdi, 2004
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
Central Hu Central Transdb.
Western Transdb.
Southern Transdb.
Nothern Hu Nothern Great Plain
Southern Great Plain
1992 1996 2002 2007
Source of data: Munkaerőpiaci Tükör, 2008
7
Level of education in the Roma population
% of individuals living in jobless households
9% 33% 46% 11% 2%
11% 36% 19% 24% 10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Roma population Total population
No education Less than primary Primary Vocational education Upper secondary Tertiary
Source: Kemény and Janky, 2003.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SUI DK NO NZ SWE UK CA AUS USA NL JAP AUT FI PT IE GE CZ ES KOR LU FR BE GR MEX SVK IT HU PL TUR
% of those not working (among tha active age) % of individuals in jobless hhd. (among all individuals)
Source: OECD, 2008.
8
2005–2007: Diminishing distance between the upper and middle deciles
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0
1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1996 2000 2003 2005 2007 S1 S5+S6 S10
Source: Tóth, 2008.
Source: Tóth, 2008.
9
Social and economic policies affecting income distribution
Between 2000–2006:
• 50% increase of public sector wages
• Introduction of 13th month pension
• Subsides towards low-income families
• VAT reduction
After the summer of 2006:
• Increasing health insurance contribution
• Increase of the upper bracket of personal income tax
• Increase of the rate of EVA (”simplified entrepreneurial tax”)
The effects: first the lower-middle class got better, then the upper-middle class got worse.
The poverty rate in the 1990s
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 60% of the median 4,3$/day 50% of the median 1$/day
Source: Tárki-UNDP, 2004
10
Poverty rate by age (%)
Determinants of poverty
Poverty rates above the average in 2007:
(Average rate is 6% [poverty threshold: half of the median]) (Source: TÁRKI Háztartás Monitor)
• Labour market status
unemployed (27%), inactive (23%)
people with primary education or less (11%) inhabitants of small settlements (11%)
• Demographic situation of the household:
people with 3 or more children (19%) single-parent household (23%)
0 5 10 15 20 25
1992 1996 2000 2003* 2005 2007
Children (0-15 yrs) Elderly (65+ yrs) Total population
Source of data: Gábos and Szivós, 2008
11 single household below the age of 60 (14%)
• Ethnicity: living in Roma family (34%)
Occurrence of financial deprivation and income poverty in 2007
21,7
4,9 7,9
65,5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Not income poor, not deprived
Not income poor, deprived
Income poor, not deprived
Income poor and deprived
Source: Havasi, 2008
12
Exposition to multiple deprivation and income poverty in selected social groups
(%)
International comparison of income inequalities
OECD ”Study on Income Distribution” project
• OECD countries, 1985–2005
• national sources of data, standardized definitions, charts
• Hungarian data: TÁRKI MHP, sample size of Háztartás Monitor: 2600, 2000 households
Characteristic of individual Characteristic of individual Characteristic of individual Characteristic of individual
% muliple
% muliple
% muliple
% muliple deprived deprived deprived deprived
% income
% income
% income
% income poorpoorpoor poor
Total population 29,6 12,8
Single elderly in Budapest 13,3 2
Single elderly in small settlements 54 27,9
Single elderly in small settlements (<2000 inhab.) 58,1 55,1
Household head Roma 65,5 44,4
Household head Roma in Budapest 63,4 31,3
Household head Roma in small settlement 62 65,6
Household head Roma in small settlement (< 2000) 75,7 52,2
Couple with 4+ children 56,1 43,9
Couple with 4+ children in small settlements 80,1 67,2
Primary educated hhd head in Budapest 33,3 11,6
Primary educated hhd head in small settlements 46,4 28,4
Source: Havasi, 2008
13
• publication: ”Growing Unequal?” (2008)
EU-SILC
• EU countries, since 2004 on a yearly basis
• based on national sources of data, harmonized micro data
• Hungarian data: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, VÉKA survey
• sample: 6927 households in 1st wave
• publication: ”European Inequalities” (2009)
Income-definition: yearly, net equivalent household income
Changes of income inequalities in the OECD, 1985–2005
• 1985–2005: In 2/3 of the countries inequalities increased, significant increase in the first decade.
• 1985-1995: Inequalities increased in Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey, Italy, Portugal, UK, USA, Czech Republic, and Hungary.
• 1995–2005: Greater diversity: in eleven countries (including Hungary) inequalities remained unchanged and in some countries decreased (Mexico, Turkey, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK).
14
Gini indices of income inequality, cc 2005
Changes of the Gini index in OECD countries
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50
DNK SWE LUX AUT CZE SVK FI N
NLD BEL CHE NOR
I SL FRA HUN DEU AUS KOR CAN ESP JPN GRC
I RL NZL GBR
I TA POL USA PRT TUR MEX
Source: OECD, 2008
-0.070 -0.050 -0.030 -0.010 0.010 0.030 0.050 0.070
FRA ESP IRL GRC TUR GBR LUX DNK NLD BEL AUT JPN HUN MEX CZE CAN SW E ITA DEU NOR USA PRT FIN NZL
1985-1995 1995-2005
Source: OECD, 2008
15
Processes determining income inequalities
1. The effect of demographic changes on inequalities
• Aging of the population of developed countries: modified age structure.
• Average household size typically decreased – proportion of single households increased
– proportion of children living in single-parent families increased.
These changes induce an increase of inequalities in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK.
Demographic changes induce a decrease of inequalities in Mexico, Austria, Denmark, Italy and Sweden.
Changes in the household structure had a stronger effect than changes in the age composition.
2. Inequality of market incomes Income types considered:
• Wages of employees and earnings or the self-employed.
• Capital and property income: corporate profits to households, interests, property income + transfers among households, and private pensions.
Distribution of wages:
Wage inequality considered: the inequality of wages earned by full-time workers of the corporate sector.
In general, increasing inequality among OECD countries:
• at lower rate in Canada, France, Finland, Japan;
• higher than average in Germany, New-Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, USA;
• extremely high in post-socialist countries such as Poland and Hungary.
16
Wage inequality, P90/P10 1990=100%
(among men employed full-time)
From the dispersion of individual wages to the dispersion of household labor income
(Gini coefficients)
0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
United States Germany Czech Republic Poland
Hungary Finland France
Source: OECD Earnings Database.
AUT
BELAUS
CAN DEU
DNK
ESP FIN
FRA
GRC
HUN
IRL
ITA
LUX
MEX
NLD SWE
UKG
USA
OECD-19
0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50
0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50 Men and women working f ull-time
Men and women working full- and part-time
AUT AUSBEL
CAN
DEU DNK ESP
FIN FRA
GRC
HUN
IRL
ITA LUX
MEX
NLD SWE UKG
USA
OECD-19
0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60
0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60
Personal earnings among all workers
Household earnings among all workers
Source: OECD, 2008.
17 Inequalities of household labor income:
No changes in several countries. Increase in Canada, Germany, and the Czech Republic.
Reason: since 1995 the employment rate has increased in many countries (e.g. Spain, Ireland, Finland, several transitional countries, Turkey and on the average in the OECD countries).
Inequalities of self-employment and capital and property income:
• further increase on the average in OECD countries after 1995;
• inequalities of capital and property income significantly increased in Northern Europe, Hungary, and Italy;
• the share of capital and property income in total income increased in Hungary and Norway.
• the inequality of self-employment income increased in Sweden, Italy, Mexico and Hungary.
The effect of government redistribution (taxes and transfers/subsidies) on
inequalities
Cash benefits: old age pension (social security), survivor pension, disability pension, sick-pay, family allowances, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, and other subsidies.
Direct taxes: social security contributions, personal income tax.
18
Share of cash benefits and direct taxes in total income
Working age
Retirement
age Total Working age Retirement age Total
Australia 10,1 48,7 14,3 24,8 9,7 23,4
Austria3 27,4 101,3 36,6 35,0 27,5 33,4
Belgium3 22,3 96,9 30,5 42,1 19,6 38,3
Canada 9,3 46,7 13,6 27,0 15,0 25,8
Czech Republic2 17,0 79,1 24,3 23,9 6,1 21,6
Denmark 19,9 81,1 25,6 53,8 44,2 52,5
Finland 12,4 18,1 14,4 31,0 24,8 30,1
France4 22,6 96,4 32,9 28,8 11,1 26,0
Germany 16,4 82,2 28,2 41,1 12,5 35,5
Greece1 16,7 66,4 22,7 .. .. ..
Hungary1 27,5 85,6 35,1 .. .. ..
Iceland 12,3 79,7 19,2 54,1 34,2 53,1
Ireland2 13,3 55,8 17,7 20,7 5,4 19,4
Italy 21,1 87,4 29,2 32,0 21,1 30,2
Japan 11,0 55,8 19,7 21,0 15,4 19,7
Korea 3,0 15,7 3,6 8,1 5,0 8,0
Luxembourg3 22,4 91,0 30,6 26,3 14,8 23,8
Mexico1 5,4 21,3 5,8 .. .. ..
Netherlands 12,7 53,0 17,1 26,9 10,0 24,7
New Zealand 13,1 76,8 13,0 29,1 19,8 29,0
Norway 15,4 72,7 21,7 35,0 22,7 33,2
Poland1,2 30,4 92,6 35,8 28,8 17,9 27,7
Portugal1,2 20,3 74,2 25,5 .. .. ..
Slovak Republic 22,0 86,0 26,0 22,0 5,0 20,0
Spain1,2 15,0 70,4 21,3 .. .. ..
Sweden 21,4 96,3 32,7 44,2 40,2 43,2
Switzerland2 9,7 63,6 16,0 36,6 32,9 36,0
Turkey1 18,6 46,0 16,9 .. .. ..
United Kingdom 8,7 54,3 14,5 26,2 10,0 24,1
United States 5,6 42,1 9,4 27,7 16,4 25,6
OECD-245 15,8 69,7 21,9 31,1 18,4 29,3
Public cash benefits Household taxes
Source: OECD, 2008
19
Concentration coefficients of cash benefits and direct taxes
Working age Retirement
age Total Working age Retirement
age Total
Australia -0,431 -0,080 -0,400 0,492 0,816 0,533
Austria 0,130 0,256 0,157 0,365 0,464 0,381
Belgium -0,141 0,169 -0,120 0,363 0,420 0,398
Canada -0,173 -0,006 -0,152 0,472 0,586 0,492
Czech Republic -0,151 0,037 -0,154 0,424 0,789 0,471
Denmark -0,303 -0,054 -0,316 0,332 0,336 0,349
Finland -0,258 -0,138 -0,219 0,419 0,444 0,428
France 0,098 0,285 0,136 0,354 0,474 0,374
Germany -0,066 0,175 0,013 0,439 0,485 0,468
Greece1 0,176 0,202 0,115 .. .. ..
Hungary1 -0,025 0,119 -0,016 .. .. ..
Iceland 0,018 0,037 -0,041 0,257 0,296 0,267
Ireland -0,205 -0,001 -0,214 0,531 0,782 0,570
Italy 0,158 0,225 0,135 0,512 0,623 0,546
Japan 0,020 0,121 0,010 0,356 0,429 0,378
Korea 0,040 0,282 -0,012 0,363 0,462 0,380
Luxembourg 0,075 0,145 0,085 0,404 0,430 0,420
Mexico1 0,407 0,518 0,373 .. .. ..
Netherlands -0,223 -0,014 -0,198 0,436 0,705 0,471
New Zealand -0,331 -0,011 -0,345 0,485 0,249 0,498
Norway -0,177 0,074 -0,183 0,355 0,433 0,376
Poland1 0,173 0,198 0,185 0,382 0,325 0,379
Portugal1 0,315 0,295 0,247 .. .. ..
Slovak Republic -0,030 0,104 -0,056 0,388 0,726 0,422
Spain1 0,102 0,175 0,063 .. .. ..
Sweden -0,153 0,090 -0,145 0,330 0,312 0,337
Switzerland -0,176 0,015 -0,170 0,211 0,202 0,223
Turkey1 0,320 0,288 0,347 .. .. ..
United Kingdom -0,347 0,035 -0,275 0,486 0,614 0,533
United States -0,115 0,105 -0,089 0,549 0,658 0,586
OECD-242 -0,107 0,085 -0,099 0,404 0,502 0,428
Public cash benefits Household taxes
Source: OECD, 2008
20
Concentration coefficients of cash transfers by program
Old age pensions
Disability benefits
Compensation for occupation injury and
diseases
Survivor benefits
Family cash benefits
Unemploy- ment benefits
Housing benefits
Other benefits
Australia -0,47 -0,35 .. -0,30 -0,33 -0,44 .. -0,40
Austria 0,25 0,14 0,16 0,00 -0,09 -0,17 -0,48 -0,05
Belgium -0,09 -0,27 -0,13 -0,14 0,03 -0,22 -0,15 -0,50
Canada -0,11 .. . .. -0,46 -0,06 .. -0,22
Czech Republic -0,11 -0,06 .. 0,19 -0,26 -0,28 -0,66 -0,36
Denmark -0,49 -0,18 .. .. -0,04 -0,22 -0,58 -0,37
Finland -0,44 0,07 0,12 0,02 -0,07 -0,24 -0,61 -0,39
France 0,25 0,14 .. 0,05 -0,13 0,08 -0,55 -0,23
Germany 0,10 .. 0,07 -0,04 -0,04 -0,28 0,00 -0,24
Greece 0,15 0,06 0,25 0,02 -0,02 0,04 -0,17 -0,11
Hungary 0,01 .. .. .. -0,06 -0,25 .. -0,17
Ireland -0,32 -0,27 0,27 0,08 -0,21 -0,07 -0,46 0,02
Italy 0,22 0,90 .. .. -0,52 -0,04 .. -0,05
Japan 0,02 .. .. .. .. -0,11 .. -0,33
Luxembourg 0,17 0,00 .. 0,13 -0,02 -0,09 -0,41 -0,52
Netherlands -0,16 -0,11 .. -0,14 -0,36 0,03 -0,65 -0,37
New Zealand -0,32 -0,35 -0,41 0,02 -0,43 -0,38 -0,37 -0,14
Norway -0,27 -0,06 .. -0,18 -0,06 -0,12 -0,65 -0,24
Poland 0,26 0,04 0,40 0,15 -0,22 0,13 -0,26 -0,13
Portugal 0,33 0,03 .. 0,03 .. 0,20 0,13 -0,77
Slovak Republic 0,00 -0,19 -0,01 0,24 -0,01 -0,07 0,84 -0,59
Spain 0,04 0,11 0,14 0,05 0,35 0,02 0,48 0,02
Sweden -0,19 0,25 0,25 .. -0,07 -0,10 -0,66 -0,16
Switzerland -0,19 .. .. .. -0,02 -0,15 .. -0,29
Turkey 0,37 0,07 .. 0,25 0,17 0,08 .. 0,52
United Kingdom -0,21 -0,20 .. .. .. .. .. -0,37
United States -0,04 .. .. .. -0,56 0,07 .. -0,10
OECD-27 -0,05 -0,01 0,10 0,02 -0,14 -0,10 -0,29 -0,24
Source: OECD, 2008
21
Share and dispersion of cash benefits in the OECD countries around 2005
Inequality-reducing effect of public cash transfers and direct taxes,
(mid-2000s, % reduction)
AUS
AUT
CAN CZE BEL
FIN DNK
FRA DEU
GRC ISL HUN
IRL
ITA JPN
LUX
NLD NZL
NOR
PRT POL
SVK ESP
CHE SWE GBR USA
-0,5 -0,3 -0,1 0,1 0,3 0,5
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percentage share of public cash transfers in household income
Concentration of public cash transfers
Source: OECD, 2008
AUS AUT
BEL
CAN DNK CZE
FIN FRA
DEU
ISL
IRL ITA
JPN
KOR LUX
NLD
NZL NOR
POL SVK
SWE
CHE
GBR
USA OECD-24
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50
0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40
Concentration coef f icient f or household disposable income
Government redistribution
Source: OECD, 2008
22 Share of cash transfers:
• The share of cash transfers in total income decreased between 1995 and 2005 in most OECD countries. Sharpest decrease took place in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Ireland (by 6-9 percentage point).
• It remained unchanged in Hungary.
• It increased in Turkey, Japan, and Germany.
The effect of direct taxes and cash benefits on inequalities:
• Strongest: the Gini coefficient is smaller by 27 points in Hungary, 24 points in Belgium due to redistribution.
• Weakest: 14-15 points in the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland.
The effect of direct taxes and cash benefits on inequalities
Sourc e: EURO MO D 0.2 0
0.2 5 0.3 0 0.3 5 0.4 0 0.4 5 0.5 0 0.5 5 0.6 0
AT DK SE LU BE NL FR DE FI SI HU ES UK IE GR EE PL IT PT Original inc ome Original income and public pensions
Gross income Disposable inc ome
Source: Alari et al., 2009.
23
Gini decomposition, Hungary 2002
Distribution of income and taxes by income group (1998, %)
Gini
Share of income type
Absolute contribution
Relative contribution
Wages and salaries 0,3177 44,3% 0,1407 59%
Income from occasional work -0,0233 1,9% -0,0004 0%
Income from self-employment 0,4611 6,4% 0,0297 13%
Income from agriculture 0,2860 8,7% 0,0248 10%
Income from capital 0,7973 2,0% 0,0160 7%
Pensions 0,1182 25,3% 0,0299 13%
Unemployment benefits -0,4890 0,9% -0,0044 -2%
Family benefits -0,2627 4,8% -0,0125 -5%
Other social benefits -0,1014 1,1% -0,0011 0%
Interfamily transfers 0,2925 4,2% 0,0122 5%
Other 0,3668 0,6% 0,0021 1%
Total income 0,2369 100,0% 0,2370 100%
Source: Molnár and Galla, 2009.
Low income
40%
Middle income 40%
High income
20%
Total Total (billion
HUF) Labour and other market inc. 18.2 36.6 45.1 100.0 4420
Social benefits 33.8 43.6 22.5 100.0 1439
Other income 18.2 34.1 47.7 100.0 44
Total gross income 22.0 38.3 39.6 100.0 5902
Direct taxes 16.1 35.3 48.5 100.0 960
Indirect taxes 26.8 38.7 34.4 100.0 909
Total taxes 21.3 37.0 41.7 100.0 1869
Net income 22.4 38.9 38.7 100.0 4033
Note: income groups based on net income per capita.
Source: Révész (2002)
24
Tax payments by income group as % of gross income (1998)
Poverty indices
The method of counterfactual statistical experiments Low
income 40%
Middle income 40%
High income
20%
Total
Social insurance contributions 4,01 4,19 4,54 4,29
Personal income tax 7,08 10,02 14,44 11,12
Fees, fines 0,29 0,25 0,52 0,37
Vehicle tax, fees 0,17 0,16 0,15 0,16
Real estate tax, Local taxes 0,36 0,37 0,26 0,33
Real estate investment VAT 0,40 0,37 0,49 0,42
Customs, duties 0,77 0,65 0,62 0,66
Indirect taxes 17,55 14,56 12,28 14,31
All taxes 30,63 30,57 33,30 31,66
Note: income groups based on net income per capita.
Source: Révész (2002)
Source: Tóth, 2005.
25
Inequalities in the EU countries in 2006 (Gini coefficient)
0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39
SI SE DK SK CZ HU FI BE AT FR NL LU DE CY ES IE IT PL EE UK LT GR LV PT
Source: Medgyesi and Tóth, 2009b.
26
Income inequality and economic development in the EU countries
Source: Medgyesi and Tóth, 2009a.
27
Comparative income distribution
(comparison based on EU median income, 2006)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
PL L V LT HU EE SK PT CZ GR ES IT SI DE FR UK B E SE FI CY IE A T DK NL L U EU
low e r th an 50 % of EU median inc ome 5 0%< 80 % 80 %< 12 0% 1 20%< 20 0% h igh er tha n 200 % of EU med ian in c ome
Source: Medgyesi and Tóth, 2009b.
28
At-risk-of-poverty rates across EU countries (with confidence intervals, based on the EU-
SILC)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
CZ NL SI SK DK SE FI AT DE FR LU BE CY HU EE IE PT PL UK IT ES LT GR LV
% EU25
Source: Lelkes et al. 2009.
