Flash Eurobarometer
European Commission
Monitoring the social impact of the crisis: public perceptions in the European Union Wave 2
Analytical report
Fieldwork: December 2009 Flash Eurobarometer 286 – The Gallup Organization
Publication: March 2010
This survey was requested by Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities and coordinated by Directorate-General Communication This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors. page 1
Flash EB Series #286
Monitoring the social impact of the crisis: public perceptions in the European Union Wave 2 Survey conducted by The Gallup Organization, Hungary upon the request of Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Coordinated by Directorate-General Communication This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Table of contents Table of contents ................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Main findings ........................................................................................................................................ 5 1. Perceptions about the existence of poverty .................................................................................... 8 1.1 Perceived trends in poverty at local, national and EU levels ....................................................... 8 1.2 Estimating the proportion of poor people in the respondent’s country ...................................... 13 2. Degree of financial difficulty ......................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Keeping up with household bills and credit commitments ......................................................... 17 2.2 Running out of money to pay for essential goods and services .................................................. 19 3. Changes in healthcare and social-care affordability ................................................................... 22 4. Expectations about the household financial situation ................................................................. 28 5. Views about being able to cope financially ................................................................................... 33 6. Future affordability of accommodation ....................................................................................... 39 7. Views on the employment situation .............................................................................................. 41 7.1 Respondents’ confidence in the ability to keep their job ............................................................ 41 7.2 Confidence in finding a job in the event of being laid off .......................................................... 44 8. Concerns about future finances .................................................................................................... 49 8.1 The impact of changes in pension entitlements .......................................................................... 49 8.2 Concerns regarding income in old age ....................................................................................... 51 I. Annex tables .................................................................................................................................... 57 II. Survey details ................................................................................................................................. 97 III. Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................. 103
page 3
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Introduction When the EU’s growth and jobs strategy was launched in March 2000, EU leaders pledged to make “a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty” by 2010. However, many people still live in destitution with no access to basic services such as healthcare. Almost 80 million Europeans live below the poverty threshold. To focus on the situation, 2010 has been designated as the “European Year for combating poverty and social exclusion”, in order to recognise that:
All people have a right to live in dignity and take part in society Public and private sectors share the responsibility to combat poverty and social exclusion Eradicating poverty for a more cohesive society benefits all Commitment at all levels of society is needed to achieve this goal1.
In response to the current global economic crisis, on 26 November 2008, the European Commission presented a comprehensive action plan to protect Europe’s citizens from the worst effects of the financial crisis. It includes extensive action at national and EU levels to help households and industry and to concentrate support on the most vulnerable2. It is in this context that the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities decided to regularly monitor public opinion about the social impact of the global economic crisis. The first survey was conducted in July 2009 – Flash Eurobarometer survey No 276. The current report presents results of the second wave – Flash Eurobarometer survey No 286 (conducted in December 2009) – and looks at comparative data between the two waves. The objectives of the Flash Eurobarometer survey – “FL286 Monitoring the social impact of the crisis: public perceptions in the European Union (Wave 2)” – were:
To investigate perceptions about the existence of poverty To gain knowledge about the degree of financial difficulty of households – at present and in the 12 months leading up to the survey To measure changes in healthcare and social-care affordability in the past six months To understand how people feel about their future pension entitlements and their concerns about their financial situation in their old age.
In addition, the survey looked at the perceptions of EU citizens in the near future (in the following 12 months). More precisely it covered the following issues:
General expectations about households’ financial situation Perceptions about the risk of falling behind with various payments The ability to afford one’s current accommodation The likelihood of keeping one’s job.
The survey obtained interviews – fixed-line, mobile phone and face-to-face – with nationally representative samples of EU citizens (aged 15 and older) living in the 27 Member States. The target sample size in most countries was 1,000 interviews; in total, 25,630 interviews were conducted by Gallup’s network of fieldwork organisations from November 30 to December 4, 2009. Statistical results were weighted to correct for known demographic discrepancies. More details on the survey methodology are included in the Annex of this report. Please note that due to rounding, the percentages shown in the charts and tables do not always exactly add up to the totals mentioned in the text.
1 2
Source: : http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=637 See, for example: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=422&furtherNews=yes
page 4
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Main findings Perceptions about poverty in the EU
The trends in EU citizens’ views about poverty were negative: more than half of respondents (between 54% and 76%) considered that poverty had increased at local, national and EU levels during the 12 months prior to December 2009.
Three-quarters of EU citizens said that poverty had increased in their country in the 12 months prior to the survey, but they were less likely to think that poverty in their local area had increased in that timeframe; this opinion was held by roughly 6 in 10 interviewees.
As opposed to national and local levels of poverty, respondents found it difficult to estimate any change in poverty levels across the EU. Nevertheless, the proportion who thought that poverty had strongly or slightly increased across the EU was significantly higher than those who thought there had been a decrease in the year prior to the survey.
Individual country results showed the greatest degree of variation in citizens’ perceptions regarding changes in poverty levels in their area. While less than 4 in 10 respondents in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands considered that local poverty had strongly or slightly increased in the period under consideration, more than three-quarters of respondents in Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria, France and Latvia had a similar perception.
Perceptions about the numbers of poor people in the EU
The majority of EU citizens considered that poverty was rather widespread in their country: 31% of respondents estimated that one person in five was poor in their country, and approximately the same proportion (30%) felt that one person in three was poor.
The most pessimistic citizens were those of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where more than 6 in 10 interviewees estimated that about one-third of their fellow citizens lived in poverty (67%, 64% and 62%, respectively). In each of these countries, less than a fifth of citizens believed that the proportion of poor people in their country did not exceed 10%.
Respondents‟ views about their household‟s degree of financial difficulty
A fifth of EU citizens surveyed in December 2009 had difficulties in keeping up with household bills and credit commitments and a similar proportion (19%) stated that their household had had no money to pay ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items, on at least one occasion, in the 12 months prior to the survey.
In Greece, 58% of respondents stated that their household was having difficulties in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments. In all other Member States, less than half of interviewees had had such an experience, ranging from 3% in Denmark and the Netherlands to 44%-45% in Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Latvia.
Romanians (40%) and Latvians (39%) were the most likely to have run out of money to pay for essential goods and services at least once during the 12 months prior to the survey. In Denmark (4%), the Netherlands (7%), Sweden and Austria (both 10%), however, far fewer residents had had such problems.
page 5
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Coping with the costs of various types of healthcare in the past six months
Between 27% and 34% of EU citizens (where a specific type of healthcare was applicable) had noted it had become somewhat or much more difficult in the past six months to bear the costs of general healthcare, childcare and long-term care.
About half of respondents (48%-53%) who had had difficulties in paying day-to-day bills in the past year now found it more difficult to afford (applicable) healthcare. By comparison, in the group of respondents who had had no difficulties in paying bills, roughly half as many interviewees said things had changed for the worse.
More than 6 in 10 (65%) Latvians said that in the half year prior to the survey, they had noted it had become somewhat or much more difficult to bear the costs of general healthcare. Just under half of Hungarians (49%) and Poles (48%) also felt that it was now harder for them to afford general healthcare.
Putting the focus solely on respondents who considered the question about childcare to be relevant to their personal situation showed that more than 4 in 10 citizens in Greece (57%), Malta (50%), Hungary (45%), Latvia (43%) and Bulgaria (41%) felt that it was now somewhat or much more difficult to afford childcare.
The most likely to have had difficulties in coping with long-term care costs were Latvians (72% of those who answered the question on this subject), followed by Hungarians (56%) and Greeks (55%).
Expectations about respondents‟ household financial situation in the next 12 months
Looking ahead, roughly a quarter (22%) of EU citizens said they expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate during the next 12 months. Over half (54%) of interviewees thought the situation would be stable and 21% anticipated that it would improve in the near future.
These results were more positive than those from the previous wave of the survey (July 2009) when 26% of EU citizens expected their household’s financial situation to be worse in the 12 months following the study, and 16% anticipated that it would improve.
Respondents who had run out of money – at least once – to pay for essential goods and services in the year prior to the survey were more likely, than those who had not been through such an experience, to state that they expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate (32% vs. 19%) in the year to come; however, members of the group were also more likely to expect an improvement in the situation (27% vs. 19%).
At least half of respondents in Lithuania (56%) and Latvia (50%) expected their household’s financial situation to be worse in the next 12 months, and at least 4 in 10 citizens expected the same in Ireland (48%), Cyprus (45%) and Malta (40%). In all other Member States, 60%-90% of citizens anticipated the same or a better financial situation for their households in the next 12 months.
Respondents‟ views as to whether they could cope financially in the next 12 months
Of the four types of payments under review, an unexpected expense of €1,000 (or its equivalent in national currency) worried EU citizens the most: more than 6 in 10 respondents said there was at least a low risk of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 in the year to come. Day-to-day expenditures (paying bills, buying food or other daily consumer items) were reasons for anxiety for 45% of EU citizens.
page 6
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
While more than three-quarters of citizens in Lithuania and Hungary (both 77%), Bulgaria (79%), Poland (80%), Portugal (84%) and Latvia (92%) thought that, in the year to come, they might not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000, this proportion decreased to less than 40% in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands (between 27% and 34%).
More than a quarter (27%) of respondents felt that the question about paying rent or mortgage was not relevant to their personal situation and 36% said the same for the question about repaying consumer loans. Among those who did reply, 46% said there was at least a low risk that they would not be able to pay the rent or mortgage on time in the year to come and 49% expressed such pessimism about their ability to repay consumer loans on time.
Respondents‟ ability to afford their current accommodation in the next 12 months
Six percent of EU citizens said that it was very or fairly likely that they might be forced by financial circumstances to leave their accommodation within the next 12 months. In four Member States, about 1 in 10 or more respondents considered it likely that they would have problems meeting the costs of their accommodation: Latvia (14%), Spain, Greece and Italy (9%-11%).
Views on the employment situation
While 77% of respondents in employment were very or fairly confident that they would be able to keep their job in the next 12 months, just 45% thought it would be very or fairly likely that they would be able to find a new job within six months, in the event that they were laid off.
Citizens of the Baltic states were the most pessimistic about their ability to stay in their current job in the next 12 months: more than 4 in 10 Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians were not confident about this. In comparison, less than 1 in 10 Finnish, Austrian, Dutch, Danish and German residents, in employment, were concerned about keeping their job.
Italian, Maltese, Lithuanian, Spanish, Irish, Portuguese and Latvian citizens were the most pessimistic about their likelihood of finding a new position in case they were laid off: 62%-66% felt that it would not be at all likely or fairly unlikely that they would find a new job within six months of that happening. Danish citizens were the least pessimistic: just 27% felt that it would not be likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off.
The impact of the crisis on future pension entitlements
Turning to EU citizens’ views about how their pension entitlements might change in the future, a quarter of interviewees thought that they would have to save more for when they retired. A further one in four (24%) thought that they would receive lower pension benefits than expected, while about one in five (19%) respondents said that they would have to retire later than planned.
Roughly half of EU citizens were worried – compared to 46% who were not worried – about the chances that their income in old age would not be sufficient to allow them to live in dignity.
Respondents in Italy and Portugal were the most likely to be very or fairly worried that their income in old age would not be adequate to enable them to live in dignity (71% and 66%, respectively). Danes were the most optimistic, with 83% of citizens expecting an income in old age that would make it possible for them to live in dignity.
page 7
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
1. Perceptions about the existence of poverty This survey gauged EU citizens’ perceptions of poverty. First of all, it focused on their views regarding poverty trends at various levels. Such trends were seen as negative by EU citizens: more than half of the respondents (between 54% and 76%) considered that poverty had increased at local, national and EU levels during the 12 months prior to December 2009. In addition, EU citizens were asked to make an estimate of the proportion of poor people living in their country. About 6 in 10 interviewees thought that poverty was rather widespread – i.e. they estimated that at least 20% of their country’s inhabitants lived in poverty.
1.1 Perceived trends in poverty at local, national and EU levels Roughly three-quarters of EU citizens said that poverty had increased in their country in the 12 months prior to the survey. Furthermore, 4 in 10 interviewees thought that poverty had strongly increased at national level. Roughly 1 in 10 respondents – in each case – considered that poverty in their country had either remained unchanged (8%) or had strongly or slightly decreased (11%) in the period under consideration. EU citizens were less likely to think that poverty in their local area had increased in the 12 months prior to the survey; this opinion was held by roughly 6 in 10 interviewees (25% felt it had “strongly increased” and 36% “slightly increased”). Approximately a quarter (24%) of respondents felt that – in their area – poverty had stayed at the same level. A positive view about the change in the level of poverty in their local area was supported by 11% of respondents – i.e. they considered that poverty had strongly or slightly decreased. Considering the three levels reviewed in the survey, respondents found it difficult to express an opinion about the change in the level of poverty at EU level: 27% gave a “don’t know” response (compared to 4%-5% for local and national level questions). Nevertheless, as with changes in the degree of poverty at local or national levels, interviewees who thought that poverty had strongly or slightly increased across the EU largely outnumbered those who thought there had been a strong or slight decrease in the year prior to the survey (54% vs. 10%). Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in... Fl276 (07/2009) … the area where you live
23
... home country
…the EU
34
39
24
27
36
31
Fl286 (12/2009)
9
Strongly increased … Slightly the areadecreased where you live
8 25
8
7 2
25
8 36
27
36
40
23
24
36
31
9
9 24
8
8 2
Slightly increased
Stayed the same
Strongly decreased
DK/NA
8 35
27
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…? Base: all respondent, % EU27
A comparison, between the results of the first (July 2009) and second wave (December 2009), concerning EU citizens’ perceptions about poverty trends, showed no differences for the national and European level questions. Respondents in the current survey, however, were somewhat more likely to think that poverty in their local area had strongly or slightly increased in the 12 months prior to the survey (61% vs. 57% in July 2009). page 8
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Country variations The opinion that poverty at country level had strongly or slightly increased in the 12 months prior to the survey was shared by at least half of respondents in all Member States. Latvians had the most pessimistic view: an overwhelming (95%) majority felt that the level of poverty in their country had increased in the past 12 months. A similar view was held by 9 in 10 respondents in Lithuania, Portugal and France (90%-91%). The conviction that poverty had strongly increased in their country was felt by three-quarters of interviewees in Latvia and more than 6 in 10 respondents in Hungary (64%), Greece (63%) and Portugal (62%). In a further five countries (e.g. Lithuania and Romania), between 57% and 59% of respondents had a similar perception. In Denmark and Sweden, on the other hand, just 13%-14% of respondents said poverty had strongly increased in their country. Respondents in the two last-named countries were among the most likely in the EU to sense that the level of poverty was stable in their country (18% and 15%, respectively), while Polish, Czech, Irish and British respondents had the most positive view – at least a fifth of respondents in these countries said that poverty in their country had strongly or slightly decreased in the 12 months prior to the survey (between 20% and 26%). Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months
29
32
39
Slightly increased 4 6 3 23
3 6 3
4 6 3
31
23
5 5 6 37
60
9 8 3 22
Stayed the same 4 7 8
4 6 10
75 58
62
58
20
64 49
56
63 47
59
5
7
13 4
10 5
Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased 3 7 13
5 11 8
4 9 11
8 6 13
8 11 11
21
35 58
40
5 7 9
39
48
36
40
61
56
46
3
7
25
17
4
9
27 50
3
7
14
11
16
18
46
40
39
31
41
36 17
16
24
8
9
7
26
20
23
8
16
16
15
51
49
13
14
32
17
SK
NL
IE
MT
AT
CY
EU27
LU
BE
DE
RO
FI
IT
BG
EE
EL
ES
HU
SI
LT
PT
13
35
0
FR
10
30
32
57 21
LV
DK/NA
39
28
23
16
CZ
33
3 5 6
PL
3 4 3
UK
4 23
SE
80
2 3 23 4 6 20
DK
Strongly increased 100
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in‌? Base: all respondents, % by country
In comparison with perceptions about poverty trends at a national level, the country results at a local level showed a greater degree of variation. The proportion of respondents who thought that poverty in their local area had strongly or slightly increased in the 12 months prior to the survey was as low as 30% in Sweden and as high as 89% in Latvia. Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria and France joined Latvia at the higher end of the scale: between 76% and 80% of citizens in these countries felt that the level of poverty around them was getting worse. Almost 6 in 10 respondents in Latvia said poverty had strongly increased in their area (58%). A similar view was shared by roughly half of Bulgarians and Hungarians (52% and 47%, respectively). On the contrary, as well as Swedish respondents, Danish and Dutch citizens (37%-38%) were the least likely to think that poverty had increased in their area in the past 12 months. In these three countries, just about 1 in 20 respondents considered that poverty in their area had strongly increased (5%-6%). Furthermore, more than 4 in 10 Swedes and Danes said that the level of poverty had remained the same in their area (48% and 45%, respectively); Dutch respondents, however, were less likely to share this view (39%). More than a tenth (15%) of the latter said that poverty in their area had strongly or slightly decreased in the period under consideration. Czech, British, Irish and Polish respondents, page 9
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
nonetheless, had the most positive view – at least a fifth said the level of poverty around them was decreasing (21%-22%). Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live
38
21
40
3 8
21
24
28
41
38
52
37
47
36
40
38
42
21
31
29
22
25
EU27
BE
ES
PT
RO
EL
SI
IT
EE
HU
LT
BG
LV
FR
0
3 14
30
25
36 51
58
Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased 5 8
47
9
12
33
25
4
10
22
11
17
40
23
36
17
19
5 7
12 10
36
44
26
37
8 5 39
38
DK/NA
4
5
3
9
10
12
20
21
22
15
8
10
28
30
32
39
45
35
32
24 32
32
25
6
5
5
SE
29
51
40 20
32
34
22
8 7
4 11
DK
36
11
2 8
NL
29
15
16
Stayed the same 4 4
8
15
10
12
12
18
PL
41
19
3
UK
27
16
4 8
CZ
42
14
2 7
DE
60
2 10
AT
13
31
Slightly increased 6 7
MT
3 8
FI
3 7 12
CY
4 9 8
IE
4 4 13
LU
80
2 2 6
SK
Strongly increased 100
48
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…? Base: all respondents, % by country
Note: increased = “strongly increased” + “slightly increased”
page 10
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Respondents found it difficult to estimate any change in poverty levels across the EU: between 9% of respondents in Luxembourg and 44% in Bulgaria could not or would not say whether poverty had decreased or increased in the EU in the year prior to the survey. In several Member States that joined the EU in 2004 or later, a third or more respondents did not answer: in addition to Bulgaria, these countries were Poland and Romania (both 37%), Estonia (35%), Latvia, Hungary and Malta (all 33%). In addition, 38% of British interviewees gave no response. Focusing solely on those who did respond, it was noted that residents in France, Portugal and Cyprus were the most likely to think that poverty had strongly or slightly increased at EU level (90%-91%). Roughly 6 in 10 Cypriots (61%) and about half of Portuguese and French respondents (49% and 51%, respectively) said there had been a strong increase of poverty in the EU in the previous 12 months. In Poland, on the other hand, less than half as many respondents as in Cyprus thought that poverty had increased at EU level (42% vs. 91%; a 49-percentage point differences with Cyprus). In one additional country – the Czech Republic – less than half of respondents thought that there had been an increase of poverty in the EU (49%). A quarter of Czech and Polish residents felt that the level of poverty across the EU had been stable (25%-26%) and a somewhat higher proportion perceived a strong or slight decrease in the level of poverty in the EU (26% and 32%, respectively). Respondents in Slovakia were as likely as respondents in the two former countries to think that the level of poverty had remained the same during the past year (26%), while those in the UK were as likely to think that the amount of poverty had deteriorated (28%). Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU Base: all respondents
38
38
45 17
24
24
31
30
37
23
8
16
11
8
38
18
35
27 10
9 31
21
23
DK
ES
IT
DE
AT
FI
CY
FR
EL
BE
SI
PT
LU
0
29
11 10 38
18
27
12 21
31
33
29
33
33
35
37
9
12
7
8
6
7
9
12
15
15
15
30
33
39
31
38
32
25
6
12
18
19
15
9
13
38
44
37
21
17
12
22
12 9
19
18 8
13 11
20 17
29
20
16
9
16
9
7
PL
36
39
20
BG
49
41
8 7
24
UK
30
22
6 9
25
CZ
5 2
24
DK/NA
RO
4 3
6 10
EE
22
7 8
LV
23
21
5 9
HU
39
40
31
19
LT
47
33
26
24
MT
6 5
IE
21
6 6
34
40 20
19
5 7
SE
41
18
Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased
SK
60
18 3 5
Stayed the same
EU27
80
9 8 4
Slightly increased
NL
Strongly increased 100
23
19
Base: respondents who provided an answer (excluding “don’t know” answers)
49
13
14
12
14
51
43
40
61 20
49
51
43
48
44 28
21
30
40
31
30
24
32
50
15 14
53
22
18
20 10
44
26
9 23
50
18
24 9
42
26
IE
EE
NL
EU27
DK
DE
ES
IT
AT
FI
SI
BE
EL
LU
FR
PT
CY
0
16
11
11
17
22
23
54
13
47
20
20
14
15
26
40 57
38
28
23
14
20
33
25
22
25
9
42
15
26
25
37
32
26
31
12
11
PL
49
11 14
CZ
41
8 13
BG
61
51
11 9
UK
41 58
8 12
SK
39
8 10
Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased
RO
45
8 7
Stayed the same
LV
39
8 6
6 12
HU
41
60
8 4
Slightly increased 6 9
LT
30
6 4
SE
80
7 3
4 5
MT
Strongly increased 100
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…? % by country
page 11
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
A comparison with EU citizens’ perceptions about poverty in July 2009 Based on individual country results – both in July and December 2009 – regarding EU citizens’ perceptions about poverty trends at various levels, a few conclusions can be drawn:
In both waves of the survey, perceptions varied the most between countries when respondents were asked about the level of poverty in their area. Similarly, in both surveys, respondents found it the most difficult to express an opinion about the change in the level of poverty at EU level.
Examining country breakdowns, it was noted that their ranking remained more or less the same between the two surveys. For example, citizens in Latvia, Portugal and Hungary were among the most likely to feel that the situation of poverty in their country had worsened in the past 12 months – both in July and in December 2009.
It was noted above that, when asking EU citizens about changes in poverty trends, the results at EU level were similar in July and December 2009. There was, however, no overall pattern, and in some Member States there was no difference in perceptions, while in others, there were examples of both positive (i.e. a lower proportion who felt there had been a slight or strong decrease) and negative (i.e. a higher proportion who felt there had been a decrease) trends.
Socio-demographic considerations The youngest respondents were less likely than their older counterparts to consider that poverty had increased in the 12 months prior to the survey in their local area or in their country. For example, while 72% of 15-24 year-olds felt that the level of poverty had risen in their country, between 75% and 79% of the other age groups had a similar view. At the same time, 15-24 year-olds were more likely than their older counterparts to sense that poverty had tended to decrease in their country (16% vs. 10%-11%) and in their local area (18% vs. 9%-10% of older respondents). Over 54 year-olds were more likely to give a “don’t know” response when asked about poverty in the EU (33% vs. 21%-25% of all the other age groups). When taking this difference into account, however, a similar pattern of differences emerged as discussed above: 15-24 year-olds were less likely than their older counterparts to consider that poverty had increased at EU level. Full-time students, compared to all other respondents, also felt there had been greater decreases in the degree of poverty at local, national and EU levels during the 12 months prior to the survey. For example, about a fifth (19%) of full-time students thought that poverty had decreased in their local area compared to only about half as many of those no longer in education (9%-12%). Respondents with the lowest level of education found it most difficult to express an opinion about the change in the level of poverty at EU level (34% gave a “don’t know” response vs. 23%-28% of those with a higher level of education). Nevertheless, after controlling for the number of “don’t know” responses – and as for the findings for poverty at local and country levels – it appeared that the respondent’s educational background had little impact on their perceptions about trends in the levels of poverty. Within occupational segments, the self-employed were the least likely to sense that poverty had increased at local, national and EU levels during the 12 months prior to the survey. The most liable to say that poverty had increased at local and national levels were manual workers; employees were the most likely to state that poverty had increased in the EU in the 12 months prior to the survey For example, 70% of the self-employed thought that poverty had increased in their country, compared to 80% of manual workers, 78% of employees and 75% of non-working respondents. Although men and women did not differ in the overall proportions who thought there had been an increase in the levels of poverty, the latter were more likely to sense that there had been a strong increase. For example, a slim majority of both men and women said that poverty had increased in the page 12
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
EU in the 12 months prior to the survey (53% and 55%, respectively); however, while 27% of women said that this had been a strong increase, just 20% of men agreed. For further details, see annex table 1b, 2b and 3b.
1.2 Estimating the proportion of poor people in the respondent’s country About 6 in 10 EU citizens considered that poverty was rather widespread in their country – i.e. they thought that at least 20% of their country’s inhabitants lived in poverty. This was unchanged from the previous wave of the survey. More precisely, 30% of respondents estimated that one person in three (i.e. roughly 30% of the country’s population) was poor, and approximately the same proportion (31%) said that one person in five (i.e. 20%) was poor in their country. Somewhat more than a fifth (22%) of EU citizens estimated that the proportion of poor people in their country was about 10%, and roughly 1 in 10 (9%) thought that about 5% of their fellow citizens lived in poverty. Finally, less than 1 in 20 (4%) respondents thought that the proportion of poor people in their country was less than 5%. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries Fl276 (07/2009)
31
31
1 person out of 5 - or 20%
22
21
1 person out of 10 - or 10%
9
8
1 person out of 20 - or 5%
DK/NA
30
29
1 person out of 3 - or about 30%
Less than 5%
Fl286 (12/2009)
4
4 5
5
Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ? Base: all respondents, % EU27
The most pessimistic citizens were those of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where more than 6 in 10 interviewees estimated that about one-third of their fellow citizens lived in poverty (67%, 64% and 62%, respectively). Lithuania, Latvia and Greece had more than 4 in 10 interviewees stating that poverty affected roughly 30% of their country’s population (49%, 48% and 45%, respectively). In each of these countries, less than a fifth of citizens believed that the proportion of poor people in their country did not exceed 10% (between 10% and 19%). Turning to the most “optimistic” country, just 2% of respondents in Denmark thought that one person in three was poor in their country, and 12% thought the figure was one person in five. Three in 10 Danes estimated that the proportion of poor people in their country was about 10%, and another 27% thought that about 5% of the country’s residents were poor. Finally, about a quarter (24%) believed that poverty affected less than 5% of the country’s residents. Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands had roughly 1 in 10 interviewees (9%-11%) stating that poverty affected about 30% of their country’s population. Overall, almost two-thirds of respondents in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland (all 64%) and a slim majority in Luxembourg (53%) thought that the proportion of poor people in their country did not exceed 10% of the population. page 13
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
The map (following the bar chart) shows for each country the proportion of respondents who thought that poverty was rather widespread in their country (i.e. at least 20% of their country’s inhabitants lived in poverty). This map illustrates – once again – the contrast between the pessimism shown by respondents in many eastern and south-eastern European countries and the relative optimism shown by interviewees in the Nordic countries and certain northern and central European Member States. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries Less than 5%
26
28
15
60
3 2 6
19
18
18
22
5 3 8
7 2 7
17
18
62
20
49
48
45
11
3 3 7
30
29
29
33
33
39
38
38
37
34
33
31
30
25
28
9 4 9
22 23
22
40
64
8 6
22
33 28
67
5 4 9
16
2 3 8
8 9
26
30
25
22
25
6 7
14
11
20 34
5 4 6
5 8 14
4 6
28
24
30
26
MT
ES
CZ
FR
EU27
PT
IT
SI
PL
EE
SK
EL
LT
LV
RO
HU
19
19
35
34
20
22
24
19
36
32
5 4
5
14
24
35
27
32
30
24
23
22
20
17
15
11
10
10
9
12 2
0
BG
5 11
30
41 30
2 9
5 10
13
24
29
19 39
DK/NA 4 10
DK
14
6 3 6
LU
13
6 1 6
FI
11
8 2 5
SE
3 1 4
NL
6 1 4
AT
23
7 2 6
IE
16
8 1 4 10
BE
3 20 8
UK
5 1 4 8
1 person out of 10 - or 10%
CY
80
1 person out of 5 - or 20%
1 person out of 20 - or 5%
DE
100
1 person out of 3 - or about 30%
Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ? Base: all respondents, % by country
page 14
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
EU citizens’ perceptions about poverty – a comparison between July and December 2009 Between July 2009 and the current survey, the individual country results mostly showed small differences between respondents’ perceptions about the amount of poverty in their countries. There were, however, a few exceptions. The July 2009 results showed that more than three-quarters (77%) of Portuguese respondents thought that at least one-fifth of their fellow citizens lived in poverty; in December 2009, however, far fewer Portuguese respondents selected this response (66%, -11 percentage points). A similar trend was observed in Spain (from 61% in July to 55% in December, -6 percentage points). Luxembourg and Malta, on the other hand, had seen an increase of at least 15 percentage points in the proportion of respondents who estimated that the share of poor people in their country was at least 20% (Luxembourg: from 27% to 42%, +15 percentage points; Malta: from 29% to 47%, +18). Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries Comparison between waves Fl276 - At least 1 person out of 5 - or 20% Fl286 100
+2
+2
80
+5
-3
+2
+1
-11 +3
+4
+1
-4
+1
+3
60
-1
-1
-2
-6 +2 +5 -2
+1
+18 +3
40
+15 +2 -2
+1
20
NL
DK
SE
FI
LU
AT
IE
MT
UK
CY
CZ
ES
DE
EU27
BE
FR
PT
PL
SK
SI
IT
EE
LT
LV
RO
EL
BG
85 87 81 83 73 78 79 76 74 76 74 75 65 68 64 68 66 67 70 66 65 66 77 66 62 65 62 61 61 60 60 58 61 55 51 53 47 52 54 52 46 47 29 47 44 47 27 42 32 34 34 32 30 31 16 14
HU
0
-2
Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ? Base: all respondents, % by country
Socio-demographic considerations Generally, women were more likely to believe that there was a higher proportion of poor people in their country: 32% of women thought that about one-third of their fellow citizens were poor compared to 27% of men who held that opinion. Almost 4 in 10 (39%) men felt that 10% or less people were poor in their country, compared to 31% of women who had that view. Similarly, manual workers made more negative estimates about the issue compared to respondents in other occupational categories. While more than a third (36%) of manual workers considered that about 30% of the population in their respective countries were poor, between 26% and 31% of respondents in other occupational groups felt that way. Almost 4 in 10 employees and self-employed respondents estimated the share of poor people to be 10% or less (39% and 37%, respectively), the corresponding proportions for manual workers and non-working respondents were, respectively, 27% and 33%. The opinion that poverty affected roughly 30% of their country’s population was less frequently held by the most educated respondents: 22% selected this response vs. 33%-34% of those with a lower level of education. The most educated respondents were more likely to think that either about 20% or 10% of their fellow citizens lived in poverty. For example, 26% of the former thought that about onetenth of their fellow citizens were poor compared to 20%-21% of respondents with a lower level of education. page 15
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Finally, within the various age groups, it was noted that a lower proportion of the oldest respondents mentioned the highest ratios of poverty: 56% of the over 54s said that either one person in three or one person in five was poor in their country, compared to 61%-63% of other age groups. The oldest respondents found it more difficult to estimate the proportion of poor people in their country: 8% gave a “don’t know” response (compared to 2%-4% for other age groups). For further details, see annex table 4b.
page 16
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
2. Degree of financial difficulty This survey used two subjective measures to identify the degree of financial difficulty existing in EU households:
the ability of households to keep up with bills and credit commitments at the time of the survey, and whether households had run out of money to pay essential goods and services at some time in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Both measures gave similar results: a fifth of EU citizens surveyed in December 2009 had difficulties in keeping up with household bills and credit commitments and a similar proportion (19%) stated that, on at least one occasion in the 12 months prior to the survey, their household had had no money to pay ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items.
2.1 Keeping up with household bills and credit commitments In December 2009, keeping up with household bills and credit commitments was a problem for a fifth of EU citizens: 15% said that this was a constant struggle, 3% had fallen behind with some bills and credit commitments, and 2% had had real financial problems and had fallen behind with many such payments. A third of EU citizens stated that their household occasionally struggled to keep up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments; more than 4 in 10 (45%) said that this was never a problem. Households’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments Fl276 (07/2009)
Fl286 (12/2009) 45
I am / we are keeping up without any difficulties I am / we are keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time
45
34
33
15
I am / we are keeping up but it is a constant struggle
15
I am / we are falling behind with some bills / credit commitments
3
I am / we are having real financial problems and have fallen behind with many bills and credit commitments
2
2
1
1
DK/NA
3
Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present? Base: all respondents, % EU27
In Greece, 58% of respondents stated that their household was having difficulties in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments3. In all other Member States, less than half of interviewees were struggling to that extent, ranging from 3% in Denmark and the Netherlands to 44%-45% in Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Latvia. The proportion of interviewees who said that their household was in real trouble (i.e. had fallen behind with some or many bills and credit commitments) was higher than 10% in eight Member States: Bulgaria (15%), Greece (14%), Malta, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary (all 13%), Estonia (12%) and Romania (11%).
3
Sum of: “constant struggle” + “falling behind with some bills” + “falling behind with many bills” page 17
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
In Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, on the other hand, at least three-quarters of respondents stated they had absolutely no difficulty in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments (82%, 76% and 75%, respectively). In five further countries, a majority of respondents selected this response: Slovenia (51%), Slovakia (57%), Austria (63%), Finland and Luxembourg (both 66%). Households’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments falling behind with some/many bills
keeping up but it is a constant struggle
keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time
keeping up without any difficulties
DK/NA 100
20
35
26
26
24
17
6
5
7
CZ
ES
11
20
IT
13
31
40
39
15
15
5
4
33
22
RO
12
HU
BG
5
13
EE
LV
13
LT
EL
0
7
CY
15
MT
13
30
50
50
51
32
39
35
35
35
11
12
11
2
5
5
3
9 5
11 3
10 4
24 20
14
46
63
66
66
24
25
29
6 3
7 2
5 2
75
76
15
18
20
4 1
2 1
82
14 2 1
DK
37
31
50
NL
30
43
41 34
32
42 57
SE
36
45
AT
29
45
FI
24
43
LU
34
40
SI
32
23
DE
44
31
PT
40
40
28
PL
60
34
32
BE
22
35
UK
24
IE
23
FR
23
80
SK
15
EU27
20 20
Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present? Base: all respondents, % by country
Examining the country breakdown in December 2009 compared to July 2009, it was noted that the ranking of countries remained more or less the same between the two surveys. For example, in both waves, the highest proportions of respondents who stated that their household was having difficulties in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments were found in Greece, Latvia and Bulgaria. Moreover, as in July 2009, it can be concluded that Danish, Swedish and Dutch respondents were the least likely to have such financial problems. Two countries are worthy of extra attention: Cyprus and Malta. These countries saw an increase of more than five percentage points from July 2009 to December 2009 in the proportions of interviewees who stated that their household was having difficulties in keeping up with their day-to-day bills and credit commitments (Malta: from 36% to 44%, +8 percentage points; Cyprus: from 38% to 45%, +7). Households’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments Comparison between waves Fl276 - % “constant struggle” + “falling behind with some bills” + “falling behind with many bills” Fl286 100
80
+3 +2
+2
+5
+0 +2 +3 +1
+0 +0 +1
+1 +0 +1
+2
+1 +2
+0 +0 -2
+1
NL
SE
FI
LU
SI
DE
PL
BE
UK
IE
FR
SK
ES
CZ
IT
RO
HU
EE
LT
PT
CY
MT
BG
LV
EL
0
+0 -3
54 57 48 45 43 45 38 45 36 44 43 40 37 39 37 39 32 37 33 33 23 25 22 25 23 24 20 20 21 18 18 18 17 17 16 17 13 14 14 14 13 14 12 14 8 9 7 9 7 7 5 5 5 3 2 3
20
DK
+7 +8 -3
40
AT
-3 +2
EU27
60
Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present? Base: all respondents, % by country
page 18
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Socio-demographic considerations Respondents with the lowest level of education and manual workers were the most likely to state that their household was having difficulties4 in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments (28%-29%, compared to an EU average of 20%). On the other hand, respondents with the highest level of education, employees, full-time students and respondents younger than 25 were the ones least frequently encountering financial difficulties (between 13% and 16%). Although the proportion of respondents who stated that their household was having financial difficulties was not very different for the youngest (under 25) and oldest respondents (over 54), the latter were more likely to state that they had absolutely no difficulty in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments (53% vs. 43% of 15-24 year-olds). The most educated respondents, employees, men and metropolitan residents were as likely as the over 54 year-olds to have this viewpoint (between 49% and 56% – compared to, for example, 32% of manual workers, 38% of the least educated respondents and 42% of women). For further details, please see annex table 5b.
2.2 Running out of money to pay for essential goods and services About one in five (19%) EU citizens stated that their household had run out of money to pay ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items, on at least one occasion, in the 12 months prior to the survey. These results were similar to those in July 2009: 18% of EU citizens stated that their household had had such an experience. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? Fl276 (07/2009)
Fl286 (12/2009)
1
0 18
19 Yes
No
DK/NA 81
81
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Base: all respondents, % EU27
Romanians (40%) and Latvians (39%) were the most likely to have run out of money to pay for essential goods and services during the 12 months prior to the survey. In some of the other eastern European countries, such as Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria, at least 3 in 10 respondents stated that their household had lived through a similar experience (between 30% and 36%). In Denmark (4%), the Netherlands (7%), Sweden and Austria (both 10%), however, far fewer residents had had such problems. In accordance with the results discussed in the section 2.1, compared to July 2009, respondents in Malta and Cyprus were now more likely to state that their household had run out of money to pay ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items, on at least one occasion, in the 12 months prior 4
Sum of: “constant struggle” + “falling behind with some bills” + “falling behind with many bills” page 19
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
to the survey (Malta: +5 percentage points; Cyprus: +7 percentage points). The opposite trend was observed in Romania: in July 2009, 45% of Romanians said their household had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services; in the current survey, this proportion had decreased to 40%. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? Yes
No
DK/NA
100 80 60
59 61 63 67 69 73 72 74 75 76 77 78 80 80 81 81 83 83 84 85 84 86 88 88 89 88 93 96
16
15
15
14
12
11
10 10
SI
FR
UK
IE
DE
LU
AT
CZ
BE
ES
SK
MT
IT
PL
CY
EE
EL
LT
HU
BG
LV
RO
7
4 DK
17
NL
17
0
SE
19 18
FI
40 39 36 32 30 27 26 26 25 24 22 22 20 19
PT
20
EU27
40
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Base: all respondents, % by country
As stated in section 2.1, respondents in the Nordic countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland – were among the least likely to state that they had had difficulties in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments. In the current section, it was noted that they were also among the least liable to have run out of money to pay for essential goods and services during the 12 months prior to the survey; this can be seen on the map on the next page. Less than a sixth of respondents in these countries and in other central and northern European Member States had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services; however, the map also indicates that this proportion increased to more than a third of respondents in some eastern European countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria.
page 20
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Socio-demographic considerations Looking at the socio-demographic segments, those most affected by financial problems in the year prior to the survey (i.e. they had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services on at least one occasion) were 25-39 year-olds, the least educated respondents and manual workers; the least affected were the most educated respondents, those still in education and over 54 year-olds. Across age groups, 24% of 25-39 year olds said that during the 12 months prior to the survey their household had run out of money to pay ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items, compared to 14% of over 54 year-olds and 16% of 15-24 year-olds. While 13% of the most educated citizens and 16% of those still in education stated that their household had had problems with ordinary payments in the year prior to the survey, this compared to more than one in five of those with a lower level of education (21%-24%). Similarly, 28% of manual workers had had a similar experience; this proportion dropped to 14% for employees and 18% for the self-employed. Finally, although differences were smaller than the ones discussed above, women were somewhat more likely to state that they had had no money to pay for essential goods and services, on at least one occasion, in the 12 months prior to the survey (21% vs. 17% of men). For further details, see annex table 11b.
page 21
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
3. Changes in healthcare and social-care affordability The survey next asked whether, in the past six months, respondents had noted any changes in their ability to afford general healthcare, childcare or long-term care services. A few respondents (6%-9%) now found it easier to afford such services – that were applicable to them – than six months ago, while between 27% and 34% of interviewees said things had changed for the worse. For the majority of EU citizens (where a specific type of healthcare was applicable to the respondent), no changes were noticed in these three areas. Three in 10 (30%) respondents said it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford general healthcare for themselves or their relatives in the past six months. Almost six in 10 (57%) interviewees stated that, in this timeframe, there had been no changes in their ability to bear the costs of general healthcare for themselves or their relatives. Finally, 6% of interviewees said that they felt that healthcare had become more affordable in the past six months. A slim majority (54%) of respondents did not answer the question about changes in the affordability of childcare – as this question was not relevant to their personal situation. Among respondents who did respond, 58% thought that the affordability of childcare had remained stable in the past six months and about half as many – 27% – noted that it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford childcare. Just 9% of respondents had noted a positive change. The question about long-term care for themselves and their relatives was answered by almost twothirds of respondents – 31% of respondents considered that the question was not relevant to their personal situation. Roughly one in three (34%) respondents – who answered this question – found it now more difficult to cope with the costs involved in long-term care services than six months ago, while less than a tenth of interviewees (8%) had noted that such services had become more affordable. Finally, 51% of interviewees felt that the affordability of long-term care had not changed in the past six months. Perceived changes in the ability to afford various types of healthcare Fl276 (07/2009)
Fl286 (12/2009)
Healthcare for you or your relatives all respondents
11
18
59
41 5 2
12
18
57
5152
Childcare for your children all respondents if it applies
5 7 11
27
21
16
55
3
59
5 7
52 6
11
5
11
27
31
16
54
3
58
727
Long-term care for you or your relatives all respondents if it applies
10 15
13
37 19
31
30
53
Yes, much more difficult No, no changes Yes, much more easy all respondents DK/NA
52 7
11
15
18
13
35 19
41
31
51
5 62 8
Yes, somewhat more difficult Yes, somewhat more easy Not applicable 59 41 5 2
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? (IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult? Base: all respondent, % EU27
page 22
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Country variations Latvians stood out from respondents in other Member States with almost two-thirds (65%) of them saying that, in the half year prior to the survey, they had noted it had become somewhat or much more difficult to bear the costs of general healthcare for themselves and their family members. Furthermore, 42% of Latvians stated that it was now much more difficult to afford such care. Almost half of Romanians (49%) and Poles (48%) also felt that it was now harder for them to afford general healthcare – about a quarter stated that it was much more difficult (25%-26%). In the last six months, less than 1 in 10 citizens in the Nordic countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland – found it more difficult to meet the costs of general healthcare services (between 5% and 9%). In this regard, these countries were the most stable of all the EU countries. Roughly 8 in 10, or more, of respondents in Denmark (85%), Sweden and Finland (both 79%) had seen no changes in the affordability of general healthcare in the past six months. In almost all Member States, not more than 1 in 10 respondents had seen an improvement in their ability to afford general healthcare services for themselves and their family members in the past six months. In Bulgaria, the UK, Cyprus and Luxembourg, however, between 11% and 14% of respondents had seen an improvement in this respect. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family
38
36
36
44
47
23 40
23
22
23
22
25
27
28
24
23
22
19
EE
BG
LT
RO
PL
HU
LV
19
16
17
16
15
15
12
0
55
20
CY
25
50
25
EL
26
24
IE
42
MT
20
23
46
5
1
7
56
2 6
58
5 6
57
7 7
57
4 5
65
8 6
60
2
14
4 6
2 9
12
6 8
4 4
8 3
5
5
4
3
11
65
71
71 60
69
77
79
79
85
6 2
4 1
DK
40
3
3
27
23
18
15
18
15
15
10
8
12
11
11
9
7
9
4
9
6
10 6
12 4
9 5
7 2
FI
38
7
AT
40 60
13
NL
38
28
3
9
CZ
10
4
8
UK
6
4
ES
9
LU
11
5
BE
7
5
DE
6
3
SK
4
8
EU27
3
SI
4
FR
5
IT
80
4 0
PT
100
Yes, somewhat more difficult Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy DK/NA
SE
Yes, much more difficult No, no changes Not applicable
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? (IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult? Base: all respondents, % by country
The proportion of respondents who considered that the question about childcare was not relevant to their personal situation ranged from 27% in Italy to 81% in Finland. Other countries with a high proportion of “non-applicable” responses were Portugal (78%), the Netherlands (75%), Latvia and Bulgaria (both 69%). Putting the focus solely on interviewees who considered the question about the affordability of childcare to be relevant to their personal situation showed that almost 6 in 10 (57%) respondents in Greece and half of interviewees in Malta felt that it was now somewhat or much more difficult to afford childcare. In Bulgaria, Latvia and Hungary, between 41% and 45% of respondents shared this opinion. On the other hand, virtually no Swedes (3%) agreed that it had become somewhat or much more difficult to bear the costs of childcare in the past six months, while a majority (59%) thought that the situation in this regard was stable (note: 35% of Swedes who responded said they did not know whether there had been a change in affordability). Respondents in Denmark were the most likely to say that the affordability of childcare had remained stable (87%). page 23
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Approximately one in seven respondents in Cyprus, Austria and Luxembourg had seen an improvement in this matter in the six months prior to the survey (15%-16%). In a majority of the Member States, however, between 5% and 10% of respondents felt that childcare was now more affordable. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare Base: all respondents Yes, much more difficult No, no changes Not applicable 1
1
50
2
66
69
11
10
7
8
9
7
8 6
11
12
10
9
9
16
54
60 6
63
78
75
81
56
3 16
1 16
7 6
6 7
3 10 6 7
4
27 7 5
9 3
3 34
2 48
24
31
8 3
9 2
5 4
5 3
2 9 4 4
18
5
7
25
26
5 2
5 2
2 3
5 23
1 32
2 3 18
1
3 0
21
14 2 0
26 1 0
SE
8
12
1
FI
10
65
1
NL
12
ES
33
LT
18
60
4
HU
21
3
55
2
DK
21
1 15
2
UK
3
5
8
3
5
3
AT
39
3
35
46 64
3
PT
30
69
3
DE
55
2
CZ
61
54
1
BE
44
7
41
17
3
FR
52
6
27
5
LU
36
EE
8
1
PL
10
9
SK
17
5
RO
18
13
IT
18
MT
0
16
EL
20
3
5
3
31
3 11
2
SI
49
60
40
33
27
7
EU27
51
6
BG
80
3
IE
2
LV
2
CY
100
Yes, somewhat more difficult Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy DK/NA
Base: respondents who provided an answer Yes, much more difficult No, no changes DK/NA
4
13
14
12
5 9
7 5
5 13
4 1 35
15
57
66
38
61
4 58
62
67
63
66
59
74
76
72
87 59
14
15
16
15
14
12
22
5
16
15
12
12
7
11
6
9
6
9
11
8
5
5
10
7
1
4
7
1
21
SE
8
17
DK
25
19
NL
17
56
FI
12
19
50
CZ
IE
PL
BG
LV
MT
HU
46
15
16
7
AT
18
8
8 5
5
20 20
25
2 15
UK
23 22 23 16 15
39
7
DE
22
42
5 7
BE
25
41
1 5
LU
43
47
24
3 10
EU27
18
11
8 4
FR
21
9
9
7
ES
22
11
SK
34
20
IT
51
39
0
EL
16
12
6
20
21
5
SI
35
33 36
10
3 10
9
60
40
3
7
EE
33
17
RO
80
4 3
13
LT
4 10
PT
4 7
CY
100
Yes, somewhat more difficult Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? (IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult? % by country
Respondents were also asked to evaluate any changes in their ability to afford long-term care for themselves and family members. Hungarian and Latvian residents were the least likely to answer this question (71% and 68%, respectively, of interviewees said the question was “non-applicable”). In Sweden, Portugal and Finland, at least half of respondents considered that this question was not relevant to their personal situation (between 50% and 63%). As in the case of the affordability of general healthcare – again placing the focus on those interviewees who had actually responded – citizens of Latvia and those of Sweden and Denmark were at the extremes. While more than 7 in 10 Latvians said that it had become somewhat or much more difficult for them to afford long-term care in the past six months (72%), not more than 1 in 10 Danes and Swedes felt that way (7% and 10%, respectively). Furthermore, 49% of Latvians – compared to 2% of Danes and Swedes – said that it had become much more difficult to bear the costs of long-term care.
page 24
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Malta joined Latvia at the higher end of the ranking with a slim majority of respondents for whom it had become somewhat or much more difficult to cope with the costs of long-term care (between 53% and 56%). At least 7 in 10 respondents (of those where long-term care was applicable) in Denmark (82%), Finland (75%), the Netherlands and the Czech Republic (both 70%) felt that the affordability of longterm care for themselves or their family members had remained stable. Finally, less than a tenth of respondents in almost all Member States had seen an improvement in their ability to afford long-term care for themselves or their family members. In Poland, Cyprus, the UK and Luxembourg, on the other hand, between 10% and 14% of respondents felt that long-term care was now more affordable. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family Base: all respondents
13
13
12
13
16
14
15
16
14
15
11
16
15
11
7
8
26
6 4
62
2 19
11
10
1 8 6
9
6
7
10
7
8 7
13
8
5
48
4
57
50
22
3 16
9
5
40
45 63
71
9
38
3
50
2
5
29
38
8 6
6 3
1
1
27
28
4 1
4 1
13
DK
17
24
3
4
SE
20
0 7 7
53
2
FI
19
4
3 17
NL
42
35
44
5
PT
20
49
30
12
2
CZ
68
6
7
HU
RO
SI
BG
29
5
0
EL
5
14
BE
22
45
1
UK
13
13
34
4
17 31
7
1
EE
22
15
30
44
1
LU
15
24
28
43
3
5
DE
22
25
6
20
16
16
FR
20
22
8
7
4
LV
19
36
23
10
5
LT
30
31
22
7
EU27
7
35
30
9 8
6
7
SK
10
6 25
40
28
10
IT
14
22
5
ES
8
IE
60
6
PL
29
9 5 6
MT
80
6 4 8
CY
100
Yes, somewhat more difficult Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy DK/NA
AT
Yes, much more difficult No, no changes Not applicable
50
Base: respondents who provided an answer Yes, much more difficult No, no changes DK/NA
16
21
18
15
17
24
50 29
48
48
55
51
5 9
8 3
13
8 3 32
40
57
54
68
64
70
70
75
82 56
18 22
LT
RO
BG
EL
HU
3 8
3 59
54
21
19
21
16
19
17
15
19
19
16
15
15
17
17
0
LV
1 14
21
16
10
15
13
15
11
11
11
9
9
6
9
6
10 3
8 2
5 2
DK
19
CY
23
IE
28
29
3 6
SE
26
8
9
FI
25
39
8
NL
31
36
24
2 8
5
7
49 36
8
5 8
EE
34
7
8
SK
32
39
8
7 3
EU27
25
36
9
IT
20
37
8
8
CZ
31
11
23
6 4
BE
32
10
8
11
LU
31
6
9
UK
9
8
AT
8
9
FR
9
23
40
20
10
PL
60
7
DE
26
7
ES
2
6
PT
22
16
SI
80
4 1
MT
100
Yes, somewhat more difficult Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? (IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult? Base: those respondents where long-term care was applicable, % by country
Relationship between respondents’ ability to afford healthcare and their problems in paying day-today-to-day bills A cross-tabulation of the answers for Questions 4 and 9 showed whether households that had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services during the 12 months prior to the survey were also the ones that reported having problems in bearing the costs of various types of healthcare. page 25
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
About half of respondents (between 48% and 53%) who had had difficulties in paying day-to-day bills in the past year now found it somewhat or much more difficult to afford some or all of the various healthcare services – that were applicable to them – than six months ago. By comparison, in the group of respondents who had had no such difficulties in paying bills, only roughly half as many interviewees said things had changed for the worse (between 21% and 29%), while the majority had noticed no changes in these three areas (between 55% and 63%). Perceived changes in the ability to afford various types of healthcare Respondents in households that had run out of money in the past year Healthcare for you or your relatives all respondents
25
24
39
Respondents in households that had not run out of money in the past year
515 2
9
16
62
525 2
Childcare for your children all respondents if it applies
13
13 23
21
31
25
45
4
39
36
28
61 7
8
13
6
8
12
31
56
3
63
727
Long-term care for you or your relatives all respondents if it applies
23 29
19
26 24
41
22
33
Yes, much more difficult No, no changes Yes, much more easy all respondents DK/NA
51 8
11
12
18
37 17
41
33
55
5 62 7
Yes, somewhat more difficult Yes, somewhat more easy Not applicable 59 41 5 2
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? (IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult? Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Base: all respondent, % EU27
EU citizens’ perceptions about the affordability of healthcare – a comparison between July and December 2009 At the EU level, no differences were observed between the July 2009 and December 2009 results in terms of EU citizens’ perceptions about changes in healthcare and social-care affordability in the past six months. There was, however, no overall pattern: in some Member States, perceptions were unchanged, while in others, examples of both positive (i.e. easier to afford services) and negative (i.e. more difficult to afford services) trends emerged. This positive trend was most noticeable in Romania. The proportion of Romanians who said that, in the past six months, it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford general healthcare decreased by five percentage points from 51% in July 2009 to 46% in December 2009. The corresponding proportion for long-term care and childcare (among respondents who considered that type of healthcare to be relevant to their personal situation) decreased by 9 and 10 percentage points, respectively. The opposite tendency was noted when looking at the results of a few other Member States, for example, Luxembourg, Hungary and Ireland. In these countries, the proportion of respondents who said things had changed for the worse in terms of affordability of general healthcare, childcare and long-term care increased between the two waves of the survey. For example, in Ireland, for each of these types of healthcare, an increase of at least seven percentage points was observed in the proportion of respondents who said it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford such services – that were applicable to them: +6 percentage points for general healthcare and +12 percentage points for long-term care and childcare. page 26
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Socio-demographic considerations The socio-demographic analysis revealed that women were more likely to say that in the past six months it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford general healthcare (32% vs. 26% of men), childcare (14% vs. 11%) and long-term care services (26% vs. 21%). The older the respondent, the more likely he or she was to feel that it had become harder to afford general healthcare and long-term care for themselves and their family. For example, 17% of the youngest citizens reported that it was somewhat or much more difficult to afford general long-term care for themselves and their family in the past six months compared to more than a quarter of the oldest citizens (27%). On the other hand, in the last six months, higher proportions of 25-54 year-olds felt it was now more difficult for them to afford childcare (16%-18% vs.7%-8% of all other age segments). Of course, this question about childcare was more relevant to 25-54 year-olds (40%-42% “non-applicable� answers vs. 59% for 15-24 year-olds and 70% for over 54 year-olds). In accordance with the results for the youngest respondents, full-time students were the least likely to find it more difficult to afford healthcare services in the last six months. Among respondents who had completed their education, those with the lowest level of education were the most likely to have problems bearing the costs of healthcare and social-care services. For example, 38% of respondents with the lowest level of education now found it somewhat or much more difficult to afford general healthcare for themselves and their family compared to 25% of the most educated and 15% of fulltime students. Manual workers and those not working were the most likely to say that in the past six months it had become harder to afford general healthcare and long-term care for themselves and their family, and employees were the least liable to have that opinion. For example, with regard to the latter type of healthcare, approximately a quarter of manual workers and those not working (25%-26%) said that such services had become less affordable compared to a fifth of employees; the corresponding proportion for the self-employed was 23%. In addition, manual workers now found it more difficult to afford childcare (17% vs. 12%-13% of respondents of all the other occupational groups – note that 60% of non-working respondents felt that this question was not relevant to them). For further details, see annex table 6b, 7b and 8b.
page 27
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
4. Expectations about the household financial situation Looking ahead, roughly a quarter (22%) of EU citizens said they expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate during the next 12 months. Over half (54%) of interviewees thought their household’s financial situation would be stable and 21% anticipated that it would improve in the near future. These results are more positive than those from the previous wave of the survey when 26% of EU citizens expected their household’s financial situation to be worse, in the 12 months following the study, and 16% anticipated that it would improve. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? Fl276 (07/2009)
Fl286 (12/2009)
4 16
3 26
Worse
22
21
The same
Better DK/NA
55
54
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? Base: all respondents, % EU27
At least half of respondents in Lithuania (56%) and Latvia (50%) expected their household’s financial situation to be worse in the next 12 months, and at least 4 in 10 citizens expected the same in Ireland (48%), Cyprus (45%) and Malta (40%). In other words, the countries where citizens thought their economic situation would deteriorate were similar – with the exception of Ireland (see further) - to the ones where respondents had experienced significant financial problems. In all other Member States, 60%-90% of citizens anticipated that their household would have the same or a better financial situation in the following 12 months. At least two-thirds of respondents expected their household’s financial situation to remain the same in the next 12 months in the Netherlands (67%), Austria (68%), Finland (69%) and Luxembourg (70%). Respondents in Denmark (26%), Sweden (28%), Italy and Romania (both 30%), on the other hand, were the most likely to expect an improvement in their household’s financial situation in the year to come.
page 28
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months‌ will it be? ...
21 23
The same 1
15
3
16 30
35 38 42 44 42 52 38
40 20
7
31
53
6
22
Better 4
17
6
18
6
21
3
21
45 55 52 50 54
DK/NA 4
1
3
16
12
30
47
56 50 48 45 40 36 36 34 34 32 31 29 28 24 24 23 22 19
3
16
64 67 63
3
25
56
IT
EU27
SK
ES
PT
PL
CZ
RO
SI
BG
EE
EL
HU
CY
MT
IE
LV
68
2
2
1
0
0
20 17 20 26 28
55
64 70 69 64
19
19 18
17
16
15
14
12
0
LT
2
14
10
9
DK
17
5
FI
17
3
FR
25 38 39
13
3
LU
60
4
SE
16
80
9
AT
12
4
UK
7
1
BE
14
5
NL
5
DE
Worse 100
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? Base: all respondents, % by country
page 29
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
EU citizens’ perceptions about their household’s financial situation – a comparison between July and December 2009 Across the EU, between July 2009 and December 2009, a small decrease (from 26% to 22%, -4 percentage points) was observed in the proportion of respondents who expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate in the next 12 months; a similar increase was seen in the proportion who anticipated that their financial situation would improve (16% to 21%, +5). At the individual country level, this decrease in the proportion of respondents who expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate in the next 12 months was seen primarily in Latvia (-15 percentage points), Hungary (-11), Romania (-10) and Poland (-9). Romania, however, was the only country where respondents were also significantly more likely to to expect an improvement in their household’s financial situation in the year to come (+8 percentage points). Other countries where respondents were now more likely to anticipate such an improvement included Italy (+9), France (+7), Germany (+6), Denmark, Luxembourg, the UK and Bulgaria (all +5). A negative trend was observed in a few Member States. Malta saw an increase of 12 percentage points from July 2009 to December 2009 in the proportion of interviewees who expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate in the coming year, and a decrease of eight percentage points of respondents who stated the opposite – i.e. they anticipated an improvement. In Ireland and Cyprus, interviewees were now also more likely to think that their household’s financial situation would deteriorate (+5 and +8 percentage points, respectively); no significant changes were seen, however, in the proportion anticipating an improvement in the year to come. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months… will it be? … Comparison between waves
Fl276 - Worse Fl276 - Better -
Fl286 Fl286
10 14 5 7 11 12 17 16 21 13 14 17 12 18 18 21 18 23 13 15 22 30 12 16 19 22 15 17 17 18 17 21 16 21 21 30 10 16 10 12 14 16 20 25 12 14 24 28 13 20 12 17 16 20 21 26
+2
-2
-8
-3
-6
+3 +5
+2
-15
+4
+3
+2
+1
+8
40
-11 +12
-5
-7
-2
-1
-10
+2
-5
+2
+4 +5
+9
+7
+5
+4
+4
+5
-9 -3
-1
-6
-4
-2
-3
-2
-1
-5
-2
+0
-6
-5
-5
-1
DK
FI
FR
LU
SE
AT
UK
BE
EU27
PT
SK
ES
PL
CZ
SI
RO
BG
EE
EL
HU
CY
MT
IE
LV
LT
58 56 65 50 43 48 37 45 28 40 48 37 41 36 41 34 36 34 33 32 41 31 34 29 37 28 27 24 25 24 29 23 26 22 21 19 22 19 21 19 19 18 22 17 18 16 15 15 20 14 17 12 15 10 10 9
20
0
+6
+4 +5
+8 +5
Worse
-1
NL
60
+1
DE
80
+4
IT
Better
100
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? Base: all respondents, % by country
Relationship between households’ financial situation in the past 12 months and in the near future A cross-tabulation of the answers for Questions 7 and 9 showed whether respondents’ perceptions about their households’ financial situation in the past 12 months corresponded to their expectations for this in the near future. The results were cross-tabulated at individual (micro-) and country (macro-) levels. Comparing perceptions at the country level It was noted above that the countries where citizens thought their household’s economic situation would deteriorate were similar to the ones where respondents had experienced significant financial problems. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of respondents who page 30
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
stated that their household had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services during the 12 months prior to the survey, and the proportion who expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate during the 12 months following the survey, in each Member State, was 0.65 – a moderately-strong correlation between the two variables at the country level. The scatter plot below highlights a few outliers – i.e. countries where a high proportion of respondents stated that they had had no money to pay day-to-day bills (prior to the survey) was combined with a low proportion of respondents who anticipated a deterioration of their financial situation in the near future (e.g. Romania) or where the opposite was observed (e.g. Ireland). Relationship between past experiences and future expectations for households’ financial situation Your household had run out of money to pay ordinary bills in the past 12 months (%)
50 Correlation coefficient: rxy = .654
45 40
RO
LV BG
35
HU
30 25 IT
20 BE
15
FI LU
10
FR UK SE
AT
SK ES EU27 PT
EE
PL
LT
EL
CY MT
CZ SI IE
DE NL
5 DK
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Your household’s financial situation will deteriorate in the next 12 months (%)
Comparing perceptions at the individual level The results for the current survey showed that respondents whose household had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services in the year prior to the survey were more likely, than those who had not been through such an experience, to state that they expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate (32% vs. 19%) in the year to come; however, they were also more likely to expect an improvement in their household’s financial situation (27% vs. 19%). Furthermore, comparing the results of December 2009 with those of July 2009, it was noted that respondents who had experienced significant financial problems were the ones who were the most likely to answer more optimistically in the current survey: the proportion who expected a deterioration decreased by 10 percentage points from July to December 2009 (compared to -4 percentage points for those who had not had such problems) and the proportion who anticipated a better financial situation increased by 7 percentage points (vs. +4 percentage points for those who had not had such problems).
page 31
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? Fl276 (07/2009) Household had run out of money during the past 12 months
Household had not run out of money during the past 12 months
42
23
34
60 Worse
Fl286 (12/2009) 20
5
15 3 The same
32
37
19
59
Better
DK/NA
27
19
4
3
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? Base: all respondents, % EU27
Socio-demographic considerations Men were more optimistic than women regarding the evolution of their household’s financial situation in the next 12 months: 24% anticipated a better financial situation, compared to 18% of women. Women were somewhat more likely to expect their household’s financial situation to remain the same (56% vs. 53% of men). The younger the respondent, the more likely he or she was to anticipate a better financial situation for their household in the next 12 months. While about a third (32%) of 15-24 year-olds expected an improvement, the proportion of optimistic respondents decreased gradually to 10% among those aged 55 and over. On the other hand, the proportion of respondents who anticipated that their household’s financial situation would get worse increased from 12% among 15-24 year-olds to 27% among over 54 year-olds. Respondents with an average or a higher level of education were somewhat more liable, than those with a low level of education, to expect an improvement in their household’s financial situation (21% vs. 17%) and they were less likely to expect it to get worse (20%-22% vs. 28%). Those still in education were the most optimistic of all (29% of them anticipated an improvement, and only 11% thought it would get worse). The self-employed were more apt, than those in other occupational groups, to expect a better financial situation for their household in the next 12 months (29% vs. 19%-23%). Employees, in turn, were the most likely to expect a stable financial situation (59% vs. 47%-54%). Finally, non-working respondents and manual workers were somewhat more prone to anticipate that their household’s financial situation would get worse (23% vs. 19%-20%). Finally, city dwellers were more likely than those living in rural areas to expect their household’s financial situation to become better in the 12 months following the study (23% vs. 18%); the latter group were somewhat more liable to expect a stable situation (57% vs. 52%-54%). For further details, see annex table 12b.
page 32
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
5. Views about being able to cope financially The survey also asked whether – in the next 12 months – there would be a risk of respondents falling behind with various payments. Of the four types of payments under review, an unexpected expense of €1,000 (or its equivalent in national currency) worried EU citizens the most: more than 6 in 10 respondents said there was at least a low risk of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 in the year to come. More precisely, 25% of respondents perceived this risk as high; a further 20% considered it to be a moderate risk and 17% thought there was a low risk of not being able to cope with an unforeseen financial cost of €1,000 in the next year. About a third (34%) of EU citizens stated that there was no risk at all in this regard. More than 4 in 10 (45%) EU citizens envisaged at least some risk of falling behind with ordinary payments (paying bills, buying food or other daily consumer items) in the next year. This risk was seen as being moderate by 18% of respondents and as low by 21%; just 6% of respondents, however, considered it to be a high risk. Moreover, a slim majority of EU citizens stated that they were not at all concerned about their future ability to cope with day-to-day expenditures (“no risk at all”, 52%). Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope financially over the next 12 months Fl276 (07/2009)
Fl286 (12/2009) 0
Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of € 1,000
23
all respondents
20
17
35
33
25
20
17
34
23
Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items0 all respondents
7
17
20
52
22
if it applies
6 12 8
14
16
18
21
52
11
0
Paying your rent or mortgage on time all respondents
6
41 19
26 55
2
6 12
2
9
16
16
38 21
27
2
52
2
0 Repaying consumer loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture) on time all respondents if it applies
High risk
7 12 10
13 18
Moderate risk
34 19
32 50
Low risk
2
7
3
11
No risk at all
11
13 18
31 20
Not applicable
36
2
48
3
DK/NA
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…? Base: all respondent, % EU27
When respondents were asked if there was a risk that they would be unable to pay their rent or mortgage on time, 27% considered that the question was not relevant to their personal situation (i.e. they had no rent or mortgage to pay). Additionally, more than a third (36%) of interviewees also felt that the question about repaying consumer loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances or furniture) was not relevant to their personal situation. Focusing solely on respondents who did respond, a similar picture emerged as described above for day-to-day expenditures. A slim majority (52%) said there was no risk at all that they would not be able to pay their rent or mortgage on time in the year to come and 48% expressed such optimism about their ability to repay consumer loans on time. Roughly 1 in 10 (9%) respondents said there was a high risk of being unable to make their rent or mortgage payments on time over the next 12 months; a further 16% considered it to be a moderate risk and 21% thought there was a low risk. Finally, page 33
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
approximately half of respondents believed there was a high (11%), moderate (18%) or low risk (20%) of not being able to repay consumer loans. Country variations More than 9 in 10 Latvians (92%) and more than 8 in 10 Portuguese residents (84%) said that there would be at least a low risk of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 (or its national equivalent) in the next 12 months. On the other hand, not more than a third of Danes and Swedes expressed a concern about their ability to cope with such an expense (27% and 33%, respectively). Almost two-thirds of interviewees in Latvia (64%) and half of Bulgarian respondents (50%) felt that there was a high risk of being unable to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 in the year to come. Less than 1 in 10 respondents in Denmark (5%), the Netherlands (6%) and Luxembourg (7%) thought the same; this is not surprising as a majority of Danes, Dutch and Luxembourgers thought that there was no risk at all of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 in the next year (72%, 60% and 51%, respectively). In Austria, Finland and Sweden, between 54% and 63% of respondents stated that they envisaged no risk at all in this regard. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months
17
10
26
19
12 19
12
17
12 22
14
24
22
26
64 44
41
50
46
43
3
4
21
21
16
25
0 28
9
12
9
1
27
29
32
1 30
18
18
17
14
15 29
25
2
13
19
40
20
3
23
21
24
27
23
1 33
15
1
2
34
34
40
23
19 17
17 20
23
30
23
28
18
45
25
22
29
29
22
25
26
20
20
14 14
DE
FR
EU27
UK
ES
CY
IE
SI
IT
RO
EL
SK
MT
CZ
EE
LT
HU
BG
PL
PT
54
57
16
20
15
8
45
3
1
60
63
17
14
11
9
0
72
20
0
LV
51
19 26
4
DK/NA 1 9
44
40
1
14 12
7
12
13
14
6
14
10
8 5
DK
12
13
7
1
SE
14
5
0
NL
28
4
Not applicable
BE
60
12
6
3
No risk at all 1
FI
22
0 14
Low risk
AT
80
1 5 6
Moderate risk
LU
High risk 100
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…? Base: all respondents, % by country
While almost three-quarters of citizens in Lithuania (74%) and Latvia (73%) thought that, in the year to come, there would be at least a low risk of not being able to pay their bills, buy food or other daily consumer items in the next 12 months, this proportion decreased to less than a quarter in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands (between 14% and 21%). The proportion of those who saw no risk at all of not being able to day-to-day bills was as low as 22% in Lithuania and 25% in Latvia and as high as 85% in Denmark. In the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden, between 75% and 77% of respondents thought that there was no risk at all of having difficulties in paying day-to-day bills in the year to come. In all Member States, the proportion of respondents who thought there was a high risk of being unable to pay day-to-day bills in the year to come was significantly smaller than the proportion thinking that there would be a similar risk in their ability to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000. For example, 30% of Maltese said that there was a high risk that they would be unable to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000, whereas the proportion thinking that about their ability to pay day-today bills was 18%.
page 34
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other daily consumer items over the next 12 months
35
40 40
1
3
41
38
42
No risk at all 2
1
1
1
1
41
43
43
47
49
Not applicable 1
1
1
52
53
58
9
6
6
8
2
0
66
75
77
77
85
13
16 13 4 5 1 1
10 4 0
19
17
5
12 3
12 2
11 4
8 2
6 2
NL
7
2
18 19
10
55
3
AT
4
19
66
5
BE
11
18
65
DK/NA
LU
8
17
1
DE
5
8
25
18
ES
21
21
1
FR
19
26
EU27
6
14
27
18
UK
18
24
17
SI
5
14
24
30
EL
BG
0
8
26
24
CZ
16
24 26
26
24
IT
16
LV
17
21
25
IE
26
26
PT
27
26
19
EE
30
20 20
CY
34
20
LT
33
PL
38
19
32
1
1
23 24
32
5
Low risk
DK
31
2
MT
23
29
2
1
18
19
SE
25
3
RO
40
22
1
HU
60
0
SK
80
1
Moderate risk
FI
High risk 100
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…? Base: all respondents, % by country
The proportion of respondents who thought that the question about rent or mortgage payments was not relevant to their personal situation ranged from 2%-3% in Sweden and Denmark to 70% in Bulgaria. In a further two countries, Romania and Greece, more than half of interviewees did not respond (58% and 52%, respectively). Looking only at respondents who considered that this question was relevant, it was noted that Latvia and Lithuania were again at the higher end of the distribution: 79% of Latvians and 71% of Lithuanians said there was at least a low risk of being unable to make rent or mortgage payments on time in the next 12 months. Nonetheless, Cypriots were the most likely to estimate that there was a high risk that they would have difficulties in paying the rent or mortgage on time (30% – compared to 20% of Lithuanians and 23% of Latvians). Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Dutch respondents – once again – were the least likely to consider that there was at least some risk that they would have difficulties in paying the rent or mortgage on time in the next year (between 16% and 25%) and they most frequently stated that they saw no risk at all in this regard (between 74% and 84%).
page 35
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months Base: all respondents
58
11 3
9
17
22
13
9
11
19
14
11
11
6
9
10
7
7 3
12 3
6
3
35
38
79
81
12 31
12 31
53
18
11
12
48 13
6 17
4 9
9 2
6 2
13
15
10
11
13
8
7 3
6 2
14 31
7 3 8 6
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
60
61
67
70
66
74
76
20
14
41
6 2
DK
6
16
18
1 3
SE
6
11
16
42
NL
15
44
70
70
60
FI
12
8
2 2
52
38 18
5
29
27
31
60 23
7
1
1 8
BG
49
DK/NA
4
FI
49
1 13
26 47
2
BE
IE
14
14
23
1
NL
8
20
20
Not applicable 1
RO
11
16
15
0 11
27 42
43 20
1
AT
7
EE
16
18
CZ
8
LT
LV
0
23
16
SK
20
21
16
21
39
3
LU
21
24
38
2
EL
21
24
22 20
34
18 35
No risk at all 2
FR
32
31
3
SI
33
29
2
DE
27
1
MT
18
Low risk
2
PL
14
2
EU27
15
3
CY
16
18 18
40
1
17 24
60
22
2
ES
17
Moderate risk 2
UK
80
4
PT
12
3
IT
1
HU
High risk 100
2
1
81
84
Base: respondents who provided an answer
38
18
19
18
10
10
8
19
30 12
EE
LT
LV
0
9
CZ
20
PL
23
27 25
27
PT
20
23
HU
23
31
CY
22
IT
28
20
24
12
20
18 22
19
20
42
41 31
26
24 15
1
52
53
DK/NA
11 21
27
ES
29
22
38
SK
40
32
23
MT
38
25
14
EL
23
2 18
23
18 60
No risk at all 3
21 22
21
10 21
28
19
14
16
9
4
21 16
10
13
20
22
22
20
15
4
13 2
8 3
7 2
9 4
13 12 4 1 31
DK
36
1
SE
32
Low risk 3
BE
32
3
AT
34
5
DE
32
4
LU
32
2
FR
32
4
UK
29
Moderate risk 2
EU27
23
3
RO
4
SI
20 80
6
IE
2
BG
High risk 100
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…? % by country
The proportion of “not applicable” responses to the question about repaying consumer loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances or furniture) varied from approximately a sixth in Ireland and Luxembourg (16%-17%) to a majority in Greece and the Netherlands (both 51%), Portugal (54%), Bulgaria and Finland (both 55%), Latvia (56%) and Hungary (62%). Looking only at respondents who considered this question to be relevant, similarities could again be seen: for example, 86% of Latvians, followed by 72% of Lithuanians, saw at least a low risk of being unable to repay consumer loans on time over the next 12 months. However, such worries for the future were expressed by less than a fifth of respondents in Sweden (15%) and Denmark (18%). Furthermore, more than 7 in 10 respondents in Denmark (80%), Sweden (78%), the Netherlands and Finland (both 71%) saw no risk at all that they would be unable to cope with repayments of consumer loans in the year to come.
page 36
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months Base: all respondents
6
16
36
1
30 55
54
1 35
50
DK/NA 5
2
1
51
55
5 25
40
62
1
40
16
38
11
15
12 15
7 14
16
14
13
11
8
12
45 16
19 12 2
13 11 7
18 9 5
12
15
9
9
8
12
10
12
9
10
42 28
12
10
14
8
7 3
8 3
5 2
10 5 5
7 31
9 21
8 21
8 30
2
1
0
48
53
56
60
64
8
32
35
39
44
45
48
15
2
2
32
10 5
3
3
35
10
1
6
59
35
DK
15
31 15
SE
14
8
6 9
FI
11
0
NL
10
2
BE
5
10
2
AT
12
9
16
EL
19
EE
19
17
PL
14
IT
23
19
14
Not applicable 4
30 50
28
SI
18
9
SK
0
16
CY
20
16
9
25
ES
14
20
4
50
23
LV
26
17
20
1
51
56
38 25
2 36
RO
12
28
1
35
LT
25
IE
40
20
CZ
60
39
No risk at all 2
17
33 47
1
FR
35
2
DE
28
7
Low risk 1
PT
3
HU
2
BG
18
1
MT
23
5
Moderate risk 2
UK
27
2
EU27
80
4
LU
High risk 100
3
5
2
7
71
71
80
Base: respondents who provided an answer
16
18
17
17
25 18
20
13
17
12
12
11
6
6
23
21
17
15
2
9 7
21
10 4
8 3
4 1
7 3
15
21
78
13
11 50 3 1
SE
23
22
DK
7
17
23
20
NL
12
27
22
24
19
FI
23
18
25
19
65
AT
24
30
25
21
17
58
BE
27
26
17
8
DE
19
13
DK/NA 2
LU
LT
LV
28
18
34
FR
12
0
16
16
26
EL
30
PL
30
27
22
21
SK
20
21
27
UK
28 29
33
EU27
40
26
35
IE
36
35
22
15
33
No risk at all
SI
60
31
12
ES
16
26
Low risk 5
IT
30
5
MT
30
3
EE
27
3
PT
17
8
4
CZ
20
3
BG
80
11
2
CY
13
Moderate risk
5
HU
2
RO
High risk 100
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…? % by country
EU citizens’ perceptions about being able to cope financially – a comparison between July and December 2009 Based on individual country results – both in July 2009 and December 2009 – regarding EU citizens’ perceptions about the risk of falling behind with various payments, a few conclusions can be drawn:
The country rankings showed similarities between the two surveys. For example, in July 2009 and in December 2009, citizens in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands were among the least likely to feel that they would be at risk of falling behind with various payments in the next 12 months. Similarly, in both waves, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria were consistently found among the Member States where respondents were the most likely to feel they were at risk of falling behind with such payments.
The most noticeable changes in country breakdowns were found when looking at the results for Portugal and Luxembourg. In Portugal, the proportion of respondents who thought there would be at least a low risk of falling behind with payments decreased significantly for three of the four types of payments: -7 percentage points for paying ordinary bills, -11 points for rent or mortgage payments and -15 points for repaying consumer loans (note: among respondents who did respond). In Luxembourg, however, the opposite tendency was observed; the proportion of
page 37
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Luxembourgers who said that there would be at least a low risk of falling behind with payments increased by at least seven percentage points for all four types of payments. Socio-demographic considerations Paying ordinary bills, buying food or other daily consumer items were reasons for anxiety for manual workers – 56% of them stated that in the next 12 months they envisaged at least a low risk of falling behind with these kinds of payments, compared to 42%-46% of employees, the self-employed and non-working respondents. Half of those respondents with an average or low level of education shared the same opinion, compared to 37% of the most educated interviewees and 42% of full-time students. A slim majority (52%) of 25-39 year-olds, 49% of 40-54 year-olds and 46% of 15-24 yearolds were worried about falling behind with such payments, compared to 39% of the oldest respondents (over 54). Coping with an unexpected expense of €1,000 (or its national equivalent) in the next 12 months would involve at least a low risk for more than 7 in 10 manual workers (72% vs. 58%-63% in other occupational categories), as well as 64% of full-time students and 65% of respondents with an average or low level of education (vs. 53% of the most educated). Finally, 15-39 year-olds were also somewhat more likely than their older counterparts to share this view (67%-69% vs. 62% of 40-54 year-olds and 54% of the over 54s). The over 54 year-olds, non-working respondents and those with a low level of education were more likely to state that the questions about rental or mortgage payments and the repayment of consumer loans were not relevant to them. For example, while 40% of respondents with the lowest level of education considered the question about rent or mortgage payments to be “non-applicable”, this proportion fell to 22% for respondents with the highest level of education. Nonetheless, when controlling for differences in the level of “non-applicable” responses, a similar pattern of differences appeared once more. Manual workers, respondents with a low level of education and 15-39 year-olds were more likely than their counterparts to consider that in the year to come they would be at risk of falling behind with rental or mortgage payments and to believe that repayment of any consumer loans could be at risk during that period. Gender and place of residence appeared to have a smaller impact on respondents’ views about being able to cope financially in the next 12 months. Nonetheless, women were each time somewhat more likely than men to consider that in the year to come they would be at risk of falling behind with various payments (for example, 48% of women, compared to 44% of men, said there was at least a low risk of falling behind with day-to-day bills). No consistent pattern of differences emerged when looking at the respondents’ place of residence. For further details, see annex table 13b, 14b, 15b and 16b.
page 38
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
6. Future affordability of accommodation As in the previous wave of this trend survey, 2% of EU citizens said that it was very likely that they might be forced by financial circumstances to leave their accommodation within the next 12 months, while 4% saw this as being fairly likely. The majority of EU citizens felt that they would have no problem in paying for their accommodation during the next 12 months: 16% said that it was fairly unlikely that they would have to leave their accommodation in the near future for financial reasons and 76% estimated that this would be very unlikely. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave their accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in the next 12 months Fl276 (07/2009)
Fl286 (12/2009) 22 4
3 2 4 16
16
Very likely Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely
75
DK/NA
76
Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12 months because you can no longer afford it? Base: all respondents, % EU27
At the country level, in July 2009, 20% of Latvians estimated it to be very or fairly likely that they would need to leave their current home in the 12 months following the survey, as it would be unaffordable. In December 2009, Latvia was again at the top of the country rankings; the proportion selecting this response, however, decreased to 14% (-6 percentage points). In a further three Member States, about 1 in 10 respondents considered it likely that they would have problems meeting the costs of their accommodation: Spain, Greece and Italy (9%-11%). On the other hand, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania, Austria and Finland were the Member States that had the most citizens who thought that it would be very unlikely that they would not be able to afford their accommodation throughout the 12 months following the survey (between 86% and 88%) – in comparison, in Latvia and Lithuania, just a slim majority of respondents selected this response (51% and 54%, respectively).
page 39
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Likelihood that respondents would have to leave their accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in the next 12 months Very likely/Fairly likely 100
4
4
1
1
5
3
3
4
1
Fairly unlikely 1
2
3
1
4
2
Very unlikely 1
2
3
2
6
5
DK/NA 1
1
3
1
2
1
20
80
51 60
71 72 78
54 76
70 66 75
84 76 75
70 83
78 76 76
71
81
75 83 86
83
64
88 87 86 86
14 3
9 2
10 10 13 2 1 1 NL
DK
12 3
AT
3
FI
21
LU
5 3
FR
UK
8 4
DE
19 18 22 13 5 4 4 4
RO
16 5
SE
9 5
SK
5
IE
5
HU
CY
17 24
BG
10 16 6 5
CZ
6
PL
6
EU27
7
SI
21 24 18 EE
8
13 7
PT
EL
34
BE
IT
ES
11
LV
0
14
12 20 9 9
13
LT
30 20
MT
40
Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12 months because you can no longer afford it? Base: all respondents, % by country
In most Member States, a very small (insignificant) increase or decrease was observed in the July 2009 and December 2009 results. There were, however, a few exceptions. As noted above, the proportion of Latvians who rated it as being fairly or very likely that they would encounter problems meeting the costs of their accommodation in the future decreased by 6 percentage points – from 20% in July 2009 to 14% in the current wave. The opposite tendency was observed when looking at the results for Italy: in July, 90% of Italian residents said that it was very or fairly unlikely that they would have to leave their accommodation for financial reasons; in the current survey, however, this dropped to 85% (-5 percentage points). Socio-demographic considerations In the socio-demographic breakdowns, there were hardly any differences in perceptions about the affordability of accommodation; across all socio-demographic groups, 3%-8% of respondents said that it was fairly or very likely that they would not be able to afford their current accommodation in the 12 months following the survey. However, looking at the proportion of respondents who said it was very unlikely that they would not be able to afford their accommodation in the near future, large variations were seen across sociodemographic groups. While roughly 8 in 10 of over 54 year-olds, the self-employed and the most educated respondents (80%-81%) felt that they would have no problems at all in meeting the costs of their accommodation, this proportion dropped to 72% for 25-39 year-olds and 69% for manual workers. For further details, see annex table 17b.
page 40
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
7. Views on the employment situation Respondents in employment5 were asked how they felt about their chances of keeping their current job or of finding a new position in case they were laid off. While 76% of these respondents were very or fairly confident that they would be able to keep their job in the next 12 months, just 45% thought it would be very or fairly likely that they would be able to find a new position within six months, in the event that they were laid off.
7.1 Respondents’ confidence in the ability to keep their job More than three-quarters of EU citizens in employment were optimistic about their job situation in the near future: 46% were very confident that that they would not lose their job in the next 12 months, and a further 31% were fairly confident. About one in six interviewees – in total – were either not very (11%) or not at all confident (6%) that they would stay in their job in that timeframe. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months Fl276 (07/2009) 6
Fl286 (12/2009) 5
6 12
6 11
Not at all confident Not very confident
Fairly confident 43 Very confident 33
46 31
DK/NA
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months? Base: respondents with a professional activity, % EU27
Country variations As in the previous wave of the survey, citizens of the Baltic states were the most pessimistic about their ability to keep their current job in the next 12 months. More than 4 in 10 Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians (between 41% and 48%) were not confident that they would be able to keep their current job in that timeframe. About a fifth of Lithuanians (19%) and slightly more than a tenth of Latvians and Estonians (11%-12%) were not at all confident in this respect. In comparison, less than 1 in 10 Finnish (6%), Austrian, Dutch, Danish and German (all 8%) residents in employment were concerned about keeping their job. Moreover, about two-thirds of Austrians and Germans (both 65%) and over half of Finnish (59%), Danish (57%), Dutch (56%), Swedish (55%) and Luxembourgish (51%) respondents were very confident about their ability to keep their job in the following 12 months. The following map shows that pessimism about the ability of respondents to keep their current job in the next 12 months was the highest in the Baltic states (as stated above), followed by some other eastern and southern European countries (e.g. Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal and Poland). Interviewees in northern and central European countries (e.g. Denmark, the UK and Germany) showed a lower level of pessimism. 5
Respondents without a professional activity, i.e. full-time students, respondents looking after a home, retirees and those looking for work were not asked the question. page 41
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months
6
5
2
6
5
4
Very confident
7
12
4
8
7
DK/NA 3
4
10
9
4
7 3
7 3
5 3
32 26 30 19 2 5 5 6 2 4 3 3
24
FI
5 6
AT
7
7 8
30 30 34 33
NL
5
14 10 3 5
DK
5
11 6
DE
9
8 10
LU
7
11 7
UK
12
SE
15
BE
15
42 38
SI
12
31
CZ
15
31
EU27
26 28 29 35 30 31
MT
39 47 50 45 46 38 40 42 42 44 59 44 55 48 51 65 57 56 65
IT
PT
EL
11
29 21 18 22 13 18 12 6 13 11 7 11 5
7
FR
34 43
10 10
IE
3
HU
2
Fairly confident
CY
34 41
PL
LT
6
34 24 40 31
ES
19
4
33 29
20
0
4
33 41 38
SK
29
5
20 18 23
BG
40
28 36
6
EE
60
16
3 16
LV
80
8
Not very confident
RO
Not at all confident 100
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months? Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
Note: not confident = “not at all confident” + “not very confident”
page 42
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
EU citizens’ confidence in the ability to keep their job – a comparison between July and December 2009 In Italy, the proportion of respondents who were not very or not at all confident that that they would keep their job in the next 12 months increased by six percentage points (19% in December 2009 compared to 13% in July 2009), while in Latvia, Slovenia, Romania, Germany and Finland, this proportion dropped. Latvia saw the greatest reduction in pessimism: in July 2009, 54% of Latvians were not very or not at all confident they would stay in their job in the next 12 months, while in December, 44% lacked such confidence (-10 percentage points). Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months Comparison between waves Fl276 - % not confident = “not very confident” + “not at all confident” Fl286 100
80
60
-1
-10 -2 +3
40
+2
+0
+3
+3 +2 -4
-1 +1
-2
+6
-3
-1
+0
-6
-1
+1
+0 +1
-5
+1
-1
+1
-5
FI
AT
NL
DK
LU
DE
UK
SE
BE
SI
CZ
EU27
MT
FR
IT
IE
HU
CY
RO
PT
PL
EL
ES
BG
SK
LV
EE
LT
0
+3
49 48 54 44 43 41 33 36 33 35 29 29 26 29 21 24 25 23 26 22 18 21 21 20 19 20 13 19 20 18 21 18 18 17 16 16 21 15 15 14 10 11 10 10 8 9 13 8 7 8 8 7 6 7 11 6
20
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months? Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
Links between households’ financial problems and respondents’ confidence in their ability to keep their job The following chart illustrates that respondents who had been unable to pay essential bills in the past year were also the ones who were the most pessimistic about their ability to keep their current job in the next 12 months: 30% of those who had had financial difficulties were not very or not at all confident about this – compared to 14% of those who had not had such an experience. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months Not at all confident
Not very confident
Very confident
DK/NA
Household had run out of money during the past 12 months
12
Household had not run out of money during the past 12 months 4 10
18
Fairly confident
29
32
32
50
9
4
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months? Base: all respondents, % EU27
page 43
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Socio-demographic considerations The survey results suggest a direct relationship between a respondent’s level of education and their level of confidence in being able to keep their current job: the more educated the respondents were, the more confident they were that they would not be laid off during the next 12 months. For example, the proportion of those very confident that they would keep their job ranged from 42% of those with the lowest level of education to 52% among the most educated. In addition, the proportion of those not very or not at all confident in this respect varied from 21% to 13%, respectively, in these two groups. Among occupational groups, manual workers were almost twice as likely as respondents in other groups to lack confidence about their job situation in the next 12 months. Roughly 1 in 10 (9%) manual workers were not at all confident that they could keep their job during this period, and a fifth were not very confident, compared to proportions of only 5% “not at all confident” and 10%-11% “not very confident” recorded among employees and the self-employed. In addition, only 35% of manual workers were very sure they would keep their job, while half of employees and the self-employed expressed this high level of confidence (50%-51%). Gender, age and place of residence appeared to have a minor impact on respondents’ level of confidence in their ability to keep their job in the next 12 months. For example, although the youngest (under 25) and oldest respondents (over 54) were less likely than 25-54 year-olds to feel confident that they would not be laid off during the next 12 months (74% vs. 78%-80%), only small differences were observed in the proportion of “not very confident” and “not at all confident” respondents across age groups (15%-18% across all age groups). For further details, see annex table 18b.
7.2 Confidence in finding a job in the event of being laid off Respondents in employment6 were asked to rate – on a scale from 1 to 10 – how they estimated their chances of finding a new job within six months in the (hypothetical) event that they were laid off. To make the responses as accessible as possible, answers (i.e. the grades on the scale) were grouped (see following chart). EU citizens’ views were varied as to the likelihood that they would find a new position in case they were laid off: 45% thought that it would be very or fairly likely that they would find a new job within six months (from “6” to “10” on the scale), while 48% estimated that this would be fairly unlikely or not at all likely to happen (from “1” to “5” on the scale). There were also comparable proportions feeling either very pessimistic (”1” or “2” on the scale – “not at all likely”) or very optimistic (“9” or “10” on the scale – “very likely”) about the likelihood that they would find a new job within six months of a potential lay-off (20% vs. 19%). In July 2009, the proportion of “not at all likely” responses was somewhat higher than the proportion of “very likely” responses (21% vs. 17%).
6
Please note that, as with the previous question, respondents without a professional activity (i.e. those in charge of a household, full-time students, retirees and those looking for work) were excluded from this part of the survey. page 44
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months (after being laid off) Fl276 (07/2009)
Fl286 (12/2009)
8
7 21
20
Not at all likely (01-02)
17
19
Fairly unlikely (03-05) Fairly likely (06-08) Very likely (09-10)
28
26
28 26
DK/NA
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? ”1” means that it ”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”. Base: respondents with a professional activity, % EU27
Country variations In 16 Member States, the proportion of respondents who thought that it would be fairly unlikely or not at all likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off (”1” to “5” on the scale) was higher than the proportion who estimated that this would be very or fairly likely (“6” to “10” on the scale). For example, 34% of Greeks thought that it would be very or fairly likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off, while 59% estimated that this would be fairly unlikely or not at all likely. The most pessimistic respondents were Italian, Maltese, Lithuanian, Spanish, Irish, Portuguese and Latvian citizens: 62%-66% of them felt that it would not be at all likely or fairly unlikely (“1” to “5” on the scale) that they would find a new job within six months of a potential lay-off. Moreover, in Italy, Spain, Latvia and Ireland, at least 3 in 10 respondents were extremely pessimistic about their chances of finding a new job (“1” or “2” on the scale – between 30% and 34%). Danish citizens were the least pessimistic: just 9% felt that it would not be at all likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off and 18% considered it fairly unlikely. Denmark, together with Austria, had the highest proportions of citizens who were very optimistic about their job prospects in the event of being laid off: 35% of Danes and 34% of Austrians were almost sure that they would find a new job within six months (“9” or “10” on the scale). Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months
(after being laid off) 7
19
19 22
SI
EU27
SK
LU
CY
HU
EL
EE
FR
35 32 32 28 30 17 20 17
IT
5
4
7
19
19 25 24 21 27 25
19 20 20 20 23 23 26 25 26 26 22 28 25 27
17
MT
5
12
20 28
10 10
18
17 34
32 28 34 32
34 29 26 23 21
11
21
10
6
24 35
37
32
19 20 20 17
18
13
9 DK
5
7
NL
13 18 19
9
34 30 28 26 30 22 24 29 26 26 22 15 ES
LV
0
11
29 33 34 35 32 37 35 30 29 28
LT
31
42
IE
20
35
6
6 19
PT
40
8 14
12
16
19
15
16
15
13
13 AT
60
8 14
BE
19 22 20 26 21 20 19
5
17
FI
10 10
SE
4 15
UK
6 11
DK/NA
DE
4 8
Very likely (09-10)
CZ
7 11
Fairly likely (06-08)
PL
4 11
BG
80
5 10
Fairly unlikely (03-05)
RO
Not at all likely (01-02) 100
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? ”1” means that it ”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”. Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
page 45
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
The table and the map show the average score for respondents’ estimated chances of finding a new job within six months of being laid off – for the EU overall and for each country. Respondents’ confidence in finding a job in the event of being laid off was the highest in Denmark (average score of 7.2), Austria (6.8), the Netherlands and Finland (both 6.4). A detailed look at the countries where respondents had the lowest confidence that they would find a job in the event of being laid off showed that this map is somewhat out of step with the others in this report. It shows that respondents in all of the eastern European countries (with the exception of those in the Baltic states) had more confidence in their ability to find another job in the next six months – if they needed to – than interviewees in Member States such as Ireland (average score of 4.2), Spain (4.4), Italy (4.5) and Greece (4.7).
page 46
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
EU citizens’ confidence in finding a new job (if they were laid off) – a comparison between July and December 2009 At the EU level, very small differences were observed between July 2009 and December 2009 in the proportions of citizens feeling either very pessimistic (“not at all likely”: 21% vs. 20%) or very optimistic (“very likely”: 17% vs. 19%) about their likelihood of finding a new job within six months in the event that they were laid off. Similarly, in most Member States, a very small (insignificant) increase or decrease was observed between the July 2009 and December 2009 results. There were, however, a few exceptions; for example, France saw a decrease of five percentage points in the proportion of interviewees who thought that it would be not at all likely that they would find a new job within six months in the event that they were laid off (from 22% in July to 17% in December 2009) and an increase of 10 percentage points in the proportion that thought they would be very likely to find employment if that happened (from 9% to 19%). In Portugal, the proportion of “not at all likely” responses dropped from 30% in July 2009 to 22% in December 2009 (-8 percentage points); the proportion of “very likely” responses, however, remained more or less the same. The opposite tendency was observed when looking at the results for Malta and Latvia: in July 2009, 19% of Maltese and 26% of Latvian respondents thought that it would not be at all likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off; the corresponding proportions in the current survey were 26% for Malta (+7 percentage points) and 31% for Latvia (+5 percentage points). Although the proportion of “not at all likely” remained the same in Cyprus, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary, these countries did see a decrease in the proportion of “very likely” responses (between -5 and -7 percentage points). Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months (after being laid off) Comparison between waves - Not al all likely (01-02) - Very likely (09-10) -
Fl286 Fl286
100
7 11 11 10 11 8 7 10 13 14 7 11 20 19 18 13 26 19 17 15 12 14 23 17 12 11 17 19 22 24 9 19 23 22 20 19 28 25 24 25 16 18 29 27 18 21 19 17 26 24 31 34 24 19 39 35 +4
-1
-3 +3
80
+1
+4 -1
-5
-2
-1
-2
-7
+2
-6
+2
+10
-1
-1 -3
+1
+2
+3
-2 +3
-2
+5 -2
-3
-2
+3
+2
-1
+0 +7
-1
-8 +0
-1
20
+0
-5
-4
+3 +3 +3 -2
+1
-2
+0
+3
-3
+1
+1
DK
PL
NL
BE
FI
UK
LU
SE
CZ
SK
SI
FR
DE
EU27
PT
EE
BG
MT
HU
CY
RO
LT
EL
IT
ES
LV
IE
0
-4
36 34 26 31 32 30 33 30 31 29 25 28 26 28 27 26 26 26 19 26 25 24 22 22 30 22 21 20 19 19 22 17 21 17 14 17 13 16 13 16 17 15 14 15 17 15 13 13 10 13 16 13 11 12 8 9
Not at all likely
60
40
-5
-2
-2
AT
Very likely
Fl276 Fl276
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? ”1” means that it ”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”. Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
The links between households’ financial problems and respondents’ confidence in finding a new job In accordance with the results for respondents’ confidence in their ability to keep their job, those who had been unable to pay essential bills in the past year were the most likely to think that it would be not at all likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off (“1” or “2” on the scale – 28%) and a similar proportion estimated that this would be fairly unlikely (“3” to “5” on the scale – 28%). The corresponding proportions for respondents who had not had difficulties in paying bills were 18% and 28%, respectively.
page 47
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months (after being laid off) Not at all likely (01-02) Fairly likely (06-08) DK/NA Household had run out of money during the past 12 months
Household had not run out of money during the past 12 months
Fairly unlikely (03-05) Very likely (09-10)
28
18
28
28
20
28
16
8
19
7
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? ”1” means that it ”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”. Base: all respondents, % EU27
Socio-demographic considerations A focus on the socio-demographic breakdown of the results shows that women were less confident than men that they would find a new job within six months if they were laid off (for example, “not at all likely” – “1” or “2” on the scale: 22% vs. 18% of men; “very likely” – “9” or “10” on the scale: 16% vs. 20% of men). The interviewees’ level of optimism regarding their chances of finding a new job largely decreased with age – this was one of the biggest disparities observed among the various socio-demographic groups. While slightly more than 1 in 10 respondents who were younger than 40 thought it was not at all likely they would find a new job (“1” or “2” on the scale – 11%-12%), 21% of 40-54 year-olds and 43% of those aged over 54 were just as pessimistic. The overall proportion of those feeling rather pessimistic (from “1” to “5” on the scale) increased progressively from 39%-40% for younger respondents to 52%-63% for the older ones. A considerable discrepancy was also observed between groups based on the level of education. Generally, the lower the respondents’ educational achievements, the more pessimistic they were about their likelihood of finding a new job within six months if they were laid off. While just 15% of respondents with the highest level of education felt they had almost no chance of finding a new job in such circumstances (“1” or “2” on the scale – “not at all likely”), the proportion of those being very pessimistic among those with the lowest level of education was more than twice as high (34%). Regarding variations based on occupational status, manual workers and the self-employed were more likely than employees to anticipate that it was not at all likely they would be able to find a new job if they were laid off (“1” or “2” on the scale – 23% vs. 18%). However, when looking at the overall proportion of those feeling rather pessimistic (from “1” to “5” on the scale), just 43% of the selfemployed felt that way compared to 48% of employees and 56% of manual workers. Finally, respondents living in metropolitan areas were less pessimistic than their counterparts in other town/urban centres and rural areas. For example, 16% of the former believed that it was not at all likely they would find a new job within six months of being laid off (“1” or “2” on the scale), compared to 20% of those living in other town/urban centres and 21% of those living in rural areas. For further details, see annex table 19b.
page 48
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
8. Concerns about future finances When asked about the financial outlook for their old age, in terms of the impact on their future pension entitlements, over two-thirds of EU citizens either explicitly anticipated lower pension benefits or believed that they would have to save more money for when they reached old age or postpone their retirement. Furthermore, asked about their (anticipated) income in old age, half of EU citizens were very or fairly worried that it would not be sufficient to enable them to lead a dignified life.
8.1 The impact of changes in pension entitlements Turning to EU citizens’ views about how their pension entitlements might change in the future, a quarter of interviewees thought that they would have to save more for when they retired. A further one in four (24%) thought that they would receive lower pension benefits than expected, while about one in five (19%) said that they would have to retire later than planned. At the opposite end of the spectrum, slightly more than 1 in 10 (12%) respondents believed that their pension entitlements would not be affected by economic and financial events. Less than a tenth (8%) gave other answers than they were presented with and 12% could not (or did not want to) say what the outcome might be. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of the crisis on their future pension entitlements Fl276 (07/2009) You will have to save more for when you are retired
26
You will receive lower pension benefits than what you expected
24
19
Your pension will not be affected by economic and financial events
DK/NA
25
25
You will have to retire later than you had planned to
Other
Fl286 (12/2009)
19
11 9
12 8
10
12
Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future? Base: all respondents, % EU27
Across all Member States (with the exception of Denmark), at least half of respondents either explicitly anticipated lower pension benefits or believed that they would have to save more money for when they reached old age or postpone their retirement. The proportion of interviewees who thought that economic and financial events would not affect their pension remained below 20% in almost all Member States, ranging from 5% in Lithuania and Latvia to 19% in Cyprus and 21% in Finland. In Denmark, on the other hand, 38% of interviewees anticipated an “economic crisis-safe” pension. In roughly a third of EU Member States, a relative majority of respondents expected that they would have to save more for their retirement. Respondents in the Czech Republic (41%; +4 percentage points compared to July 2009), Slovakia (35%, +7) and Belgium (32%) were the most likely to select this response. In another third of Member States, a relative majority demonstrated a less proactive attitude by mentioning that they would receive lower pension benefits than expected – namely in Germany (37%), Latvia (36%), Lithuania (35%; +6 percentage points compared to July 2009), Sweden (33%), Greece (29%), Hungary (28%) and Poland (27%). page 49
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
In Ireland, Malta, Spain, Cyprus and Finland, similar proportions either anticipated that they would have to save more for their retirement or thought they would receive lower pension benefits (for example, Ireland: 28% and 27%, respectively). Relative majorities of French (30%), Austrian (26%; +5 percentage points compared to July 2009), British (25%) and Dutch (24%, +7 percentage points compared to July 2009) citizens considered that they would have to retire later than originally planned. In the UK, however, almost the same proportion said that they would have to save more for their retirement (24%). Finally, relative majorities of Romanians (29%), Luxembourgers (25%), Bulgarians (23%), Estonians and Italians (both 21%) were unable to present a clear answer regarding their future pension situation (or did not want to answer the question). In Italy, the percentage of respondents who did not answer was almost the same as the proportion who anticipated that they would have to save more for their retirement (20%, -5 percentage points compared to July 2009). Respondents’ feelings about the impact of the crisis on future pension entitlements You will have to save more for when you are retired You will receive lower pension benefits than what you expected You will have to retire later than you had planned to Your pension will not be affected by economic and financial events Other DK/NA
12
22
21
22
19
20
18
17
17
14
12 25
30
28
24
21
IE
SI
CZ
LT
FR
36 32
12
25
29
25
24
20
33
18
23
24
SE
25
41
28
24
EL
22
16
16
UK
27
MT
23
EU27
26
35
15
9 6 18 15 25
16 8 11 15
9 10
23
16 6 24
27
20 35
8
26
24
20
14
13
6
10
19
21
18
12
17
24
21 10
12 22
13 19
21
23
29
25
17
14
8
10
6
11
13
16
18
19
18
17
8
10
11
15
22
21
21
20
25
23
19
20
15
38
18
20
28
8 8
DK
10
8
LU
8
9
5
12
BG
9
14
6
13 2
RO
10
13
10 5
IT
7 17
EE
13
8
0
DE
12
FI
26
12
CY
19
12
12
PT
17
11
NL
21
9 7
BE
22
30
16
9
11 3 11
LV
20
6 7
17
37 40
6 5
5 11
PL
30
60
11
ES
16
13
SK
7 4 11
HU
80
3 4 9
AT
100
Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future? Base: all respondents, % by country
Socio-demographic considerations Given that it could be expected that those already retired or close to retirement would, in general, hold rather different views on their future financial situation compared to younger people, results were analysed separately for respondents who had retired and those who had not. Furthermore, as most of EU citizens retire by the age of 65, results were also analysed separately for 55-64 year-olds and those aged 65 and over. The oldest respondents were the most confident that their pension would not be affected by economic and financial events. Just over a fifth of those aged 65 and over (22%) and rather fewer of those aged 55 to 64 (17%) held this view, compared to 7%-8% of 15-54 year-olds. Roughly a quarter (23%) of respondents likely to have already retired (aged 65+) expected lower pension benefits, and this proportion was somewhat lower among 15-39 year-olds (17%-19%). However, respondents getting closer to retirement age (aged 45-64) were the most likely to expect lower pension benefits (30%34%). Younger respondents were feeling that they would either have to save more money for old age or postpone their retirement. Few respondents aged 65 and over mentioned that they would have to retire later than planned – namely 4% of them vs. 26% of younger respondents (below 40). In addition, those aged 65 and over less frequently mentioned that they would need to save more for their retirement – only page 50
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
12% of those aged 65 and over and 18% of 55-64 year-olds shared this opinion, compared to 25% of 4054 year-olds, 37% of 25-39 year-olds and 33% of 15-24 year-olds. Focusing on respondents’ occupation, it should be mentioned that the distribution of answers for retirees was the same as the one found for those aged 65 and over – this was as expected, given the large overlap between the two groups. Focusing on those respondents who had not yet retired, it was noted that those without a professional activity (e.g. unemployed respondents, students) were the least likely to consider postponing their retirement or to anticipate lower pension benefits (19% and 21%, respectively); manual workers and employees, however, were the most likely to expect these outcomes (25%-29%). As regards the variation of results by respondents’ educational achievements, those with the lowest level of education less frequently commented that they would have to postpone their retirement (12% vs. 20%-22% of the more educated) and that they would need to accumulate more savings for old age (18% vs. 26%-28%). At the same time, they were slightly more confident than others that their pension would not be affected by economic and financial events (15% vs. 10%-12%). Respondents still in education were more “proactive” than others, as about a third of them thought of saving more for when they retired (32% vs. 18%-29% of those who were no longer in education), and somewhat less “passive”, that is, 18% simply anticipated lower pension benefits, vs. 24%-25% of those who were no longer in education. For further details, see annex table 9b.
8.2 Concerns regarding income in old age Respondents were asked to rate – on a scale from “1” to “10” – how concerned they were, if at all, that their income in old age would not be adequate enough to enable them to live a dignified life. For ease of analysis, the answers were grouped as shown in the chart below. Roughly one-fifth of EU citizens were very worried about the chances that their income in old age would not be sufficient to allow them to live in dignity (19% mentioned “9” or “10” on the scale), and about one-third were fairly worried by such an outlook (32% opted for a number between “6” and “8”). Conversely, about 3 in 10 EU citizens were not very worried that they would lack a decent income in old age (from “3” to “5”, 31%), and 15% were not worried at all (“1” or “2”). Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity Fl276 (07/2009) 3 15
Fl286 (12/2009) 2
18
15
19
Very worried (09-10) Fairly worried (06-08) Not very worried (03-05)
31
32
Not worried at all (01-02)
31
32
DK/NA
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘Not worried at all’ and 10 means ‘Very worried’. Base: all respondents, % EU27
page 51
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Respondents in Italy and Portugal were the most likely to be very or fairly worried that their income in old age would not be adequate to enable them to live in dignity (71% and 66%, respectively, indicated from “6” to “10” on the scale). In 13 other Member States, at least half of respondents had rather negative expectations regarding their income in old age (ranging from 51% in Slovakia to 64% in Latvia). Just considering those respondents who were very worried that their income in old age would not support a dignified life (i.e. who indicated “9” or “10” on the scale), the largest proportions of these extremely pessimistic citizens were seen in Latvia and Hungary (both 40%), Romania (38%) and Bulgaria (36%). On the other hand, in six Member States at least 6 in 10 citizens were not particularly worried that their income in old age would be insufficient for them to live a decent life (from “1” to “5” on the scale). The most optimistic were the Danes, with a large majority of 83% of citizens who expected an income in old age that would make it possible for them to live in dignity. Next came the Swedes (77%), Dutch and Luxembourgers (both 69%), Austrians (66%) and Finns (60%). A focus on “extreme” views – this time those not at all worried about their income in old age (answering “1” or “2”) – showed that almost half of respondents in Denmark (47%) held this opinion. Other countries with a large proportion of extremely optimistic citizens were Sweden (38%) and the Netherlands (34%). Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity
RO
PL
MT
CZ
ES
CY
4
2 10
2 15
6 13
1 13
5
1 1 10 16 18 13
2 17
5
FI
15
DE
1 15
Not worried at all (01-02)
UK
4 12
6
EE
13
FR
3 11
SK
7 7
SI
8 10
EU27
2 9
3
3
DK/NA 2
2
2
DK
SE
LU
NL
AT
BE
IE
16 26 24 28 34 38 47 20 26 24 27 21 25 26 26 30 30 28 36 31 32 36 31 36 32 36 37 34 42 41 43 34 24 23 29 25 22 35 33 32 39 32 29 31 32 28 32 31 25 36 37 33 34 31 32 27 40 40 34 38 23 36 23 25 16 28 24 25 22 28 28 32 23 20 23 19 20 12 13 12 14 12 7 7 12 5 3 5 4 19 26
IT
0
5 9
BG
20
2 10
EL
40
3 13
LT
60
3 6
Not very worried (03-05)
HU
80
2 9
PT
100
Fairly worried (06-08)
LV
Very worried (09-10)
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘Not worried at all’ and 10 means ‘Very worried’. Base: all respondents, % by country
page 52
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
The table next to the map shows the average rankings about respondents’ levels of concern about their income in old age – for the EU overall and for each country. In terms of individual countries, it was noted that respondents’ concern about their income in old age was lower in Denmark (average score 3.2), Sweden (3.8), the Netherlands (4.0), Luxembourg (4.3), Finland and Austria (both 4.6). One can also see that respondents’ concerns were higher in eastern and southern European countries: for example, Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria and Hungary had an average score of 7.0.
page 53
Analytical Report
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
EU citizens’ concerns about their income in old age – a comparison between July and December 2009 The following chart shows, for each country, the proportion of respondents who were very or fairly worried that their income in old age would not allow them to live in dignity (“6” to “10” on the scale). In most Member States, a very small (insignificant) increase or decrease was observed between the July 2009 and December 2009 results. The most notable exception was Italy: in July 2009, 60% of Italians were worried that their income in old age would not allow them to live in dignity; in December, this proportion increased to 70% (+10 percentage points). The largest – but still relatively small – decreases in the proportion of very or fairly worried respondents were measured in Luxembourg and Sweden (Luxembourg: from 32% to 28%; Sweden: from 25% to 21%). Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity Comparison between waves Fl276 - % worried (score "6" to "10") Fl286 100
80
+10
+5 -2
-3
+3
60
+2 -1
-1 +2
+3 +4
+1 +4
-1
+2
+0
-2
+2
+5 +0
-2
+3
40
+3
-1
+0
-4
-4
20
DK
SE
LU
NL
AT
FI
DE
UK
BE
IE
EE
SK
FR
EU27
SI
CY
ES
CZ
MT
PL
RO
EL
BG
LT
HU
LV
PT
60 70 61 66 66 64 66 63 59 62 59 61 62 61 61 60 58 60 53 56 50 54 53 54 49 53 53 52 50 52 50 50 52 50 46 48 41 46 45 45 47 45 42 45 32 35 32 31 28 28 32 28 25 21 16 15
IT
0
-1
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘Not worried at all’ and 10 means ‘Very worried’. Base: all respondents, % by country
Socio-demographic considerations Women were more worried about the possibility that their income in old age would not enable them to lead a dignified life. For example, 22% of women (vs. 16% of men) were very worried (“9” or “10” on the scale) and 33% of women (vs. 31% of men) were fairly worried (from “6” to “8” on the scale). As for the variation of results by respondents’ age, 25-54 year-olds were the most worried about the possibility that their income in old age would be insufficient for them to live a decent life. Conversely, the least worried about having insufficient funds were respondents who were likely to have already retired (aged 65+) or at least to be close to retirement (55-64 year-olds), as well as members of the youngest group, aged 15 to 24. For example, 57%-58% of respondents aged 25 to 54 were very or fairly worried about having a low income in old age (from “6” to “10” on the scale), while 40% of those who might have retired (aged 65+) had the same opinion. Among the youngest age group and those aged 55 to 64, roughly half were worried (49%). Over half of respondents with average or low levels of education were very or fairly worried about the possibility of a low income in old age (54%-55%); 46% of respondents with the highest educational achievements and 45% of those still in education were concerned about that matter. The proportion of respondents who were very worried (“9” or “10” on the scale) that their income in old age would not be sufficient for them to live a decent life progressively decreased with the increase in respondents’ educational achievements (from 26% among those with the lowest education to 13% among the most educated respondents and full-time students).
page 54
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Analytical Report
Six in 10 manual workers and 58% of respondents without a professional activity (e.g. unemployed respondents, students) were very or fairly worried about their future income in their old age (“6” to “10” on the scale), compared to about half of the self-employed and employees (51%-52%), and 42% of retirees. Finally, those living in metropolitan zones were less likely to be very worried (“9” or “10” on the scale) about their income in old age than those living in towns, other urban centres or in a rural area (16% vs. 20%). For further details, see annex table 10b.
page 55
Flash EB Series #286
Monitoring the social impact of the crisis: public perceptions in the European Union Wave 2
Annex tables and survey details THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
I. Annex tables Table 1a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live – by country ............................................................................................... 59 Table 1b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live – by segment .............................................................................................. 60 Table 2a. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by country....... 61 Table 2b. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by segment ..... 62 Table 3a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by country .... 63 Table 3b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by segment................................................................................................................................. 64 Table 4a. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by country .............. 65 Table 4b. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by segment ............. 66 Table 5a. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by country ................................................................................................................................. 67 Table 5b. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by segment................................................................................................................................. 68 Table 6a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by country ............... 69 Table 6b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by segment .............. 70 Table 7a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by country ........................................ 71 Table 7b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by segment ....................................... 72 Table 8a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by country ........ 73 Table 8b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by segment ....... 74 Table 9a. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by country ................................................................................................................................. 75 Table 9b. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by segment................................................................................................................................. 76 Table 10a. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by country ...................................................... 76 Table 10b. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by segment ..................................................... 78 Table 11a. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? – by country ............................................................................................... 79 Table 11b. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? – by segment .............................................................................................. 80 Table 12a. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? – by country ........................................................................................ 81 Table 12b. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? – by segment ....................................................................................... 82 Table 13a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months – by country .......................................................................................... 83 Table 13b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months – by segment ......................................................................................... 84
page 57
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 14a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months – by country ...................................................................... 85 Table 14b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months – by segment ..................................................................... 86 Table 15a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by country ........................ 87 Table 15b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by segment ....................... 88 Table 16a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by country ...................................... 89 Table 16b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by segment ..................................... 90 Table 17a. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accomodation because they could no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by country ............................................................. 91 Table 17b. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accomodation because they could no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by segment ............................................................ 92 Table 18a. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months – by country ............................................................................................................................. 93 Table 18b. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months – by segment ............................................................................................................................ 94 Table 19a. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months – by country .......................................................................................................................... 95 Table 19b. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months – by segment ......................................................................................................................... 96
page 58
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 1a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live – by country QUESTION: Q1_A. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? - The area where you live?
Total N
% Strongly decreased
% Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly increased
% Stayed the same
% DK/NA
25630
2.1
9.1
36.5
24.5
23.6
4.2
Belgium
1005
0.1
7.2
40.6
22.3
21.5
8.3
Bulgaria
1001
1.6
7.3
27.1
52
8
4
Czech Rep.
1004
2
18.3
35.4
12
28.3
3.9
Denmark
1001
0.3
7.5
32
4.8
45.2
10.1
Germany
1005
1
6.6
46.5
11.8
29.6
4.5
Estonia
1011
1.2
5.5
36.4
36.3
14.4
6.2
Greece
1005
1.7
6.1
32.2
40.3
15.4
4.4
Spain
1000
1.1
6.8
39.5
29.5
20.9
2.2
France
1005
0.8
3.1
41.5
37.6
12.7
4.3
Ireland
1000
10
11.6
39.8
17.5
17
4.1
Italy
1007
1.6
8
34.4
38.2
15.9
1.9
Cyprus
504
2.4
9
36.5
19.2
23.5
9.5
Latvia
1011
0.8
1.6
31.2
58.3
5.7
2.4
Lithuania
1007
0.9
6.2
41.3
36.9
12.2
2.6
Luxembourg
507
0.2
7.7
51.1
9.3
28.4
3.3
Hungary
1009
1.2
6.8
29
46.9
12.9
3.1
Malta
500
3.2
6.6
37.2
14.7
26.2
12.1
Netherlands
1001
1.1
13.5
31.8
5.6
39.4
8.6
Austria
1006
0.1
4.9
38.2
10
39
7.7
Poland
1012
5
17
24.2
18.5
32.1
3.2
Portugal
1004
0.8
3.7
37.9
31.1
22.4
4.1
Romania
1012
6.9
8.7
29.1
41.8
10.9
2.6
Slovenia
1004
0.9
5.7
51.2
21.3
19.2
1.8
Slovakia
1006
2
11.6
33.3
24.7
25.2
3.2
Finland
1003
0.3
6.7
43.9
8.2
36
4.9
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
0.8
9.2
24.9
5
48.1
12
1000
4.1
17.4
32
11.7
29.8
5.2
EU27 COUNTRY
page 59
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 1b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live – by segment QUESTION: Q1_A. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? - The area where you live?
Total N
% Strongly decreased
% Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly increased
% Stayed the same
% DK/NA
25630
2.1
9.1
36.5
24.5
23.6
4.2
Male Female AGE
12391 13239
2.4 1.8
9.1 9
38 35.1
22.3 26.6
24.4 22.9
3.8 4.7
15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
3648 6212 6782 8825
3.1 2.1 1.7 1.9
14.7 8.3 7.7 8.3
39.3 40.1 37.7 32
13.3 24 27.2 27.5
25.2 21.8 21.8 25.6
4.5 3.7 3.9 4.7
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
2.3 2.1 1.6 2.8
7.5 9.5 7 16.6
31.4 36.1 40.9 38.1
33.2 25.3 21.3 11
21.6 23 24.8 27.1
4 4 4.4 4.4
4446 10960 10172
2.2 2 2.1
10.2 8.7 8.9
37.2 36.8 36
23.4 25.7 23.8
22.5 22.3 25.5
4.5 4.6 3.7
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 12853
2.8 1.5 3 2.2
9.2 7.9 7.8 10
35.5 42.2 36.7 32.9
22.6 20.4 29.9 26.6
25.5 23.9 19 23.9
4.3 4.1 3.6 4.4
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
2.2 2 1.6 2.3 2.9
8.6 8.8 9.3 9.9 10.4
33.7 37.3 39.2 36 34.7
25 24.6 23.4 25.2 24.1
24.6 23.1 23.3 23.5 25.2
5.9 4.3 3.2 3 2.7
17364 4006 2733 919
2.1 1.5 1.9 3.6
8.9 10.4 8.2 6.5
35.5 37.5 42.6 36.6
24.6 24.1 22.1 29.8
24.5 23.2 20.9 18.7
4.4 3.3 4.2 4.9
1 2 3-4 5+ HH’S LIVING STANDARDS
5687 7121 9469 3352
2.3 2.1 1.7 2.8
8.6 8.6 10.1 7.9
33.9 35.2 38.6 37.6
25.1 24.6 23.8 25.3
24.2 25.1 22.3 23.2
5.8 4.4 3.5 3.3
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
2.4 2.1 1.9 3.9
4.9 7.9 10.4 17.2
21.2 35.1 40 28.9
60.4 29.7 16 16.1
8.5 20.9 27.5 30.4
2.6 4.3 4.3 3.6
EU27 SEX
page 60
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 2a. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by country QUESTION: Q1_B. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – (OUR COUNTRY)?
Total N
% Strongly decreased
% Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly increased
% Stayed the same
% DK/NA
25630
2.9
8
35.9
40.2
7.7
5.4
Belgium
1005
1.3
8.2
39.2
38.7
5.4
7.1
Bulgaria
1001
1.4
6.2
22
58.7
3.1
8.6
Czech Rep.
1004
2.1
20.9
38.8
15.8
15.8
6.6
Denmark
1001
0.8
9.7
51.5
12.6
18.2
7.1
Germany
1005
2.1
4.7
48
30.9
9.2
5
Estonia
1011
1
3.9
36.7
47.2
6.3
4.9
Greece
1005
1.9
4.6
23.1
63.2
3.4
3.8
Spain
1000
0.9
4.8
30.9
56.5
3.5
3.4
France
1005
0.8
2.8
32.7
57.8
3.6
2.4
Ireland
1000
15.6
9.6
26.5
41
4.1
3.1
Italy
1007
1.9
5.3
34.6
45.9
8
4.4
Cyprus
504
2.6
6.7
40.3
35.7
11.2
3.6
Latvia
1011
1
1
19.6
75.1
0.5
2.8
Lithuania
1007
1.3
3.2
31.9
58.3
2.5
2.8
Luxembourg
507
0.6
6.6
60.8
16.1
12.5
3.4
Hungary
1009
1.8
4.3
23.5
64
2.8
3.7
Malta
500
3.7
7.5
45.9
24.4
10.8
7.6
Netherlands
1001
2
14.9
50.1
16.6
9.2
7.2
Austria
1006
0.3
5.8
55.7
17
12.9
8.3
Poland
1012
2.9
17.2
32.4
22.9
15.6
9
Portugal
1004
0.6
1.8
28.7
61.7
3.4
3.9
Romania
1012
7.4
5.2
21.5
56.6
4.2
5.2
Slovenia
1004
1.2
3.8
39.3
48.6
4.5
2.6
Slovakia
1006
2.2
11.5
34.5
32
16.3
3.4
Finland
1003
0.3
6
58
21.4
9.7
4.5
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
1.2
11.7
49.2
13.7
14.6
9.5
1000
8.9
16.6
30.3
27.9
7.9
8.4
EU27 COUNTRY
page 61
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 2b. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by segment QUESTION: Q1_B. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – (OUR COUNTRY)?
Total N
% Strongly decreased
% Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly increased
% Stayed the same
% DK/NA
25630
2.9
8
35.9
40.2
7.7
5.4
Male Female AGE
12391 13239
3.2 2.6
8.5 7.4
39.3 32.7
35.6 44.5
8.4 7.1
5.1 5.7
15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
3648 6212 6782 8825
3.5 3 2.9 2.4
12 7.5 6.7 7.6
39.3 37.7 36.1 33.1
32.7 39.9 42.9 41.4
7.9 7 6.8 8.8
4.7 4.9 4.6 6.6
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
2.7 3.6 1.4 4.1
5.9 7.8 7.9 13.3
29.5 33.5 43.1 41.1
48.7 41.8 35.6 28.4
7.1 8.2 6.9 8.5
6.1 5.1 5 4.6
4446 10960 10172
2.5 3 2.9
8.6 8.2 7.5
38 35.2 35.8
38 40.9 40.5
7.4 7.1 8.4
5.6 5.6 5
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 12853
4.9 2.2 2.7 2.9
9 8.1 7.1 7.8
36.1 39.3 31.9 34.2
33.5 39.1 48.4 40.7
9.4 7.3 5.9 8
7.1 3.9 4.1 6.3
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
3.6 2.4 2.5 3.7 2.4
8 7.7 6.8 8.2 11.6
32.7 36.7 38 37.2 33.2
39.5 40.8 40.2 39.7 39.7
9 7.1 8 6.6 8.3
7.1 5.2 4.5 4.5 4.8
17364 4006 2733 919
2.9 2.5 2.8 3.6
7.6 9.5 7.8 5.8
35.8 35.5 39 34.7
39.9 40.9 40.2 42.3
8.1 7.3 5.5 7.7
5.7 4.4 4.6 6
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
5687 7121 9469 3352
3.4 2.5 2.8 2.9
8.2 7.6 7.7 9
32.7 36.4 37.2 36.3
39.5 40.1 40.9 39.5
9.2 7.4 7.3 7
6.9 6 4.1 5.3
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
2.8 2.7 2.9 3.5
4.7 5.9 10.1 13.5
18.9 32.8 41.1 30.4
64.8 45.7 32.4 34.1
3.4 7.6 8.1 11.6
5.3 5.2 5.4 7
EU27 SEX
page 62
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 3a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by country QUESTION: Q1_C. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – The European Union?
Total N
% Strongly decreased
% Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly increased
% Stayed the same
% DK/NA
25630
2
7.8
31.1
23.1
9
27
Belgium
1005
1.4
4.8
33.2
35.7
6
18.9
Bulgaria
1001
2.6
10
23.5
8.6
10.9
44.3
Czech Rep.
1004
2.2
18.4
29.1
9.1
19.3
21.9
Denmark
1001
0.8
7.6
38.5
18
10.7
24.4
Germany
1005
1.4
4.8
38.7
23.6
9.8
21.6
Estonia
1011
1
4.9
32
11.7
14.8
35.5
Greece
1005
1.5
4.5
31
37.7
4.7
20.6
Spain
1000
1.1
7.2
36.8
23.5
6.6
24.9
France
1005
0.3
4
29.8
38.4
3.3
24.2
Ireland
1000
7.2
10
30.2
18.7
6.7
27.2
Italy
1007
1.4
4.4
31.3
30.1
8.8
23.9
Cyprus
504
1.7
3.1
22.4
45
2.1
25.6
Latvia
1011
0.3
7.2
38
5.9
15.3
33.2
Lithuania
1007
0.3
11.2
38.5
8.9
11.7
29.3
Luxembourg
507
1.2
6.5
40.8
38.9
3.8
8.7
Hungary
1009
0.4
7
31.4
13.4
14.8
33
Malta
500
2.4
6.9
33.5
14.9
9.3
32.9
Netherlands
1001
2.9
13.1
35.4
21.1
7.7
19.9
Austria
1006
0.8
6
40.7
24
8
20.6
Poland
1012
4.6
15.5
19.2
6.9
16.7
37.1
Portugal
1004
0.7
2.8
33.7
40.4
4.5
17.9
Romania
1012
3
9.3
25.4
15.6
9.4
37.2
Slovenia
1004
0.9
4.1
47.2
22.5
7
18.3
Slovakia
1006
2
9.9
31.1
18.3
21.2
17.6
Finland
1003
0.3
4.8
49
17.1
9.3
19.4
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
1
9.9
37.6
12.4
9.7
29.4
1000
4.3
13.2
20.2
15.8
8.5
38.1
EU27 COUNTRY
page 63
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 3b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by segment QUESTION: Q1_C. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – The European Union?
Total N
% Strongly decreased
% Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly increased
% Stayed the same
% DK/NA
25630
2
7.8
31.1
23.1
9
27
Male Female AGE
12391 13239
2.4 1.6
8.3 7.4
33.3 28.9
19.5 26.5
9.9 8.1
26.5 27.5
15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
3648 6212 6782 8825
3.6 1.7 2.2 1.3
11.8 6.9 7.4 7.3
34.7 35.4 30.8 26.9
20.2 23.4 26.2 22.1
9.1 9.5 8.4 9.1
20.7 23.1 25.1 33.4
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
1.2 2.2 1.5 3.5
6.5 7.6 7.6 12.6
25 28.7 38.1 36.1
26.5 23.7 20.8 21.2
7.2 9.8 9 8.6
33.6 28 22.9 18
4446 10960 10172
2.3 2 1.8
8.3 7.9 7.6
33.2 31 30.3
22.3 22.3 24.4
8.7 8.5 9.7
25.3 28.3 26.2
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 12853
2.6 1.4 1.9 2.2
7.8 7.8 8.7 7.7
29.2 35.7 30.2 28.5
20.1 23.4 25 23.2
9.4 9.3 8 8.9
30.9 22.5 26.1 29.5
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
2.2 1.7 1.5 2.5 3.5
7.5 7.7 8.4 7.4 9.6
27 31.8 32.7 34.8 29.2
22.5 23.5 23.5 23.1 21.1
8.5 8.8 10 8.9 10
32.4 26.6 23.8 23.3 26.6
17364 4006 2733 919
2.1 1.7 1.7 1.1
7.4 9.7 7.1 7.6
31.2 31.1 32.7 27
22.7 23.4 25.9 22.2
8.6 10.2 9.7 8.8
28 23.9 22.8 33.2
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
5687 7121 9469 3352
1.9 2.1 1.7 2.4
7.7 7.5 8 8.2
27.4 30.9 33.6 30.4
22.3 22.3 24.5 22.4
8.8 8.3 9.3 9.8
31.9 28.9 22.8 26.7
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
1.6 1.8 2.1 4.7
5.5 6.8 8.9 12.7
18.2 28.3 35.5 24.9
30.3 25 20.7 19
6.7 9.1 9.1 9.6
37.6 29 23.6 29
EU27 SEX
page 64
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 4a. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by country QUESTION: Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that... ?
Total N
% 1 person out of 3 - or about 30% - is poor in (OUR COUNTRY)
%1 person out of 5 or 20%
%1 person out of 10 or 10%
%1 person out of 20 - or 5%
% Less than 5%
% DK/NA
25630
29.5
30.5
22.3
8.6
4.1
5
Belgium
1005
20.3
41
24.5
5.9
3.7
4.6
Bulgaria
1001
66.6
16.2
7.7
3.5
0.7
5.1
Czech Rep.
1004
27.7
25.3
21.7
11.4
6.1
7.7
Denmark
1001
1.8
12.2
30.1
26.7
24.2
4.9
Germany
1005
23.6
34.2
29.2
7.6
2.9
2.5
Estonia
1011
38.2
30.2
18.3
6
1.2
6.1
Greece
1005
45
32.8
13.8
4.1
1.4
3
Spain
1000
25.4
29.5
23.1
9.1
4.2
8.7
France
1005
26.3
38.9
22.5
7.1
2.7
2.7
Ireland
1000
16.8
30.5
26.1
13.9
7.6
5.2
Italy
1007
34.2
33.4
16.7
7.6
3
5.1
Cyprus
504
23.4
28.5
20.3
13.9
9.7
4.3
Latvia
1011
47.7
28.3
13.4
3.6
1.1
5.9
Lithuania
1007
48.9
25.7
11.1
5.5
2.1
6.7
Luxembourg
507
9.4
32.1
34.9
14.3
4.3
4.9
Hungary
1009
64.3
22.9
7.9
2
0.3
2.7
Malta
500
25
22.2
19.4
9
8.2
16.2
Netherlands
1001
10.8
20.3
35.1
18.6
9.8
5.3
Austria
1006
14.8
32.1
30.4
12.7
5.6
4.5
Poland
1012
37.7
28.7
18.4
6.4
3
5.7
Portugal
1004
32.5
33.1
18.2
7.1
1.6
7.4
Romania
1012
61.7
14.7
10.3
3.6
1.5
8.3
Slovenia
1004
37.5
29.4
21.8
6.1
2.1
3.2
Slovakia
1006
38.6
27.8
18.7
5.2
2.1
7.6
Finland
1003
10.1
24
36.1
18.9
8.8
2.1
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
10.2
21.7
33.5
19.4
10.5
4.6
1000
22.2
29.7
24
11.1
7
6
EU27 COUNTRY
page 65
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 4b. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by segment QUESTION: Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that... ?
Total N
% 1 person out of 3 - or about 30% - is poor in (OUR COUNTRY)
%1 person out of 5 - or 20%
%1 person out of 10 - or 10%
%1 person out of 20 - or 5%
% Less than 5%
% DK/NA
25630
29.5
30.5
22.3
8.6
4.1
5
Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
12391 13239
26.8 32.1
30.3 30.7
23.6 21.1
10.2 7
5.2 3
3.9 6
3648 6212 6782 8825
29.8 32.1 29.3 27.8
31.8 31.3 31.9 28.5
24.4 21.2 22.3 22.4
8.3 8.7 8.3 8.8
4.1 3.6 4 4.2
1.6 3.1 4.2 8.2
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
34.2 32.6 22.3 24.4
26.9 29.8 33.3 35.7
20 21 25.9 25
6.7 8.1 10.3 9.4
3.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
8.7 4.4 3.9 1.3
Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
4446 10960 10172
30.1 30.6 27.9
29.4 30.7 30.9
23.1 21.2 23.3
8.5 8.2 9
4 4.3 4
4.8 5 5
2212 8359 2182 12853
28.2 25.6 36.1 31.2
29.2 32.2 34.1 29.1
21 25.9 17.8 21
9.7 9.4 6.9 8.1
6.4 4 2.2 4.1
5.4 2.9 3 6.6
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
28.8 27.5 32.1 32 34.5
31 30 30 32.4 29.8
21.3 24.1 21.7 20.1 20.2
9.2 8.6 8.2 8.6 6.5
3.3 4.7 4 2.9 5.9
6.3 5.2 4 4 3.1
17364 4006 2733 919
29.1 30.2 29.1 31.6
30.3 33.2 29.6 28.4
22 22 24.9 24.8
8.8 8 8.1 7.5
4.1 3.7 4.9 4.4
5.7 2.9 3.4 3.4
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
5687 7121 9469 3352
29.4 27.5 29.8 33
30.7 29.4 31.1 30.8
20.5 23.3 23.2 20.8
9.2 9.3 8 7.7
3.7 4.4 4.1 4.2
6.6 6.1 3.7 3.4
1273 11795 11882 522
56.1 34.9 21.5 24.5
20 30.2 32.3 25.9
10.5 19.6 26.7 17.4
4.6 6.5 10.8 15.5
1.7 3.1 5.1 10.9
7.1 5.7 3.6 5.9
EU27 SEX
page 66
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 5a. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by country
Total N
% I am / we are keeping up without any difficulties
% I am / we are keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time
% I am / we are keeping up but it is a constant struggle
% I am / we are falling behind with some bills / credit commitments
% I am / we are having real financial problems and have fallen behind with many bills and credit commitments
% DK/NA
QUESTION: Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present?
25630
45.4
33.4
15.2
3.4
1.8
0.9
Belgium
1005
46
38.6
11.1
1.5
1.8
0.9
Bulgaria
1001
14.6
39.6
29.7
9
6.1
0.9
Czech Rep.
1004
43.3
30.5
19.7
3.8
1.4
1.3
Denmark
1001
81.5
14.5
2.1
0.4
0.2
1.2
Germany
1005
49.8
35.3
11
2
1
0.9
Estonia
1011
32
28.6
26.3
8.2
4.2
0.6
Greece
1005
20
22
43.5
7.9
5.7
1
Spain
1000
45.2
30.7
16.8
3.8
3.3
0.2
France
1005
41.8
40.2
15.5
1.4
0.6
0.5
Ireland
1000
43.4
38.9
11.3
3.3
2.1
0.9
Italy
1007
40
33.8
19.6
4.1
1.7
0.9
Cyprus
504
23.4
30.9
37.2
3.9
3.4
1.1
Latvia
1011
20.3
34.5
32
9.3
3.8
0.1
Lithuania
1007
35.3
24.2
26.1
9.5
3.2
1.5
Luxembourg
507
65.9
23.9
6.1
1.9
1.3
0.8
Hungary
1009
27.8
35.6
23.6
8.8
4.2
0.1
Malta
500
22.9
32.2
30.7
8.1
5.1
1.1
Netherlands
1001
76.2
19.8
1.9
1.1
0.1
0.9
Austria
1006
62.8
29.2
5.3
1
1.1
0.5
Poland
1012
50.4
34.8
9.4
3.3
1.6
0.5
Portugal
1004
24.5
34.1
34.9
4.3
1.2
1.1
Romania
1012
23
41.4
21.8
6.2
5.3
2.3
Slovenia
1004
50.8
34.9
9.8
2.7
1.4
0.4
Slovakia
1006
57
24.1
14.6
2.7
1
0.6
Finland
1003
65.6
25.3
7
1.2
0.7
0.2
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
74.8
18.1
3.9
1.2
0.3
1.8
1000
50.1
31.6
11.5
3.7
1.4
1.5
EU27 COUNTRY
page 67
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 5b. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by segment
% I am / we are keeping up without any difficulties
% I am / we are keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time
% I am / we are keeping up but it is a constant struggle
% I am / we are falling behind with some bills / credit commitments
% I am / we are having real financial problems and have fallen behind with many bills and credit commitments
% DK/NA
EU27
Total N
QUESTION: Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present?
25630
45.4
33.4
15.2
3.4
1.8
0.9
12391 13239
49.1 41.8
31.6 35
13.4 16.9
3 3.7
1.8 1.8
1.1 0.7
3648 6212 6782 8825
42.7 39.8 41.6 53
39.1 38.1 33.6 27.6
11.1 14.9 18.3 14.9
3.6 4 3.9 2.4
1.4 2.4 2.1 1.3
2.2 0.7 0.5 0.7
4756 11214 6754 2283
37.7 42.3 55.7 45.2
31.6 34.8 31.1 37.8
21.3 16.7 10.1 10.1
5.7 3.6 1.5 3
2.4 2 1.1 1.5
1.3 0.6 0.6 2.4
4446 10960 10172
49.4 43.9 45.2
30.7 34.3 33.4
14.2 15 15.9
2.8 3.8 3.1
2 2 1.5
0.8 1 0.8
2212 8359 2182 12853
43.8 50.7 31.9 44.4
34.3 33.6 39.2 32
14.7 11.8 20.6 16.7
4.4 2.4 4.8 3.6
2.1 1 2.4 2.2
0.8 0.5 1.2 1.1
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
47.2 47.9 42.7 41.3 36.2
30.3 32.1 36.8 36.8 37.5
15.8 14.6 14.5 16.3 17.7
3.7 3 3.7 3 4.4
2.5 1.8 1.3 1.1 2.6
0.6 0.7 1 1.5 1.6
17364 4006 2733 919
48.6 38.9 38.2 34.7
31.7 37.9 36.5 35.7
14.4 16.7 17.6 19
2.8 4 5.1 6.3
1.7 1.6 1.5 3.5
0.9 0.8 1.2 0.8
5687 7121 9469 3352
48 51.5 42.8 35.2
30.4 29.7 36.6 37.3
15.1 13.8 15 18.9
3.4 2.6 3.4 4.7
2.5 1.6 1.4 2.2
0.7 0.7 0.9 1.7
1273 11795 11882 522
9.8 33.1 59.7 82.3
23.5 38.3 30.7 12.6
39.2 21.5 6.9 3.8
12.9 4.5 1.3 0.1
12.7 2 0.5 1.2
1.9 0.6 0.9 0
SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy page 68
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 6a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by country QUESTION: Q4_A. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? - Healthcare for you or your relative
Total N
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewh at more easy
% Yes, somewh at more difficult
% Yes, much more difficult
% No, no changes
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
1.4
4.9
17.6
11.6
57.4
5.1
2
Belgium
1005
1.4
4.2
14.6
9.5
59.7
8.5
2.2
Bulgaria
1001
2
9.2
21.7
22.5
35.7
4.8
4.2
Czech Rep.
1004
2.2
6.6
11.2
5.9
71
2.4
0.8
Denmark
1001
1.4
1.7
4.1
0.6
84.8
5.1
2.2
Germany
1005
0.6
4.3
17.9
7
64.8
4.5
0.9
Estonia
1011
2.2
4
24.5
19
38.2
5.1
7
Greece
1005
2.2
6.4
24.3
15.2
46.6
3.6
1.8
Spain
1000
1.2
4.9
10.4
8.5
70.6
3.9
0.4
France
1005
1.2
5.3
26.6
8.7
56.5
0.9
0.9
Ireland
1000
2.4
5.8
27.8
14.9
43.7
3.7
1.7
Italy
1007
1
2.3
19.7
16.2
50.4
6.9
3.5
Cyprus
504
4.5
8.4
25.3
11.7
45.8
2.7
1.7
Latvia
1011
0.1
0.4
22.5
42.3
28.2
3.7
2.8
Lithuania
1007
1.6
5.5
22.8
22.8
37.9
2.8
6.7
Luxembourg
507
1.9
11.6
15.3
4.5
64.8
1.6
0.3
Hungary
1009
0.6
2.9
22.7
26
40.2
5.2
2.3
Malta
500
1.7
7.8
26.7
16.1
35.8
9.2
2.7
Netherlands
1001
3
5.5
12
3.8
68.5
6
1.3
Austria
1006
1.3
3
8.7
4.7
77
4.2
1.2
Poland
1012
1.8
6.1
22.9
25.2
38
2.9
3.1
Portugal
1004
1.3
3.9
18.7
17.1
55.2
3.1
0.8
Romania
1012
1.3
4.9
21.7
24
39.9
3.6
4.6
Slovenia
1004
0.7
5.7
23.2
8.1
58
1.6
2.8
Slovakia
1006
2.2
5.2
15.3
11
56.8
7.2
2.2
Finland
1003
0.3
2.2
7.3
2.3
78.9
7.8
1
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
1
2.5
6.3
1.7
78.9
4.8
4.9
1000
2.8
7.7
10.3
5.8
59.6
11.5
2.2
EU27 COUNTRY
page 69
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 6b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by segment
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewhat more easy
% Yes, somewhat more difficult
% Yes, much more difficult
% No, no changes
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
EU27
Total N
QUESTION: Q4_A. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? - Healthcare for you or your relative
25630
1.4
4.9
17.6
11.6
57.4
5.1
2
12391 13239
1.6 1.3
5.2 4.6
15.9 19.2
10.2 13
60 54.9
4.9 5.2
2.3 1.7
3648 6212 6782 8825
1.7 1.3 1.2 1.6
7.6 5.5 4.2 3.9
13.1 17.7 17.5 19.5
5 9.2 13.8 14.4
63.9 59.3 56 54.5
5.7 4.8 5.7 4.4
2.9 2.2 1.5 1.8
4756 11214 6754 2283
1.4 1.4 1.3 2.2
3.9 5.1 4.4 7.6
20.2 18.4 16.8 10.6
17.4 12.5 8.2 4.4
50 55.8 62.8 65.3
4.9 4.9 4.9 6.8
2.1 1.8 1.7 3
4446 10960 10172
1.2 1.8 1.1
4.9 4.7 5.1
15.4 17.7 18.4
11.8 11.4 11.8
60.1 56.5 57.1
4.4 5.6 4.8
2.1 2.3 1.6
2212 8359 2182 12853
1.5 1.4 1.7 1.5
4.1 4.9 6 4.9
16.9 16.3 19.1 18.3
10.2 7.9 13.3 14
58.9 62.9 53.5 54.2
5.7 5 4.3 5.1
2.7 1.7 2.2 2
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
1.9 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.6
3.9 5 5.5 5.2 5.5
17.2 18.2 16.8 16.4 20.6
11.7 11.7 10.2 12.5 12.7
57.4 57.6 59.1 56.9 52.2
6.1 4.4 5 5.6 4.4
2 1.6 2.2 2.1 3
17364 4006 2733 919
1.5 1 1.7 1.3
4.4 6.6 5.2 6.4
17.5 18 17.8 19.8
11.9 10.9 9.8 11.9
57.6 56.9 58.8 52.3
5.2 4.9 4.7 5
2 1.7 2 3.3
5687 7121 9469 3352
1.8 1.6 1.2 1.4
3.6 5 5.4 5.7
17.3 18.4 16.8 18.7
12.5 12.1 10.5 12.3
56.9 56.9 59 54.5
5.8 4.2 5.4 4.6
2.1 1.9 1.7 2.7
1273 11795 11882 522
1 1.1 1.8 3.6
4.4 4.3 5.3 10.4
17.9 21.4 14 10.1
34.7 15.3 5.9 5
32.4 51.5 65.7 63.6
7.1 4.6 5.3 4.6
2.5 1.7 2.1 2.6
SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy page 70
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 7a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by country QUESTION: Q4_B. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? – Childcare for your children
Total N
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewh at more easy
% Yes, somewh at more difficult
% Yes, much more difficult
% No, no changes
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
0.8
3
7.3
5.1
26.5
54
3.2
Belgium
1005
0.9
1.3
5.4
4.2
30.8
54
3.5
Bulgaria
1001
0.6
2.4
5.7
7.2
10.3
68.6
5.3
Czech Rep.
1004
1
4.7
4.9
3.4
48.2
34.6
3.2
Denmark
1001
0.4
0.2
2.6
0.2
32.1
63.1
1.5
Germany
1005
0.6
4.3
4.6
2.3
24.9
60.5
2.7
Estonia
1011
0.3
2.7
10.3
7.7
21.3
44.5
13.2
Greece
1005
0.9
2.3
17.7
10.3
16
51
1.8
Spain
1000
0.7
2
7.6
6.2
32.6
50.3
0.7
France
1005
0.2
2.8
9
1.9
24.4
59.9
1.9
Ireland
1000
0.9
2.4
7.4
6.3
16.1
65.7
1.1
Italy
1007
0.8
2.2
12.4
11
40.7
27.4
5.6
Cyprus
504
4.3
6.7
16.8
8.2
27.3
33.4
3.5
Latvia
1011
0
0.8
6.5
6.7
15.7
69
1.2
Lithuania
1007
0.5
2.2
9
7.1
17.7
54.6
8.9
Luxembourg
507
1.1
7.1
8.2
3.3
33.5
45.7
1.1
Hungary
1009
0.3
0.8
8.5
8.8
15
61.3
5.2
Malta
500
0.4
4.9
17.5
8.2
18.1
48.7
2.2
Netherlands
1001
1.3
1.9
1.6
1.1
17.8
75.2
1.1
Austria
1006
2.1
4.5
4.7
2
26.3
55.2
5.2
Poland
1012
1.2
3.6
12.3
7.1
20.8
51.6
3.4
Portugal
1004
0.3
1.6
4.4
3.7
9.3
78.2
2.6
Romania
1012
1.1
4.6
9.5
12.4
29.7
35.8
7
Slovenia
1004
0.7
3.2
9.1
2.8
18
63.8
2.5
Slovakia
1006
1.8
4.9
10.7
9.6
39.5
31.1
2.4
Finland
1003
0.1
0.9
1.9
0.3
14.1
81.5
1.3
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
0.7
1
0.8
0.3
26.1
55.6
15.6
1000
1.2
3.6
2.4
3.1
23.2
64.9
1.6
EU27 COUNTRY
page 71
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 7b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by segment
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewhat more easy
% Yes, somewhat more difficult
% Yes, much more difficult
% No, no changes
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
EU27
Total N
QUESTION: Q4_B. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? – Childcare for your children
25630
0.8
3
7.3
5.1
26.5
54
3.2
12391 13239
0.7 0.9
2.8 3.2
6.6 8
4.1 6
27.3 25.8
54.8 53.3
3.7 2.8
3648 6212 6782 8825
0.4 1.3 0.8 0.5
4.7 4.5 3 1.2
4.6 10 10.1 4.6
1.9 6.1 7.8 3.8
23.7 35.7 33.5 16.1
59.4 39.9 42.4 70.3
5.2 2.4 2.4 3.6
4756 11214 6754 2283
0.6 0.9 0.9 0.7
1.5 3.2 3 5.4
6.1 8.3 7.3 4.5
7.3 5.7 3.5 2.3
21.7 27.1 29.3 26.1
59 51.7 53.6 56.4
3.9 3.1 2.5 4.7
4446 10960 10172
0.6 0.9 0.7
2.8 2.7 3.4
6.7 8 6.9
4.8 5.3 5.1
26.2 26.6 26.6
54.7 53.5 54.2
4.1 2.9 3.1
2212 8359 2182 12853
1 0.9 1.1 0.6
3.5 3.3 3 2.7
8.4 8.2 10.1 6.1
5 4.1 7.2 5.5
34.4 31.5 32.4 21
44 49.6 43.3 60.4
3.8 2.4 3 3.7
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
0.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.9
1.2 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.8
3.4 7.7 8.5 9.8 11.8
3.3 4.4 5.9 8 8.8
15.6 27.8 31.4 32.9 32.4
72.5 53.1 46.6 41 38
3.5 2.8 3.2 3.3 4.2
17364 4006 2733 919
0.5 1 1.5 2.7
1.3 6.7 7.2 7.3
4.4 13.6 13.8 17
3.4 7.6 9.7 7.8
16.7 47.6 50.5 48.2
70.2 20.9 15 15.1
3.5 2.5 2.2 1.9
5687 7121 9469 3352
0.4 0.6 1 1.3
1 1.1 4.6 5.9
2.7 4.1 10.4 13.5
3.4 2.7 6.6 8.9
13.4 15.3 37.9 40.6
75.1 72.9 36.7 26.9
4 3.3 2.8 2.9
1273 11795 11882 522
0.9 0.7 0.7 2.4
2.1 2.8 3.2 5.5
7.2 8.6 6.2 5.9
15.4 6.4 2.8 3.1
16.7 23.3 30.6 31.9
54.5 54.9 53.3 49.5
3.3 3.2 3.1 1.7
SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
page 72
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 8a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by country QUESTION: Q4_C. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? – Long-term care for you or your relatives
Total N
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewh at more easy
% Yes, somewh at more difficult
% Yes, much more difficult
% No, no changes
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
1.3
4.1
13.1
10.7
35.1
30.6
5.2
Belgium
1005
1
3.4
9.8
6.7
50.4
26.3
2.4
Bulgaria
1001
1.4
4.6
19.3
21.8
25.3
22.1
5.7
Czech Rep.
1004
1.3
5.1
8.8
7.1
57.4
17.5
2.8
Denmark
1001
0.8
0.9
3
1
49.6
39.8
4.9
Germany
1005
1
2.6
10.8
7.7
24.2
49.3
4.4
Estonia
1011
0.3
2.3
8.3
9.3
22.1
44.1
13.5
Greece
1005
1.4
6.9
30.4
22
29.3
3.9
6.1
Spain
1000
1.5
5.2
17.2
15.4
43.3
10.5
6.8
France
1005
1.3
4.3
15.1
6.9
41.9
29.4
1.1
Ireland
1000
2.1
4
20.2
13.9
30.3
23.1
6.4
Italy
1007
0.7
2
12.6
15.5
44
19.7
5.5
Cyprus
504
3.4
6.3
25.1
12.6
31.1
13.9
7.6
Latvia
1011
0
0.4
7.4
15.9
7
67.8
1.4
Lithuania
1007
0.8
4
12.1
14.6
19.5
33.5
15.5
Luxembourg
507
1.4
10.4
12.8
5.2
52.8
16.9
0.6
Hungary
1009
0
0.7
5.9
10.4
7.6
70.8
4.6
Malta
500
0.9
5.8
24.3
13.4
22.4
28.2
4.9
Netherlands
1001
1.6
3.1
5.9
3.5
38.1
45.3
2.5
Austria
1006
1.4
2.5
8.2
5.7
29.4
48.5
4.3
Poland
1012
1.3
6.6
19.3
16.1
27.9
22.2
6.6
Portugal
1004
0.5
1.1
7.8
7.1
19
62.3
2.2
Romania
1012
1.5
6
15.5
22.1
35.9
8.8
10.3
Slovenia
1004
0.6
5.4
29.7
14.8
35.2
5.2
9.1
Slovakia
1006
2.2
4.4
13.5
14.1
45.4
16.1
4.3
Finland
1003
0.1
1
3.8
1.2
27.4
63.5
3
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
0.5
0.8
3.7
0.9
27.9
50.4
15.7
1000
2.5
7
10.6
6
37.6
29.7
6.6
EU27 COUNTRY
page 73
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 8b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by segment
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewhat more easy
% Yes, somewhat more difficult
% Yes, much more difficult
% No, no changes
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
EU27
Total N
QUESTION: Q4_C. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? - Long-term care for you or your relatives
25630
1.3
4.1
13.1
10.7
35.1
30.6
5.2
12391 13239
1.4 1.1
4.3 3.9
12.1 14
9.3 12
37 33.3
30.7 30.5
5.3 5.2
3648 6212 6782 8825
1.7 1.3 1.1 1.2
7.4 4.1 3.7 3.1
11.2 14.6 12.1 13.6
5.3 8.5 12.2 13.4
38.8 36.8 33.9 33.1
30.5 29.6 31.9 30.4
5.2 5.2 5.1 5.3
4756 11214 6754 2283
1.3 1 1.4 1.6
4.2 4.3 2.7 7.4
13.5 13.5 13.3 10.6
16.5 11.2 7.3 5.1
31.7 34.9 36.2 39.5
27.3 30 34.6 29.6
5.5 5.2 4.4 6.2
4446 10960 10172
1.3 1.3 1.2
3.6 4.2 4.2
11.3 14.2 12.7
10.6 10.2 11.3
35 35.9 34.1
32.8 28.8 31.7
5.5 5.4 4.9
2212 8359 2182 12853
2.1 1.1 1.3 1.3
3.9 3.7 5 4.2
12.6 12.4 13.8 13.4
10.1 7.5 11.1 12.8
38.1 37.3 30.5 33.8
27.2 33.2 33.3 29
6 4.8 5 5.4
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
1.7 1.2 0.7 1 1.7
3.2 4.2 4.9 3.9 4.6
11.1 13.8 12.7 13.7 16
9.9 10.5 11.4 11.1 11.9
33.9 33.2 38 39.9 33.4
33.6 32.6 27 26.3 25.3
6.6 4.5 5.3 4.1 7
17364 4006 2733 919
1.3 1.7 0.5 1
3.6 5.4 4.9 5.6
12.9 13.8 13.3 15.3
10.9 9.9 9.5 10
33.9 38.5 37 31.1
32.3 25.4 29.4 31.3
5.1 5.3 5.3 5.7
5687 7121 9469 3352
1.5 1.6 1 1.1
3.2 4 4.3 5.4
10.8 13.8 13.4 14.4
10.8 11 10.2 11.4
34.2 32 37.4 36.2
33 33.3 28.6 26.4
6.5 4.4 5.1 5.2
1273 11795 11882 522
0.9 0.8 1.7 4.2
3.1 3.7 4.3 9.9
11.7 15 11.6 6.3
29 13.5 6.3 5.2
20.2 30.8 40.6 43.3
27.1 30.8 30.9 26.4
8 5.4 4.7 4.7
SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy page 74
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 9a. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by country QUESTION: Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future?
Total N
% Your pension will not be affected by economic and financial events
% You will receive lower pension benefits than what you expected
% You will have to retire later than you had planned to
% You will have to save more for when you are retired
% Other
% DK/NA
25630
11.7
24.2
19.2
25.3
7.9
11.6
Belgium
1005
9.9
16
20.9
31.9
9.5
11.8
Bulgaria
1001
10.9
19.7
16.8
15
14.4
23.1
Czech Rep.
1004
9
16.5
16.9
41.3
10.8
5.5
Denmark
1001
38.4
14.7
10.3
20.6
7.6
8.5
Germany
1005
8.8
37.4
15.7
30.3
4.4
3.4
Estonia
1011
12.6
19
19
18.6
9.5
21.3
Greece
1005
7.6
29.3
18.4
20.1
17.1
7.4
Spain
1000
17.6
25.5
14.7
26.3
6.4
9.4
France
1005
11.1
21.5
30.2
26.3
3.7
7.2
Ireland
1000
11.4
27.4
18.8
28.3
3
11
Italy
1007
6
17.6
18.5
19.9
16.9
21
Cyprus
504
18.6
23.8
12.1
24.8
6.5
14.2
Latvia
1011
4.9
35.8
21.5
12.2
13.8
11.7
Lithuania
1007
5.2
35.2
15.5
24.9
6.4
12.7
Luxembourg
507
16
10.6
17.7
20.9
10.2
24.6
Hungary
1009
5.9
27.6
21.6
21.3
12.7
10.9
Malta
500
8.5
24.8
19.6
24.2
10.3
12.7
Netherlands
1001
15.8
20.2
24.1
20.5
10.4
9
Austria
1006
11.6
22.4
26
23.8
6.9
9.3
Poland
1012
10.6
27.2
14.7
24.1
7.9
15.5
Portugal
1004
5.8
16.8
18.3
27.7
23.3
8.1
Romania
1012
13.2
19.7
8.4
22.2
8
28.5
Slovenia
1004
7.1
23.4
21.4
30.4
6.4
11.3
Slovakia
1006
13.7
16.2
15
35.3
8
11.9
Finland
1003
20.6
22.3
11.8
23
9.7
12.7
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
17
32.6
11.5
23.5
5
10.4
1000
16.8
17.8
25.1
24.3
2.4
13.5
EU27 COUNTRY
page 75
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 9b. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by segment % Your pension will not be affected by economic and financial events
% You will receive lower pension benefits than what you expected
% You will have to retire later than you had planned to
% You will have to save more for when you are retired
% Other
% DK/NA
EU27
Total N
QUESTION: Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future?
25630
11.7
24.2
19.2
25.3
7.9
11.6
12391 13239
12.1 11.3
24.9 23.6
20.4 18.1
24.8 25.8
7.6 8.2
10.3 12.9
3648 6212 6782 3688 5137
8 6.9 7.4 16.6 22.2
18.5 17.2 29.9 33.8 22.6
26.2 25.8 25.5 11.5 3.5
32.5 36.7 25.2 17.8 12.2
2 4.7 5.4 8.5 18.8
12.8 8.6 6.6 11.8 20.8
4756 11214 6754 2283
14.7 10 12.2 10.5
24.7 25.4 24.4 18
11.6 20.3 21.8 24.2
17.6 26.2 27.8 32.2
13.7 7 6.6 2.2
17.7 11 7.3 12.9
4446 10960 10172
12.4 12.2 10.8
24.3 23.5 25
18.9 19.9 18.6
26.3 24.2 26.2
7.8 8.5 7.4
10.3 11.8 11.9
2212 8359 2182 6247 6606
10.5 8.5 6.3 21.4 8.7
22.6 25.3 25.5 26.7 20.6
22.6 28.5 27.1 2.9 19.1
30.2 29.6 29.8 13.5 27.9
6.2 2.6 3.7 16.9 8.1
7.9 5.4 7.7 18.5 15.5
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
15.7 12 9.2 7.1 10.7
24.9 24.2 25.8 22.9 20.1
14.8 19.5 20.1 24.4 20.9
21 25.8 27.4 27.7 28.7
10 7.9 6.4 6.6 6.6
13.5 10.7 11 11.3 13
17364 4006 2733 919
13.6 6.8 8.1 7
25.6 23.2 21.1 18.1
16.7 23.9 24.7 31.6
22.6 32.3 31.7 29.3
9.1 5 5.2 5.5
12.5 8.8 9.2 8.4
5687 7121 9469 3352
15.6 15.3 7.8 8.3
24.6 25.3 24.5 20.5
14 15.2 23.7 23.9
20.2 22.1 29.2 29.9
10.7 9.5 5.7 6
14.9 12.4 9.2 11.4
1273 11795 11882 522
5.7 10 13.5 21
29.2 26.2 22.3 15.4
15 18 21.4 13.3
14.1 24.7 27.2 26.9
20.4 8.6 5.8 10
15.7 12.5 9.9 13.4
SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55-64 65 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Retired Other non-working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy page 76
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 10a. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by country
Total N
% Not worried at all
%2
%3
%4
%5
%6
%7
%8
%9
% Very worried
% DK/NA
QUESTION: Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means 'Not worried at all' and 10 means 'Very worried'.
25630
10.3
4.7
7.2
5.8
18.2
9.6
10.8
11.7
4.4
15
2.4
Belgium
1005
7
5.5
7.9
6.4
17.7
12.4
12.7
8.6
4.3
7.2
10.2
Bulgaria
1001
7.5
2.3
3.3
5.3
11.9
6.3
9.5
9.6
5.9
30.1
8.3
Czech Rep.
1004
8.4
3.4
6.6
4.4
19.2
6.7
9.5
13
6.6
18.1
4
Denmark
1001
32.1
15
16
7.2
12.4
4.8
3.8
3.5
1.1
1.9
2.3
Germany
1005
11.1
5.6
9.2
7.5
20.4
10.7
11.3
10.4
2.4
9.7
1.6
Estonia
1011
11.4
5
6.3
6.4
17.9
8.6
8.4
8.1
5.4
17.2
5.2
Greece
1005
6.9
2.6
4.5
3.9
19.1
7.2
13.2
12.9
5
23.1
1.6
Spain
1000
11.9
2.9
5.8
4.5
20
8.2
10.5
12.6
4.8
17.5
1.5
France
1005
9.4
3.7
5.3
6.4
24.2
11
15
11.4
2.4
10.1
1
Ireland
1000
11.2
4.8
9.7
5.8
21
9.6
10.4
12.8
3.3
10.1
1.2
Italy
1007
6
3.3
3.8
4.8
10.1
13.3
11.5
17.8
7.6
20
1.7
Cyprus
504
11.2
4.1
5.4
2.8
19.5
7.6
10.2
14.7
5.5
14.6
4.5
Latvia
1011
8.7
4.4
3.9
2.7
13.5
7.7
7.1
8.7
5.4
34.9
2.9
Lithuania
1007
6.6
2
5.9
5.5
13.1
5.2
11.2
12.4
9.4
24.2
4.6
Luxembourg
507
18.7
8.8
11.8
7.2
22.4
8.1
9.8
4.9
1.4
4
2.8
Hungary
1009
5.4
4.1
5.5
4.1
16.1
4.9
7.8
10
9
30.8
2
Malta
500
10.6
2.3
5.9
3.9
15.7
6.8
8.6
16.1
5.5
18.7
5.7
Netherlands
1001
21.4
13
12.3
8.6
14.1
9.2
8.8
6.6
1.4
2.2
2.5
Austria
1006
16.5
7.8
9.7
8.1
24.5
8.1
8.8
6.5
1.5
5.8
2.6
Poland
1012
8.2
2.4
4.3
4.9
16.9
9.9
9.8
11.9
5.7
22.5
3.4
Portugal
1004
4
1.7
4.4
2.3
19
6.5
11.8
15.5
7.9
24.1
2.8
Romania
1012
5.2
2
4.8
4.5
15.8
4.7
7.9
9.5
9.8
28.4
7.5
Slovenia
1004
7.6
2.3
7.4
6.7
22.1
5.1
10.5
12.8
3.5
20
2
Slovakia
1006
8.4
4.2
7
5.1
19.4
7.9
9
13.6
6.9
12.8
5.7
Finland
1003
17.3
9.1
12.1
8.1
14.3
8.6
10.9
7.9
2.7
4.5
4.6
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
26.9
10.8
14.5
6
18.2
5.2
6.1
4.9
1.4
3.7
2.3
1000
11.9
6.6
11.1
6.1
18.9
9.6
9.4
11.8
2.8
11.1
1
EU27 COUNTRY
page 77
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 10b. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by segment
Total N
% Not worried at all
%2
%3
%4
%5
%6
%7
%8
%9
% Very worried
% DK/NA
QUESTION: Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means 'Not worried at all' and 10 means 'Very worried'.
25630
10.3
4.7
7.2
5.8
18.2
9.6
10.8
11.7
4.4
15
2.4
Male
12391
11.9
6.2
8.4
6.4
17.7
9.3
10.8
10.9
4.2
12.2
2
Female
13239
8.9
3.3
6
5.2
18.6
9.8
10.8
12.5
4.6
17.6
2.8
3648
11.1
5.9
7.3
6.9
17.4
12.8
11.2
11
3.6
10.2
2.6
25 - 39
6212
7.8
4.5
6.7
5.1
17.5
8.4
12
14.3
4.8
17.6
1.2
40 - 54
6782
6.7
3.7
6.8
5.5
18
9.5
12.2
13
5.5
17.3
1.8
55-64
3688
11.0
5.2
7.6
5.9
19.1
9.2
10.3
9.7
4.1
15.8
2.1
65 +
5137
16.9
5.1
7.8
6.3
19.1
9.0
7.5
8.7
3.4
11.6
4.7
Until 15 years of age
4756
10.1
3.2
5.6
5.1
18.4
8.2
8.7
11.6
5.5
20.4
3.4
16 - 20
11214
9
3.5
6.4
5.1
18.5
9.4
11.5
12.7
5.1
16.5
2.3
EU27 SEX
AGE 15 - 24
EDUCATION (end of)
20 +
6754
11.4
7.2
9.6
6.9
17.8
9.5
11.6
11.3
2.9
10.3
1.6
Still in education
2283
13.5
6.7
7.5
7.4
17.2
13
10
9.4
3.7
9.1
2.6
Metropolitan
4446
11.6
6.5
8.3
6.8
16.8
10.1
10
11.4
3.4
12.9
2.2
Urban
10960
9.9
4.3
6.6
5
16.9
10
11.9
12.7
4.5
15.6
2.6
Rural
10172
10.2
4.3
7.3
6.2
19.9
8.9
10
10.8
4.8
15.2
2.4
Self-employed
2212
13.4
4.6
7.8
5.7
17.1
8.6
10.1
11.5
4.3
16
1
Employee
8359
8
5.5
8.5
6
19.3
10
13.1
12.9
3.8
12
0.8
URBANISATION
OCCUPATION
Manual worker
2182
5.8
3
4.8
4.7
20.1
7.6
12.8
10.4
6.4
22.8
1.6
Retired
6247
15.4
4.9
7.7
6.4
19.1
8.3
8.1
8.5
3.9
13.0
4.7
6606 NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
8.9
4.1
5.5
5.4
15.6
11.1
10.0
13.8
5.1
17.6
2.9
2.8
Other non-working
1
5782
13
5.6
6.7
4.9
17.7
9.2
10.1
11.6
3.8
14.4
2
10782
10
4.8
8.1
5.8
19.3
9.1
11
11.3
4.6
14.1
1.9
3
4363
9.7
4.3
6.4
6.8
16.4
10.8
10.5
12.2
4.8
15.1
2.9
4
3185
7.8
4
6.2
4.9
19.2
10.6
11.5
12.5
3.7
17.2
2.4
5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN
1369
8.7
3
5.9
7.8
14.2
8.5
12.3
12.7
6.4
18.5
2.1
0
17364
11.4
5
7.5
6.1
18.1
9.4
10.6
11.2
4.2
14
2.4
1
4006
8.6
3.8
6.1
4.6
17.3
10.9
12.6
13.4
4.3
16.1
2.3
2
2733
5.4
3.9
7.8
5.9
20.3
8.9
10.9
12.1
6.7
16.5
1.5
919
11.4
4.3
6
4.9
18.3
7.9
8.6
10.9
3.7
22.1
1.9
3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
page 78
1
5687
12.7
5.8
6.6
4.9
17.9
9.9
9.7
11.2
3.6
14.5
3.3
2
7121
12.3
5
8.5
6.2
18.9
9.2
10.6
10.5
3.9
12.7
2.3
3-4
9469
7.7
4.4
6.9
6.1
18.1
9.8
11.7
13
5.1
15.3
1.9
5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
3352
9.4
3.1
6.1
5.6
17.4
9.1
10.7
11.6
5
19.7
2.5
Very poor
1273
5.5
2.6
1.8
1.7
8.1
3.3
4.6
9
7.5
52.3
3.7
Fairly poor
11795
8
2.8
5.7
5.1
19.3
8.6
11.1
13.1
5.7
18
2.5
Fairly wealthy
11882
11.9
6.4
9.3
7
18.4
11.5
11.3
11.1
2.9
8.3
2
Very wealthy
522
35.1
12.2
5.3
4.1
12.8
5.5
7
4.4
1.3
10.3
2.2
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 11a. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? – by country QUESTION: Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Total N
% Yes
% No
% DK/NA
25630
18.8
80.8
0.4
Belgium
1005
18.9
80.3
0.7
Bulgaria
1001
36.3
63.1
0.6
Czech Rep.
1004
17.6
81.4
1.1
Denmark
1001
3.6
96.3
0.1
Germany
1005
11.8
87.6
0.6
Estonia
1011
26.4
72.3
1.2
Greece
1005
26.9
72.8
0.3
Spain
1000
20.1
79.8
0.1
France
1005
15.2
84.8
0
Ireland
1000
13.5
86.3
0.2
Italy
1007
23.9
75.8
0.3
Cyprus
504
25.5
74.5
0
Latvia
1011
38.7
61.2
0.2
Lithuania
1007
30
68.7
1.3
Luxembourg
507
11.5
88.1
0.5
Hungary
1009
32.1
67.4
0.5
Malta
500
21.7
77.1
1.1
Netherlands
1001
7
92.8
0.2
Austria
1006
10.2
89.5
0.3
Poland
1012
24.8
75
0.2
Portugal
1004
16.9
83
0.1
Romania
1012
40.2
59.2
0.5
Slovenia
1004
15.9
84.1
0
Slovakia
1006
21.6
77.5
0.9
Finland
1003
16.7
83
0.3
Sweden
1000
10.1
88.2
1.6
United Kingdom
1000
15.2
84.4
0.4
EU27 COUNTRY
page 79
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 11b. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? – by segment QUESTION: Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? Total N
% Yes
% No
% DK/NA
25630
18.8
80.8
0.4
12391 13239
16.6 20.9
83 78.7
0.4 0.4
3648 6212 6782 8825
16.1 24.3 22 14
82.7 75.5 77.8 85.7
1.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
4756 11214 6754 2283
24.1 20.5 12.9 16.1
75.7 79.1 86.8 83
0.2 0.3 0.3 0.9
4446 10960 10172
18.5 19.7 18.1
81.2 79.8 81.6
0.3 0.5 0.3
2212 8359 2182 12853
18.1 14.4 27.8 20.3
81.6 85.3 72 79.2
0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
21.7 17.5 17.1 18 25.9
78.2 82.2 82.3 81.7 72.3
0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 1.7
0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
17364 4006 2733 919
16.7 23.2 21.7 32.3
83 76.1 78.1 67.4
0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2
5687 7121 9469 3352
19.9 16.1 18 25.4
79.9 83.6 81.7 73.7
0.2 0.4 0.3 1
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
63.8 24.2 9.2 8.1
36.1 75.4 90.4 91.9
0.1 0.4 0.3 0
EU27 SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN
page 80
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 12a. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? – by country QUESTION: Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? The next 12 months will be... Total N
% Better
% Worse
% The same
% DK/NA
25630
20.8
21.6
54.4
3.2
Belgium
1005
16.3
18.3
62.8
2.6
Bulgaria
1001
22.9
33.7
38.1
5.3
Czech Rep.
1004
16.1
28.5
52.6
2.8
Denmark
1001
26.4
9.3
64
0.3
Germany
1005
16.1
19
64.1
0.9
Estonia
1011
20.8
34
42
3.2
Greece
1005
17.5
35.6
43.6
3.3
Spain
1000
16.9
24
54.9
4.1
France
1005
19.9
14.4
63.6
2.1
Ireland
1000
12
47.7
38.9
1.4
Italy
1007
30
19.3
47.1
3.7
Cyprus
504
15.7
45.3
35
3.9
Latvia
1011
7.2
50.2
37.9
4.7
Lithuania
1007
13.5
56.4
25.4
4.7
Luxembourg
507
16.5
12.1
70
1.3
Hungary
1009
17.2
36.5
42.4
4
Malta
500
12.7
40.3
38.3
8.7
Netherlands
1001
11.5
18.9
66.9
2.7
Austria
1006
14.3
15.8
67.9
2
Poland
1012
22.2
27.5
44.8
5.5
Portugal
1004
18.4
23.6
52.2
5.9
Romania
1012
30.4
31
31.1
7.5
Slovenia
1004
15.2
31.8
51.6
1.4
Slovakia
1006
20.8
23.3
49.6
6.4
Finland
1003
20
10.2
69.4
0.4
Sweden
1000
28.3
14.5
54.8
2.4
United Kingdom
1000
24.7
16.5
55.6
3.1
EU27 COUNTRY
page 81
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 12b. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? – by segment QUESTION: Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? The next 12 months will be... Total N
% Better
% Worse
% The same
% DK/NA
25630
20.8
21.6
54.4
3.2
12391 13239
23.6 18.2
20.6 22.4
53.1 55.7
2.7 3.6
3648 6212 6782 8825
32.3 29.4 21 10.2
11.8 18.4 22.9 26.6
54.1 49.6 53.1 59
1.8 2.5 3 4.3
4756 11214 6754 2283
16.7 21.4 20.5 29.2
27.6 22.2 19.5 11
49.9 53.4 58.1 57.7
5.8 2.9 1.8 2.1
4446 10960 10172
23 22.9 17.7
19.6 21.7 22.4
54.4 52.4 56.7
3 3.1 3.3
2212 8359 2182 12853
29.3 20.6 23.1 19.1
20.2 18.9 23 23.3
47.2 58.6 51.1 53.5
3.3 1.9 2.8 4
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
18.6 20.6 21.1 23.7 23.7
21.5 21.9 19.5 21.8 24.8
56.2 54.5 56.1 51.7 48.2
3.7 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.3
0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE 1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
17364 4006 2733 919
19 24.6 26.8 24.3
22.7 18.3 18.9 21.3
55.1 54.3 51.8 50.1
3.3 2.8 2.5 4.3
5687 7121 9469 3352
17.1 18.9 23 25.1
22.5 22.7 20.3 21.2
56.6 55.2 54 50.4
3.8 3.2 2.7 3.3
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
22.2 18.3 22.7 30.6
41.8 26.1 15.5 9
30.5 51.6 59.8 58.7
5.5 4 2 1.7
EU27 SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN
page 82
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 13a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months – by country QUESTION: Q8_A. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying your rent or mortgage on time
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
6.3
11.6
15.7
37.8
26.8
1.8
Belgium
1005
3.1
6.8
11.3
48.4
26.7
3.8
Bulgaria
1001
6.3
7.9
3.3
6.9
70.4
5.2
Czech Rep.
1004
7.1
23.2
24.2
28.6
15.2
1.8
Denmark
1001
0.5
2.5
11.7
81.4
3.1
0.8
Germany
1005
3.1
6.9
19.3
59.7
10.5
0.5
Estonia
1011
10.7
21.5
21.1
30.8
13.6
2.4
Greece
1005
9.6
13.2
5.9
18.1
51.7
1.5
Spain
1000
9.1
15
12.2
23.2
38.7
1.8
France
1005
3.2
12.1
13.8
44.2
26.1
0.7
Ireland
1000
8
18
20.8
34.1
18.5
0.6
Italy
1007
14
16.5
16.2
23.7
26.7
2.9
Cyprus
504
17
10.8
8.3
18.4
42.4
3.1
Latvia
1011
20
32.9
16.2
17.3
12.3
1.3
Lithuania
1007
16
22.1
17.7
18.1
21.6
4.5
Luxembourg
507
1.6
8.7
15
41.8
30.9
2
Hungary
1009
6.4
14.3
19.8
20.2
37.9
1.5
Malta
500
10
11.1
9.2
17.8
48.8
3
Netherlands
1001
2
5.6
13.1
70.5
7.7
1.2
Austria
1006
1.9
6
17
60.4
13.4
1.2
Poland
1012
9.4
11.4
12.6
16.2
48.8
1.7
Portugal
1004
6.5
20.4
15.1
20.9
34.8
2.3
Romania
1012
8.3
8.7
4.3
12.9
58.4
7.4
Slovenia
1004
7.1
11.3
11.4
22.1
46.6
1.4
Slovakia
1006
7.8
16.5
31.6
23.9
17.1
3.2
Finland
1003
0.6
2.9
14.2
52.6
28.7
0.9
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
0.9
3.5
12.3
79.1
2.5
1.9
1000
3.1
11.2
22.8
43.4
18.5
1.1
EU27 COUNTRY
page 83
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 13b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months – by segment QUESTION: Q8_A. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying your rent or mortgage on time
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
6.3
11.6
15.7
37.8
26.8
1.8
Male Female AGE
12391 13239
6 6.5
11.5 11.8
16.5 14.9
39.1 36.6
25.2 28.3
1.7 1.9
15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
3648 6212 6782 8825
6 7.4 7.9 4.4
13.7 15.3 13 7.1
21.4 21.2 16.7 8.8
35.7 39.3 39.9 36
19.3 15.4 21.3 41.9
3.8 1.4 1.2 1.7
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
8.8 7.2 3.5 5.1
10.6 12.9 10.2 12.6
9.8 16.2 16.9 22.6
28.6 37.1 46.2 35.7
39.6 25.1 22.4 20
2.6 1.4 0.8 4.1
4446 10960 10172
6.7 7.3 5.1
12.9 12.8 9.8
17.1 15.6 15.3
39.8 36.5 38.3
21.9 26 29.8
1.6 1.8 1.8
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 12853
7.3 4.1 10 6.9
13.7 12.5 16.2 9.9
16.6 18.8 16.8 13.3
38.8 46.6 32.9 32.8
23 17 22.6 34.5
0.6 1 1.4 2.6
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
5.3 6 7.1 6.6 9.2
11.2 11.2 11.3 13.3 13.8
14.7 16 15.7 16.5 15.5
40.3 40.8 33.9 32.8 27.7
27 24.8 30.4 27.5 30.2
1.6 1.2 1.7 3.4 3.7
17364 4006 2733 919
5.5 7.8 7.6 9
10.4 14.5 15 10.1
13.8 20.1 21 18.4
37.6 36.7 40.2 43.3
31 18.9 15.3 17
1.8 2 0.8 2.2
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
5687 7121 9469 3352
5.8 5.1 6.8 8.3
10.3 10.5 12.5 13.8
14 13.1 17.9 18
39 39.3 37.6 33
28.8 30.6 23.6 24.3
2.1 1.3 1.7 2.7
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
21.8 8.1 2.9 3.6
15 14 9.3 3.8
8.4 15.6 16.6 17.1
15.9 30.4 46.8 55.7
35 30 23 19
3.9 1.9 1.5 0.8
EU27 SEX
page 84
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 14a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months – by country QUESTION: Q8_B. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of € 1,000
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
24.7
19.7
17.2
33.8
2
2.6
Belgium
1005
14.1
12.3
14.1
45.4
9.1
5
Bulgaria
1001
49.6
19.1
10.2
12.1
5.5
3.5
Czech Rep.
1004
22.9
26
22
24.1
2.8
2.1
Denmark
1001
4.7
7.8
14.5
71.8
0.3
0.9
Germany
1005
14.2
19.2
20.1
44.6
0.8
1
Estonia
1011
40
19
13.7
16.6
6.9
3.8
Greece
1005
28.5
28.5
12.4
27.5
0.5
2.6
Spain
1000
28.9
19.5
14.5
33.4
1.3
2.4
France
1005
20.2
20.2
17.9
40.2
0.4
1.1
Ireland
1000
22.3
27
17.3
31.7
0.5
1.1
Italy
1007
25.9
23.5
18.3
27
1.7
3.6
Cyprus
504
29.1
23.1
14
30
1.3
2.4
Latvia
1011
63.6
21.7
6.5
5.1
1.4
1.7
Lithuania
1007
42.8
22
11.6
11.7
5.1
6.8
Luxembourg
507
6.8
14.2
25.7
51.1
0.8
1.4
Hungary
1009
45.6
19.1
11.8
17.3
4.3
1.9
Malta
500
29.7
24.7
16.1
21
2.6
5.9
Netherlands
1001
6.4
11.4
16.9
60.2
3.4
1.7
Austria
1006
11.5
14.6
15.5
53.7
4.1
0.6
Poland
1012
41.1
26
13.1
14
2.8
2.8
Portugal
1004
43.9
27.7
11.8
13.6
0.2
2.8
Romania
1012
44.2
14.6
9.1
12.9
9
10.3
Slovenia
1004
25.4
23.8
17.9
29.3
1.3
2.2
Slovakia
1006
23
21.4
25.3
21.4
4.3
4.6
Finland
1003
13.4
7.7
20.2
56.7
1
1
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
10.2
9.1
13.5
62.7
0.9
3.5
1000
22.1
16.8
22.8
34.5
0.9
2.9
EU27 COUNTRY
page 85
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 14b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months – by segment QUESTION: Q8_B. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of € 1,000
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
24.7
19.7
17.2
33.8
2
2.6
Male Female AGE
12391 13239
20.4 28.7
19 20.3
18.3 16.1
37.9 30
1.8 2.2
2.6 2.7
15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
3648 6212 6782 8825
22.9 25.7 26.1 23.6
22.2 23.1 20.2 15.9
21.5 19.9 15.4 14.8
26.4 28.5 35 39.7
2.5 1.2 1.3 2.9
4.5 1.5 2 3.1
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
33.9 27.4 15.4 19.5
17 21.2 18.3 22.3
14 16.3 19.3 22.1
27.7 31.1 44.4 30.4
3.1 1.7 1.5 2
4.4 2.4 1.1 3.6
4446 10960 10172
24.2 26.5 22.9
16.8 20.2 20.3
18 17.3 16.8
38.1 31.4 34.6
1.3 1.8 2.5
1.6 2.7 2.9
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 12853
19 18.9 30.7 28.3
19 20.2 24.3 18.7
19.7 19.1 16.8 15.5
39 39.5 22.7 31.2
1 0.9 2.5 2.8
2.4 1.4 2.9 3.4
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
28.6 22.9 23.4 24.1 27.9
18 18.2 21.8 21.3 27.7
14.7 17.7 19.2 17.7 15.6
33.7 37.5 30.9 30.5 22.1
2 1.6 2 2.7 3.2
3 2 2.7 3.7 3.5
17364 4006 2733 919
23.5 27.5 25.5 32.8
19 19.5 23.4 21
17.1 18.8 17.2 13.1
35.5 30.4 30.3 26.7
2.1 1.7 1 3.7
2.8 2.1 2.6 2.7
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
5687 7121 9469 3352
27.5 22.3 23.4 28.5
18.2 17.1 21 24.1
14.5 17.2 19.2 15.8
34.8 39.2 31.9 26.1
2.2 2 1.7 2.7
2.8 2.1 2.8 2.8
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
67.3 33.3 12.4 7.7
10.4 23 17.8 11.1
6.1 14.7 20.8 16.5
6.6 24.4 45.1 59.3
5.3 1.8 1.7 3.7
4.3 2.8 2.1 1.7
EU27 SEX
page 86
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 15a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by country QUESTION: Q8_C. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Repaying consumer loans (such as loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) on time
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
6.9
11.5
13.1
30.6
35.7
2.2
Belgium
1005
4.5
5.4
10.4
35.3
39.6
4.8
Bulgaria
1001
10.3
10
9.4
11.5
55
3.8
Czech Rep.
1004
5.2
19.2
20.3
25.1
28.1
2.1
Denmark
1001
0.2
3
7.6
47.8
40.1
1.2
Germany
1005
2.7
7.2
14.6
45.1
30
0.3
Estonia
1011
10.8
12.4
17.3
23
33
3.4
Greece
1005
11.6
13.8
7.2
14.7
51
1.6
Spain
1000
10.6
15.5
10.8
25
35.9
2.2
France
1005
3.2
8.3
9.8
27.9
50
0.8
Ireland
1000
10.1
18.6
15.9
37.9
16.4
1.1
Italy
1007
13.6
17.7
17.2
28.4
18.1
5.1
Cyprus
504
23.2
14.4
12
25.2
22.9
2.4
Latvia
1011
12.9
15.6
8.6
5.6
56.5
0.8
Lithuania
1007
15.9
13.6
8.5
9.1
47.1
5.9
Luxembourg
507
1.6
12.2
18.7
49.8
17.1
0.6
Hungary
1009
4.7
10
10.3
11.7
61.7
1.6
Malta
500
9.3
12.4
8.6
16.1
49.7
3.9
Netherlands
1001
1.4
3.3
7.3
34.7
51
2.3
Austria
1006
2
5.4
13.9
42.1
35.3
1.3
Poland
1012
10.3
18.9
14.5
19.7
35
1.6
Portugal
1004
7.9
12.4
8.2
15.4
53.8
2.3
Romania
1012
14.2
15.4
7.7
16.1
39.5
7.1
Slovenia
1004
7.7
15.2
12.1
28.5
35.4
1.2
Slovakia
1006
8.7
15.6
25.9
19.6
26.7
3.6
Finland
1003
0.6
2
9.3
31.6
55.3
1.3
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
0.8
2.1
8.4
58.8
24.7
5.2
1000
4.6
9.4
17.5
37.6
29.6
1.2
EU27 COUNTRY
page 87
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 15b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by segment QUESTION: Q8_C. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Repaying consumer loans (such as loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) on time
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
6.9
11.5
13.1
30.6
35.7
2.2
Male Female AGE
12391 13239
6.1 7.7
11 11.9
14.3 12
33.4 28
32.8 38.3
2.3 2.1
15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
3648 6212 6782 8825
5.7 7.8 8.5 5.5
14.1 14.9 12.7 7.2
19.7 17.5 12.9 7.6
33 29.4 32.8 28.7
22.7 28.9 31.8 48.7
4.7 1.3 1.4 2.3
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
9.9 7.9 3.7 5
10.3 13.3 8.9 12.8
9.5 14 13.3 17.4
24.6 29.3 36.2 34.9
42.5 34.1 36.8 24.9
3.2 1.5 1.1 5
Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+ 1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
4446 10960 10172
5.3 8.1 6.3
11.2 12.7 10.2
13.1 13.4 12.9
32 29.3 31.4
36.6 34.1 37
1.9 2.4 2.2
2212 8359 2182 12853
5.4 5 10.1 7.9
12.2 11.3 16.8 10.5
12.9 15.1 15.7 11.4
32.8 37 27.4 26.6
35.6 30.2 27.9 40.6
1.1 1.3 2 3
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
6.3 6.1 7.6 8.1 10.1
9.2 9.9 13.7 14.3 20.1
9.9 13.8 14 15 14.9
27.2 32.4 31.6 32.1 23.5
45.8 36.1 30.6 26.9 28.1
1.7 1.8 2.6 3.7 3.3
17364 4006 2733 919
6.1 8.4 8.4 7.2
10.2 14.6 12.6 17.6
11.4 17.7 16.2 16.8
30.6 29.1 32.3 32
39.3 28.4 29 24.3
2.4 1.8 1.5 2
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
5687 7121 9469 3352
7.2 5.1 7.4 9
8.9 9.2 12.6 17.7
9.9 11.4 15.7 15.3
27 32.5 32 28.6
45.2 39.8 30.1 26.5
1.9 2 2.3 2.9
1273 11795 11882 522
24.9 9.1 3 4.4
10.6 13.9 9.5 3.6
7.5 11.9 14.9 15.4
8.6 23 39.9 46.7
43.5 40.1 30.9 25.5
5 2 1.8 4.4
EU27 SEX
page 88
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 16a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by country QUESTION: Q8_D. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
6.5
17.8
21.4
51.6
1.4
1.4
Belgium
1005
4.2
11.4
16.9
55.2
9.1
3.1
Bulgaria
1001
15.5
26.8
24.5
29
1.4
2.8
Czech Rep.
1004
4.1
20.5
29.6
43.2
1.2
1.4
Denmark
1001
0.3
4.1
10.1
84.8
0.3
0.4
Germany
1005
2.9
11.7
19.3
64.8
1.2
0.2
Estonia
1011
8.1
23.6
24.9
37.9
2.7
2.9
Greece
1005
10
27.2
16.8
43.4
0.9
1.8
Spain
1000
8.1
19.2
17.9
52.5
1
1.2
France
1005
4.9
17.8
18.1
58.2
0.6
0.4
Ireland
1000
7.9
23.9
24.3
42.3
0.7
0.8
Italy
1007
11.5
19.2
23.7
41.4
1.6
2.6
Cyprus
504
14.1
24.2
18.5
40.2
1.3
1.7
Latvia
1011
16
33.6
23
24.8
0.5
2
Lithuania
1007
18.5
32.3
23
21.9
0.9
3.4
Luxembourg
507
1.8
12.1
19
65.8
0.8
0.5
Hungary
1009
5.3
25.5
30.3
34.7
2.3
1.9
Malta
500
17.6
20.7
20.1
32.8
5
3.9
Netherlands
1001
1.9
6.4
13.3
74.8
3
0.5
Austria
1006
2.1
7.8
19
65.7
4.5
0.8
Poland
1012
6.4
25.5
26.2
39.9
1.2
0.8
Portugal
1004
5.1
25.9
25.6
40.6
1.2
1.6
Romania
1012
14.3
26.1
20.2
31.8
2
5.5
Slovenia
1004
7.3
25.2
18.5
46.7
0.7
1.6
Slovakia
1006
7.5
17.3
37.9
31.1
2.8
3.4
Finland
1003
0.7
3.9
16.1
76.5
1.7
1.2
Sweden United Kingdom
1000
1.3
4.8
13.2
77.1
1.6
2
1000
5.7
17.2
26.3
49.3
0.5
1
EU27 COUNTRY
page 89
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 16b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by segment QUESTION: Q8_D. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items
Total N
% High risk
% Moderate risk
% Low risk
% No risk at all
% Not applicable
% DK/NA
25630
6.5
17.8
21.4
51.6
1.4
1.4
Male Female AGE
12391 13239
6.1 6.9
16.1 19.3
21.3 21.5
53.9 49.4
1.3 1.5
1.3 1.5
15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of)
3648 6212 6782 8825
4.5 6.2 8.2 6.2
16.1 19 19.7 16.1
25.7 26.3 20.6 16.8
49.8 46.9 49.5 57.1
1.8 0.6 1.1 2
2.1 1 0.9 1.7
Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
4756 11214 6754 2283
10.2 7.1 3.2 4.2
20.8 19.4 14.1 14.7
19 23.3 20 23.3
45 48.3 60.9 53
2.4 0.9 1.3 2.1
2.6 1.1 0.6 2.6
4446 10960 10172
5.4 7.8 5.5
16.4 18.2 17.9
21.3 21.7 21.2
54.5 50 52.1
1.4 1.1 1.8
1.1 1.3 1.6
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 12853
7.2 3.8 8.3 7.8
16.1 16.1 22.1 18.4
20.9 22.3 25.2 20.2
54.4 56.1 42.4 49.8
0.5 1.1 0.7 1.9
0.9 0.6 1.3 2
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN 0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
7.1 6 5.6 6.6 9.6
16.8 17 19.2 18.2 22.7
20.3 21.4 21.2 22.3 24
53 53.2 51.2 49.4 40.1
1.4 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.8
1.4 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8
17364 4006 2733 919
6.3 6.5 6.7 7.2
17 19.8 17.9 21
20.1 25 23.1 24.6
53.7 46.1 50.6 44.8
1.5 1.3 0.7 0.7
1.4 1.3 1 1.6
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
5687 7121 9469 3352
7.4 6 5.9 7.5
16.9 16.4 18.1 21.2
19.6 20 22.8 23.3
52.8 55 50.7 44.8
1.7 1.5 1.2 1.4
1.5 1.2 1.4 1.7
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
29.7 8.6 2.1 1.8
30.4 23.4 11.3 7.3
18.7 22.6 20.8 14.8
15.5 42.4 63.5 73.2
1.8 1.3 1.5 1
4 1.6 0.8 1.8
EU27 SEX
page 90
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 17a. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by country QUESTION: Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12 months because you can no longer afford it? Is it...
Total N
% Very likely
% Fairly likely
% Fairly unlikely
% Very unlikely
% DK/NA
25630
1.7
3.6
16.1
76.4
2.2
Belgium
1005
2.5
4.7
13.4
76
3.3
Bulgaria
1001
1
3.5
8.8
82.9
3.8
Czech Rep.
1004
1.7
3.1
24.1
69.8
1.2
Denmark
1001
0.4
0.7
12.7
85.7
0.5
Germany
1005
1.7
1.4
21
75.2
0.7
Estonia
1011
1.5
4.7
24.4
65.6
3.8
Greece
1005
3.9
5.2
12
78
1
Spain
1000
3.4
5.3
19.6
70.5
1.1
France
1005
0.6
2.4
11.8
82.7
2.5
Ireland
1000
2.4
2
17.6
76.4
1.6
Italy
1007
2.6
8.6
12.6
71.8
4.4
Cyprus
504
1.9
3.7
9.5
84.3
0.6
Latvia
1011
3.7
10.3
30.4
51.4
4.2
Lithuania
1007
2.4
5.2
33.6
54.1
4.8
Luxembourg
507
0.3
2.4
13.6
63.5
20.1
Hungary
1009
1
3.5
16.2
77.7
1.6
Malta
500
1.1
2.4
7.5
82.8
6.3
Netherlands
1001
0.2
1.1
10.4
86.1
2.2
Austria
1006
1
0.8
9.8
86.9
1.4
Poland
1012
1.3
3.7
17.4
74.7
2.9
Portugal
1004
0.7
6
21
69.6
2.7
Romania
1012
1.9
1.4
5.4
86.2
5.1
Slovenia
1004
1.6
4.1
17.8
75.2
1.2
Slovakia
1006
1.1
3.1
21.8
70.7
3.3
Finland
1003
1.5
0.5
9.3
88
0.7
Sweden
1000
1.3
2.9
13.1
80.6
2.1
United Kingdom
1000
1.2
3.3
18.6
75.6
1.3
EU27 COUNTRY
page 91
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 17b. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by segment QUESTION: Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12 months because you can no longer afford it? Is it...
Total N 25630
% Very likely 1.7
% Fairly likely 3.6
% Fairly unlikely 16.1
% Very unlikely 76.4
% DK/NA 2.2
12391 13239
1.4 1.9
3.6 3.7
15.3 16.8
77.5 75.4
2.2 2.3
3648 6212 6782 8825
1.3 2.8 1.5 1.2
4.4 5.3 3.6 2.3
17.2 18.3 17.7 12.8
74.7 72.2 74.9 81.1
2.4 1.3 2.4 2.6
4756 11214 6754 2283
2 1.7 1.5 1.3
4.4 3.9 2.7 4.2
15 17.8 14.6 14.8
75.5 74.5 79.9 77.1
3 2.2 1.4 2.5
4446 10960 10172
1.9 2 1.2
3.2 5.2 2.1
16.8 17.6 14
75.6 73.1 80.3
2.4 2.1 2.3
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 12853
1.3 1.2 3 1.8
2.4 2.9 4.2 4.2
14.4 17.8 21.1 14.3
81 76.8 68.8 76.6
0.9 1.2 2.9 3
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN
5782 10782 4363 3185 1369
1.7 1.8 1.1 2.3 1.4
4.7 3.1 3.9 3.3 3.1
17.2 16.3 14.6 15.9 14.8
74 77.1 78.1 75.5 76.6
2.4 1.6 2.1 3 4.1
0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
17364 4006 2733 919
1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8
3.7 4.3 2.7 3.2
14.8 18.9 19.8 17.3
77.5 73.7 74.1 75.4
2.4 1.4 1.8 2.3
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
5687 7121 9469 3352
1.8 1.6 1.8 1.4
4.5 2.7 4 3
16.1 15.1 16 18.1
74.6 78.6 76.4 74.5
2.9 2 1.8 3
Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
1273 11795 11882 522
7.2 2.2 0.7 0.5
9.2 4.5 2.3 2
17.4 19.6 12.8 10.4
59.2 71.3 82.7 86.6
7 2.4 1.5 0.4
EU27 SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
page 92
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 18a. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months – by country QUESTION: Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months? Base: respondents with a professional activity Total N
% Very confident
% Fairly confident
% Not very confident
% Not at all confident
% DK/NA
13303
46.3
31.4
11.4
5.7
5.2
Belgium
529
44.4
29.9
6.5
7.6
11.6
Bulgaria
398
23
38.4
21.4
13.2
4.1
Czech Rep.
608
38.2
41.6
13.5
2.9
3.8
Denmark
640
56.8
31.9
4.5
3.1
3.7
Germany
482
65
24
5.2
2.5
3.4
Estonia
671
19.7
33.3
28.9
12.2
5.9
Greece
450
40.2
33.5
13.2
10.9
2.2
Spain
525
33.8
33.9
17.6
11.3
3.5
France
604
49.5
30.6
11.1
6.9
2
Ireland
624
38.9
35.2
14.6
5.1
6.1
Italy
392
46.5
29.9
11.7
6.9
5
Cyprus
310
41.6
27.5
11.6
9.3
10
Latvia
590
16.2
36.4
32.8
11.4
3.2
Lithuania
485
15.9
27.9
29.4
18.8
8
Luxembourg
251
51.1
32.9
6.6
2.5
6.9
Hungary
478
43.8
28.8
14.9
5.1
7.4
Malta
241
44.9
31.3
8.2
9.5
6
Netherlands
517
56
26.4
4.8
2.6
10.2
Austria
568
64.6
19.4
5.7
1.7
8.6
Poland
465
24.1
41.3
22
6.8
5.9
Portugal
543
31.1
43
18
4.8
3
Romania
541
42.2
26
15.2
6.7
9.9
Slovenia
532
39.8
38
10.2
5
7
Slovakia
509
18.4
40.8
29.2
6.4
5.2
Finland
552
59.1
30.4
2.4
4
4.1
Sweden
586
54.9
29.9
5.2
5.9
4.1
United Kingdom
627
47.8
34.4
7
2.8
8.1
EU27 COUNTRY
page 93
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 18b. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months – by segment QUESTION: Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months? Base: respondents with a professional activity
Total N 13303
% Very confident 46.3
% Fairly confident 31.4
% Not very confident 11.4
% Not at all confident 5.7
% DK/NA 5.2
7442 5861
46.6 45.9
30.6 32.4
11.8 10.9
5.5 6
5.5 4.8
1115 4872 5368 1840
43.8 46.8 46.3 46.8
30.1 32.7 31.9 27.2
14.2 10.4 12.3 10
3.9 6.7 5.5 5.1
8.1 3.3 4.1 11
1368 6833 4762 170
42.4 43.6 51.7 43.8
27.6 32.2 32.1 20.9
12.7 13.6 7.9 10.9
7.9 5.8 5.2 1.6
9.5 4.9 3.1 22.8
2530 5521 5217
45.5 45.1 48.1
32.6 32 30.2
11 11.7 11.4
5.9 6.4 5
5 4.8 5.3
Self-employed Employee Manual worker Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
2212 8359 2182 526
50 50.7 34.6 10.8
27.7 32.7 34.1 14.4
11.3 9.5 19.8 7
4.7 5.1 8.7 7.2
6.4 1.9 2.8 60.7
1 2 3 4 5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN
2624 5814 2356 1747 685
48.5 46.6 46.1 45.3 38.5
30.3 32.5 28.9 31.9 34
8 10.2 15.5 12.9 15.8
5.8 5.8 5.1 4.8 9.1
7.4 4.9 4.4 5 2.6
0 1 2 3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
7816 2610 2021 575
45.1 48 48.1 48.4
32.1 30.7 30.8 30.1
11.1 12.2 12.2 9.2
5.5 5.9 5.1 6.8
6.2 3.1 3.7 5.6
1 2 3-4 5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS Very poor Fairly poor Fairly wealthy Very wealthy
2432 3061 5843 1967
47.1 45 47.3 44.2
29.9 32.2 31.9 30.4
8.9 10.8 12 13.6
6.2 5.7 5 7.4
7.9 6.2 3.8 4.3
411 5672 6904 263
24.3 38.5 53.5 55
22 32.9 31 27.1
15 15.5 8 8.3
22.2 7.5 3.4 1.4
16.5 5.6 4.1 8.3
EU27 SEX Male Female AGE 15 - 24 25 - 39 40 - 54 55 + EDUCATION (end of) Until 15 years of age 16 - 20 20 + Still in education URBANISATION Metropolitan Urban Rural OCCUPATION
page 94
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Table 19a. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months – by country QUESTION: Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? "1" means that it "would not at all be likely" and 10 means that "it would be very likely"
Total N
% Not at all likely
%2
%3
%4
%5
%6
%7
%8
%9
% Very likely
% DK/NA
Base: respondents with a professional activity
13303
14.3
5.5
7.8
5.5
14.7
7
8.6
10.8
4.2
14.3
7.3
Belgium
529
10.9
2.4
3.2
3.2
13.3
9.7
9.7
12.3
3.7
13.3
18.3
Bulgaria
398
16.1
5.9
9.1
8.7
19.2
5.1
6.1
7.7
3.1
14
5.1
Czech Rep.
608
10.4
5.9
8.1
4.8
15.6
7
7.8
10.5
7.1
18.2
4.5
Denmark
640
6.6
2.1
2.4
4
11.7
5.5
9.6
17
7.9
27
6.2
Germany
482
14.3
4.3
8.5
4.6
12.7
6.8
8.9
11.2
5.6
17.9
5.1
Estonia
671
15.9
8.3
11.1
6.5
17
5.8
6.4
7.3
3.2
10.6
7.9
Greece
450
24
4.5
8.6
6.2
15.4
4.6
7.5
7.5
3.4
10.4
8
Spain
525
23.4
6.5
10.1
6.8
15.7
9.5
9.7
6.6
2.5
5.6
3.7
France
604
12.9
4.4
7
8.2
16.6
6.2
7.9
12.3
3.6
15.2
5.7
Ireland
624
27.6
6.3
14.1
5.4
9.5
7.7
3.3
8.8
2.4
8.3
6.6
Italy
392
18.1
11.4
8
6.4
17.2
9.4
6.4
3.5
3
6.6
10.1
Cyprus
310
21.8
4.3
11.5
4.3
12
4.7
9.2
9
4
8.8
10.5
Latvia
590
20.5
10
11.6
8.8
14.2
5.9
6
7.4
2.8
7.4
5.3
Lithuania
485
17.4
10.4
9.9
8
16.1
7.9
5.4
7.8
3.9
6.8
6.4
Luxembourg
251
10.7
4.4
8.2
8.3
18.9
7.2
5.1
10.5
5.3
12.2
9.2
Hungary
478
20
6
10
3.2
15.5
4.4
6
9.9
4.6
14.6
5.8
Malta
241
17.9
8
10.6
9.7
15
4.9
4.5
10.8
4.3
10.3
4.1
Netherlands
517
9.7
2.9
5
3.4
8.2
11.9
9.3
16.1
8.4
15.5
9.6
Austria
568
8.7
3.8
4.4
2.1
13.9
2.2
8.2
10.9
9.6
24.7
11.4
Poland
465
6.7
5.3
7.6
6.1
20.3
8.1
7.6
11.8
2.9
16.5
7.1
Portugal
543
12.9
8.8
13.5
6.8
21.8
5.3
5.8
10.5
1.8
8.7
4
Romania
541
21.1
6.4
7.8
3.4
8.3
5.8
6.5
9.8
3.5
15
12.4
Slovenia
532
11.8
5.5
6.1
6.4
17.4
5.9
7.4
13.1
3.2
18.6
4.5
Slovakia
509
10.4
6.4
9
5.8
17.2
5.5
8.9
10.8
6.7
12.1
7.2
Finland
552
11.2
3.6
7
3.1
9.3
5.8
11.3
17.3
9.5
17.6
4.3
Sweden United Kingdom
586
10.3
5.9
5
3.5
12.4
4.6
8.8
14.4
5.3
19.4
10.3
627
10.5
4
6.6
3.8
12.9
5.5
12.1
14.3
3.7
17.2
9.5
EU27 COUNTRY
page 95
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Table 19b. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months – by segment
% Not at all likely
%2
%3
%4
%5
%6
%7
%8
%9
% Very likely
% DK/NA
EU27
Total N
QUESTION: Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? "1" means that it "would not at all be likely" and 10 means that "it would be very likely" Base: respondents with a professional activity
13303
14.3
5.5
7.8
5.5
14.7
7
8.6
10.8
4.2
14.3
7.3
SEX Male
7442
13.2
5.2
7.6
5.2
13.9
6.5
8.6
11.8
4.4
16
7.6
Female
5861
15.8
5.9
8
5.8
15.6
7.6
8.5
9.5
4
12.2
7
AGE 15 - 24
1115
6.9
3.7
6.5
7.3
15.9
6.2
8.1
16.4
7
15.1
6.9
25 - 39
4872
8.2
3.5
7.2
5.6
14.8
9.1
12
13.2
5
16.9
4.4
40 - 54
5368
14.5
6.5
9
5.2
16.3
6.8
7.6
9.6
3.7
14.1
6.7
55 + EDUCATION (end of)
1840
33.7
9
6.8
4.7
9.2
2.5
2.9
4.5
1.8
8.2
16.7
Until 15 years of age
1368
27.4
6.2
5.7
4.9
13.4
6.1
6
6.7
2.1
10.8
10.7
16 - 20
6833
14.4
6.4
8.3
6.2
15.2
6.1
8.6
9.6
4.1
14.3
6.9
20 +
4762
10.3
4.3
7.7
4.8
14.6
8.7
9.3
13.7
5
15.5
6
170
13.8
3.1
4.3
1.9
17.2
2.1
7.7
13.3
3.5
13.4
19.7
Metropolitan
2530
12.2
4.2
8.6
6.5
13.6
7
8.7
11.6
4.6
16
7
Urban
5521
14.5
5.8
7.2
4.9
16.6
7
8.4
10.5
4.5
13.8
6.9
Rural
5217
15.3
5.9
8
5.6
13.3
6.9
8.7
10.7
3.8
14.1
7.7
Self-employed
2212
17.4
5.6
5.6
3.5
11.1
6.2
6.7
6.8
3.4
17.9
15.9
Employee
8359
13.1
5.3
8.1
5.6
15.6
7.5
9.5
12.4
5.2
14.3
3.4
Manual worker
2182
16.2
6.5
9.1
7.8
15.9
5.6
8.5
11
2.2
13.3
3.8
Not working NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
526
12.9
5.5
6
1.4
9.8
7.4
3.1
2.4
1.2
3.3
46.9
1
2624
14.3
4.6
7.7
5.9
13.4
7.1
10
9.5
3.1
15.7
8.7
2
5814
13.6
5.4
7.8
4.9
14.2
7.4
8.8
12.1
4.7
14.2
6.8
3
2356
13.3
6
8.8
6.2
17.8
5.5
8.8
8.3
5
13.4
7.1
4
1747
17
6.2
6.5
6.2
14.8
6.9
6.3
11.8
3.8
12.8
7.7
5+ NUMBER OF CHILDREN
685
17.6
6.3
5.9
4.9
13.5
7.7
7.2
11.2
2.7
17.3
5.9
8.3
Still in education URBANISATION
OCCUPATION
0
7816
16.7
5.7
7.7
5.5
13.9
6.5
8.3
9.5
4.1
13.7
1
2610
10.4
4.8
9.1
5.9
15.5
7.7
9.3
12.6
4.6
15.1
5.1
2
2021
11.7
5.6
6.9
5.1
15.9
8.2
9.2
13
4.5
14.7
5.3
575
9
5.9
5.6
4.6
17.5
5.4
7.4
13.8
4
19
7.8
2432
15.4
4.6
8.4
6
12
6.8
9.8
9.3
3
15.1
9.6
3+ HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 2
3061
17.7
5.5
7.8
4.5
13
6.9
8.1
10.1
4.9
13
8.5
3-4
5843
12.3
5.9
8.3
5.7
16.7
6.9
8.5
11.3
4.6
14.2
5.8
5+ HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
1967
13.7
5.7
5.4
5.7
14.7
7.5
8.1
12.4
3.4
16
7.5
Very poor
411
33.1
7.8
7.5
5.6
8.2
1
4.1
6.3
3.1
12.5
10.7
Fairly poor
5672
18.8
6.4
9
6.1
16.6
5.8
7.3
8.4
2.7
12.3
6.4
Fairly wealthy
6904
9.6
4.8
7
5.1
13.8
8.5
10.1
13.1
5.3
15.4
7.3
Very wealthy
263
13.3
1.8
2.1
1.1
9.5
2.3
5.4
10.6
7.9
27.9
18.2
page 96
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
II. Survey details This general population survey “Monitoring the social impact of the crisis: public perceptions in the European Union – Wave 2” (Flash Eurobarometer No 286) was conducted for the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities – Directorate E – Unit E 2 Inclusion, Social Policy Aspects of Migration, Streamlining of Social Policies. The current Flash Eurobarometer is the second wave of a trend study to monitor the social impact of the economic crisis in the EU. The first survey was conducted in July 2009 – Flash Eurobarometer survey No 276 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_276_en.pdf).
Sample design The implicit assumption inherent in fixed-line telephone surveys is that their sampling frame can provide a reasonable coverage of the target population, i.e. in the case of this survey, the EU adult population. However, with mobile phones replacing fixed-line telephones in certain societal segments in several of the EU Member States, fixed-line telephone surveys can no longer reach a significant part of the Union’s population. In countries where mobile phone users could not – or could not easily – be reached via fixed-line telephones, a mixed-mode methodology ensured that these individuals were contacted by face-to-face (F2F) interviews or by including mobile phones in the sampling frame. This methodology ensured that the reported results were representative of the EU27 population (for citizens above 15 years-of-age). Group 1: countries with only fixed-line telephone interviews In the countries of group 1 (such as Germany, Malta, the Netherlands and Sweden) a fixed-line random digit dial (RDD) sample was used to represent the adult population. In most countries in Group 1, fixed-line telephone coverage remains at levels well above 80%. Note that even in the case of fixed-line RDD samples, a certain number of mobile phone numbers were included in the sample as a consequence of call forwarding and number portability (see, for example, Cyprus). In most EU countries, the target sample size was 1,000 respondents; in Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta, however, just 500 interviews were conducted. The table below shows the achieved sample size by mode of interviewing and country. Country
Fixed-line
Mobile
Total
DK
1,001
0
1,001
DE
1,005
0
1,005
EL
1,005
0
1,005
FR
1,005
0
1,005
IE
1,000
0
1,000
CY
483
21
504
LU
507
0
507
MT
500
0
500
NL
1,001
0
1,001
SI
1,004
0
1,004
SE
1,000
0
1,000
UK
1,000
0
1,000
Total
10,511
21
10,532 page 97
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Group 2: countries with both fixed-line and mobile phone interviews Combinations of fixed-line and mobile phone random digit dial (RDD) samples were used in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Although these countries used to have fixed-line telephone penetration rates close to saturation, the emergence of mobile phones has led to an increase in the number of people who no longer have a fixed-line telephone – resulting in high proportions of mobile-only individuals. A full dual frame approach was used; mobile phone interviews were not limited to respondents who were “mobile-only” but also included dual users – having both a fixed-line telephone and a mobile phone. The RDD samples were developed by Gallup. The table below shows – once again – the achieved sample size by mode of interviewing and country. Country
Fixed-line
Mobile
Total
BE
828
177
1,005
ES
608
392
1,000
IT
611
396
1,007
AT
684
322
1,006
PT
602
402
1,004
FI
110
893
1,003
3,443
2,582
6,025
Total
Group 3: countries with fixed-line, mobile phone and face-to-face interviews In many eastern European countries, fixed-line telephone coverage never approached saturation – and these countries always had a significant number of people without a fixed-line telephone. These countries are now characterised by a high proportion of mobile-only households and an above average proportion of households without any telephone (mobile or fixed). In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia fixed-line and mobile phone RDD samples were combined with face-to-face interviewing. RDD samples were developed by Gallup, and a random route method was used to select the face-to-face segment of the sample. Country
Fixed-line
Mobile
Face-to-face
Total
CZ
351
353
300
1,004
EE
398
313
300
1,011
LV
350
355
306
1,011
LT
352
355
300
1,007
HU
351
358
300
1,009
PL
357
355
300
1,012
SK
352
348
306
1,006
BG
350
351
300
1,001
RO
347 3,208
365 3,153
300 2,712
1,012 9,073
Total
page 98
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Fieldwork Interviews were conducted from November 30 to December 4, 2009 by Gallup’s network of fieldwork organisations: Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Cyprus Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Hungary Malta Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom Bulgaria Romania
BE CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT SI SK FI SE UK BG RO
Gallup Europe Focus Agency Hermelin IFAK Saar Poll Metroanalysis Gallup Spain Efficience3 Gallup UK Demoskopea CYMAR Latvian Facts Baltic Survey Gallup Europe Gallup Hungary MISCO MSR Spectra Gallup Poland Consulmark Cati d.o.o Focus Agency Norstat Finland Oy Hermelin Gallup UK Vitosha Gallup Romania
(Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009) (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Contact procedures As many as three attempts were made to contact every sampled telephone number (fixed-line or mobile) or household in the face-to-face samples. Calls were staggered over times of day and days of the week to maximise the chance of making contact with potential respondents. For the fixed-line telephone sample and face-to-face sample, interviewers asked to speak to the person with the most recent birthday. If this person was not available at the time of the call or visit, the particular unit was re-contacted once or twice before being abandoned. For the mobile sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone. Interviewers verified that the person was an adult; if the person was not an adult, they were screened out as ineligible.
Questionnaires The questionnaire prepared for this survey, in English, is reproduced at the end of this annex. Gallup’s network of fieldwork organisations translated the questionnaire in their respective national language(s). Copies of each national questionnaire are annexed to the results (volume tables).
page 99
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Weighting The purpose of weighting is to adjust the sample so that the sample profile on key variables reflects that of the population. Data for this Flash No 286 were weighted to match national parameters on sex, age, region and telephone ownership. The weighting of the dataset had the following steps: In the first step, basic selection probability weights were applied. These weights correct for overcoverage of households with multiple fixed telephone lines and under-coverage of persons living in households with more than one eligible person. The selection probability of those from the mobile RDD frames was assumed to be 1. In the second step, on a country-by-country basis, a post-stratification (non-response) population weighting was carried out. As non-response rates vary by societal segments, the sample characteristics reflect these differences (e.g. there are usually fewer men and especially fewer young people in the samples than in the universe or population). In the same step, weights were calculated that corrected estimations based on the merged dual (or triple) frame samples, i.e. weights that deal with phone ownership. The telephone ownership parameter was created with measures from the Special Eurobarometer No 239 “E-communications household survey – 2007�. This survey was used to estimate the percentage of adults who fall into each of four categories: those who have only a fixedline telephone, those who have both a fixed-line and mobile phone, those who have only a mobile phone, and (only in countries with a face-to-face subsample) those who have no telephone at all. The so-called Raking Adjustment for Non-response (raking) procedure was applied to weight the data of the Flash No 286. The raking procedure performs iterative proportional fitting in contingency table analysis. In addition, the procedure can be used to deal with the problem of large variability of weights when weighting classes are formed based on a complete cross-classification of the auxiliary variables, with a large number of weighting classes with unstable response rates as a result. Frame membership was used as the first variable in the raking model, and socio-demographic variables were imputed subsequently to the iteration. The following socio-demographic variables were used in all national raking procedures (with categories levels used): Sex &Age Male, 15-29 Male, 30-49 Male, 50 -64 Male, 65+ Female, 15-29 Female, 30-49 Female, 50 -64 Female, 65+
Activity Active worker Retired Other non-active worker
Regions ( NUTS2) Note that levels might be collapsed to achieve convergence due to too many or too small classes.
In the last step, a weight variable was created that projected the individual weight to the relative size of the country within the total geographical area covered. This weight was used for estimations based on more than one country (e.g. joint Nordic countries estimations, or EU27 estimations).
page 100
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
The table below presents, for each of the countries: (1) the number of interviews actually carried out, and (2) the population-weighted total number of interviews.
Conducted Total
25630
BE CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT SI SK FI SE UK BG RO
1005 1004 1001 1005 1011 1005 1000 1005 1000 1007 504 1011 1007 507 1009 500 1001 1006 1012 1004 1004 1006 1003 1000 1000 1001 1012
Total Interviews EU27 % of Total weighted 100 25630 3.92 3.92 3.91 3.92 3.94 3.92 3.90 3.92 3.90 3.93 1.97 3.94 3.93 1.98 3.94 1.95 3.91 3.93 3.95 3.92 3.92 3.93 3.91 3.90 3.90 3.91 3.95
540 541 273 4357 70 589 2337 3174 211 3123 39 121 175 24 525 21 824 431 1974 551 106 278 269 465 3083 409 1122
% of Total (weighted) 100 2.11 2.11 1.06 17.00 0.27 2.30 9.12 12.38 0.82 12.19 0.15 0.47 0.68 0.09 2.05 0.08 3.21 1.68 7.70 2.15 0.41 1.08 1.05 1.81 12.03 1.59 4.38
Sampling error Surveys are designed to provide an estimate of a true value of characteristics of a population at a given time. An estimate of a survey is unlikely to be exactly equal to the true population quantity of interest for a variety of reasons. For example, data in a survey are collected from only some – a sample of – members of the population, this to make data collection cheaper and faster. The “margin of error” is a common summary of sampling error, which quantifies uncertainty about (or confidence in) a survey result. As a general rule, the more interviews conducted (sample size), the smaller the margin of error. Larger samples are more likely to give results closer to the true population quantity and thus have smaller margins of error. For example, a sample of 500 will produce a margin of error of not more than about 4.5 percentage points, and a sample of 1,000 will produce a margin of error of no more than about 3.1 percentage points.
page 101
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Margin of error – at 95% confidence level – for a given survey estimate and sample size Survey Sample size (n) estimate 10 50 100 150 200 400 800 1000 2000 5% 13.5% 6.0% 4.3% 3.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% 10% 18.6% 8.3% 5.9% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9% 2.1% 1.9% 1.3% 25% 26.8% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 3.0% 2.7% 1.9% 50% 31.0% 13.9% 9.8% 8.0% 6.9% 4.9% 3.5% 3.1% 2.2% 75% 26.8% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 3.0% 2.7% 1.9% 90% 18.6% 8.3% 5.9% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9% 2.1% 1.9% 1.3% 95% 13.5% 6.0% 4.3% 3.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4% 1.0%
4000 0.7% 0.9% 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 0.7%
More details on calculating the margin of error for differences between surveys can be found in Franklin’s 2007 paper: “The Margin of Error for Differences in Polls”7. Please note that in addition to sampling errors, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Tables of results VOLUME A: COUNTRY BY COUNTRY The VOLUME A tables present the EU27 results country by country. VOLUME B: RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS The VOLUME B tables present the EU27 results with the following socio-demographic characteristics of respondents as breakdowns: Volume B: Sex (Male, Female) Age (15-24, 25-39, 40-54, 55+) Subjective urbanisation (Metropolitan zone, Other town/urban centre, Rural zone) Occupation (Self-employed, Employee, Manual worker, Not working) Education (-15, 16-20, +20, Still in full-time education) Number of adults (15+) in the household ( 1,2,3,4,5+) Number of children in the household (0,1,2 ,3+) Total number of household members (1, 2, 3-4, 5+) Household's living standards (Very poor, Fairly poor, Fairly wealthy, Very wealthy)
7
http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf
page 102
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
III. Questionnaire D1.
Gender [DO NOT ASK - MARK APPROPRIATE] [1] Male [2] Female
D2.
How old are you? [_][_] years old [00] [REFUSAL/NO ANSWER]
D3.
How old were you when you stopped full-time education? [Write in THE AGE WHEN EDUCATION WAS TERMINATED] [_][_] [00] [01] [99]
D4.
years old [STILL IN FULL TIME EDUCATION] [NEVER BEEN IN FULL TIME EDUCATION] [REFUSAL/NO ANSWER]
As far as your current occupation is concerned, would you say you are self-employed, an employee, a manual worker or would you say that you are without a professional activity? Does it mean that you are a(n)... [IF A RESPONSE TO THE MAIN CATEGORY IS GIVEN, READ OUT THE RESPECTIVE SUBCATEGORIES] - Self-employed i.e. : - farmer, forester, fisherman ................................................................................ 11 - owner of a shop, craftsman ................................................................................ 12 - professional (lawyer, medical practitioner, accountant, architect,...) ............... 13 - manager of a company ....................................................................................... 14 - other .................................................................................................................... 15 - Employee i.e. : - professional (employed doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect) ........................ 21 - general management, director or top management ........................................... 22 - middle management ........................................................................................... 23 - Civil servant ....................................................................................................... 24 - office clerk ......................................................................................................... 25 - other employee (salesman, nurse, etc...) ............................................................ 26 - other .................................................................................................................... 27 - Manual worker i.e. : - supervisor / foreman (team manager, etc...) ..................................................... 31 - Manual worker ................................................................................................... 32 - unskilled manual worker.................................................................................... 33 - other .................................................................................................................... 34 - Without a professional activity i.e. : - looking after the home ....................................................................................... 41 - student (full time) ............................................................................................... 42 - retired ................................................................................................................ 43 - seeking a job....................................................................................................... 44 - other .................................................................................................................... 45 - [Refusal] .............................................................................................................................. 99
page 103
Annex D6.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Would you say you live in a ...? - metropolitan zone .............................................................................................. 1 - other town/urban centre ..................................................................................... 2 - rural zone ........................................................................................................... 3 - [Refusal] ............................................................................................................ 9 ASK ALL Including yourself, how many people who are residents of [COUNTRY], age 15 or over, currently live in your household?
D20.
[DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 99 D21.
How many children under 15 years of age are now living in your household? [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 99
D22.
On a scale from 1 to 10, where would you place the current living standards of your household? Please choose one number from 1 to 10, where “1” stands for “very poor”, and “10” stands for “very wealthy”, while the remaining numbers indicates something in between these two positions. (READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
01 Very poor 01
Q1.
02 02
03 03
04 04
05 05
06 06
07 07
08 08
09 09
10 Very wealthy 10
DK/NA 99
Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…? (ONE ANSWER ONLY PER LINE) - Strongly decreased ................................................................................. 1 - Slightly decreased .................................................................................. 2 - Slightly increased ................................................................................... 3 - Strongly increased ................................................................................. 4 - Stayed the same (SPONTANEOUS) ..................................................... 5 - [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 9 A. … The area where you live? ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 9 B. …( OUR COUNTRY)? ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 9 C. … The European Union? ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q2.
If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ? (ONE ANSWER ONLY) - 1 person out of 3 - or about 30% - is poor in (OUR COUNTRY) ......... 1 - 1 person out of 5 - or 20%...................................................................... 2 - 1 person out of 10 - or 10%.................................................................... 3 - 1 person out of 20 - or 5%...................................................................... 4 - Less than 5% .......................................................................................... 5 - [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 9
page 104
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Q3.
Annex
Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present? (ONE ANSWER ONLY) - I am / we are keeping up without any difficulties ......................................... 1 - I am / we are keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time ................ 2 - I am / we are keeping up but it is a constant struggle ................................... 3 - I am / we are falling behind with some bills / credit commitments .............. 4 - I am / we are having real financial problems and have fallen behind with many bills and credit commitments ......................................................................................... 5 - [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
Q4.
a. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives? (IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult? (ONE ANSWER ONLY PER LINE) b. And your ability to afford childcare for your children? c. And your ability to afford long-term care for you or your relatives? - Yes, much more easy ............................................................................. 1 - Yes, somewhat more easy ...................................................................... 2 - Yes, somewhat more difficult ................................................................ 3 - Yes, much more difficult ....................................................................... 4 - No, no changes ....................................................................................... 5 - Not applicable ........................................................................................ 8 - [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 9 A. Healthcare for you or your relative? ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 B. Childcare for your children? ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 C. Long-term care for you or your relatives? .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 8 9
Q5.
From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future? (READ OUT - ROTATE - ONE ANSWER ONLY) - Your pension will not be affected by economic and financial events ........... 1 - You will receive lower pension benefits than what you expected ................ 2 - You will have to retire later than you had planned to ................................... 3 - You will have to save more for when you are retired ................................... 4 - Other(SPONTANEOUS) .............................................................................. 8 - [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
page 105
Annex
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means „Not worried at all‟ and 10 means „Very worried‟. (ONE ANSWER ONLY) 01 Not worried at all 01
Q9.
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10 Very worried
DK/NA
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
99
Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items? (ONE ANSWER ONLY) - Yes ................................................................................................................ 1 - No ................................................................................................................. 2 - [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
Q7.
What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? (ONE ANSWER ONLY) The next 12 months will be… - … Better ........................................................................................................ 1 - … Worse ....................................................................................................... 2 - … The same .................................................................................................. 3 - [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
Q8.
Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…? (ONE ANSWER PER LINE) (READ OUT – ROTATE) - High risk ...................................................................................................... 1 - Moderate risk ............................................................................................... 2 - Low risk ....................................................................................................... 3 - No risk at all ................................................................................................. 4 - Not applicable .............................................................................................. 8 - [DK/NA] ...................................................................................................... 9 A. … Paying your rent or mortgage on time .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 8 9 B. … Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 .................................. 1 2 3 4 8 9 C. … Repaying consumer loans (such as loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) on time
......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 8 9
D. … Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items ................... 1 2 3 4 8 9
page 106
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
Annex
Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12 months because you can no longer afford it? Is it... (ONE ANSWER ONLY) - Very likely ................................................................................................... 1 - Fairly likely .................................................................................................. 2 - Fairly unlikely .............................................................................................. 3 - Very unlikely ............................................................................................... 4 - [DK/NA] ...................................................................................................... 9
[Q11 AND Q12 NOT TO BE ASKED TO THOSE WHO ARE IN EDUCATION (D4 = 42 student) OR ARE NO LONGER WORKING (D4 = 43 retired) OR ARE LOOKING FOR WORK (D4 = 44 seeking a job) OR ARE LOOKING AFTER THE HOME (D4 = 41 looking after the home)] Q11.
How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months? (ONE ANSWER ONLY) - Very confident ............................................................................................. 1 - Fairly confident ............................................................................................ 2 - Not very confident ....................................................................................... 3 - Not at all confident ...................................................................................... 4 - [DK/NA] ...................................................................................................... 9
Q12.
If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? “1” means that it “would not at all be likely” and 10 means that “it would be very likely” (ONE ANSWER ONLY)
01 Not at all likely 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10 Very likely
DK/NA
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
99
page 107