Poverty and Wealth Report of the Federal Government

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People
in Germany
in relative poverty
year At
risk of poverty
rate
source
2016 16.5%
2015 16.7%
2014 16.7%
2012 16.1%
2010 15.6%
2008 15.2%
2006 12.7%
2003 13.5%
2002 12.7%
1998 12.1%

The report Lebenslagen in Deutschland - Poverty and Wealth Report of the Federal Government (ARB), often referred to as the Poverty Report, is a report by the German Federal Government on the economic and social situation of the citizens of Germany, with a special focus on poverty in Germany. The report contains information on the political measures with which the Federal Government wants to improve the living situation and the chances of realization of the disadvantaged in society.

Client, decision

The first foundations were laid in August 1963 when the German Bundestag passed the law on the formation of a council of experts to assess macroeconomic developments . The "formation and distribution of income and assets" should also be included in its periodic studies. On January 27, 2000, at the request of the parliamentary groups of the SPD and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen (BT-Drs. 14/999) , the Bundestag (PlenProt 14/84) called on the federal government to submit a national poverty and wealth report for the first time in 2001. The coalition agreement of November 11, 2005 states that reporting is to be continued and developed.

Goal setting

The request of the two parliamentary groups states that the aim of the reporting is to present the situation of “ poverty ” in Germany and to show political options for action. This is also intended to take account of the final document of the World Social Summit in Copenhagen in 1995, in which the Federal Republic of Germany undertook to prepare such a report. In addition to poverty, the report is also intended to describe the distribution of wealth in the Federal Republic . Representatives of associations that deal with the problem of poverty must also be involved in the preparation of the report.

The first report also states that the report is intended to provide an overall view of social reality, which makes it possible to interlink different policy areas. The aim is to identify political instruments with which poverty can be avoided and eradicated, personal responsibility can be strengthened and polarization in society can be reduced. In addition, the report should contribute to objectifying the discussion.

Publication of the poverty and wealth reports

So far, the federal government has submitted five poverty reports. They are prepared by the Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs . The Ministry has appointed a permanent advisory group with representatives from the federal states, municipalities, associations, institutions and the organizations concerned to prepare the reports. In addition, an expert committee was formed with experts, whose members supported the reporting with subject-specific expert reports. So far, the following reports have been published under the title "Situation in Germany":

  • The first report appeared in May 2001.
  • The second report was presented in March 2005.
  • The third report was published in June 2008.
  • The fourth report appeared after long delays, officially due to departmental votes, in March 2013. Unofficially, there are strong differences between the ministries about the interpretation of the report and the deletion of individual statements as the cause of the delay, see here for more
  • The fifth report appeared in April 2017.

Definition of poverty

The Federal Government takes the view that the term poverty cannot be clearly scientifically determined. Rather, poverty should be described pluralistically as a life situation in order to grasp an undersupply from different perspectives. The report follows the definition of poverty by the Council of the European Community of 1984, "according to which persons, families and groups are considered to be poor if they have so few resources (material, cultural and social) that they are excluded from the way of life, which is acceptable as a minimum in the member state in which you live. "

Poverty is therefore considered in the reports from the perspective of relative income poverty, critical family life events, life in socially deprived areas in large cities, homelessness and over-indebtedness , while wealth is described with the distribution of income in Germany and the distribution of wealth in Germany in the population. Statistically, poverty is expressed in terms of a poverty rate . This quantifies the proportion of people in the population who have an income below the poverty line .

Subject areas

In accordance with the objective of capturing a pluralistic picture of poverty, the reports are divided into different subject areas. The following is the structure of the 3rd poverty and wealth report, which does not differ significantly from the 1st and 2nd reports:

I. Macroeconomic framework conditions and social developments
II. Income and assets, minimum income and debt
III. Educational opportunities
IV. Employment
V. Family and children
VI. Health situation and need for care
VII. Housing
VIII. Political and social participation
IX. Living situations of selected groups
X. People with a migration background
XI. People in particularly difficult life situations

The reports basically contain an analytical part in which the facts collected are presented, as well as a part with proposals for political measures, some of which reflect the current projects of the ministries involved, as well as a correspondingly structured extensive table appendix with overviews of the data collected.

Single results

The main results of the 3rd Poverty and Wealth Report (3rd ARB) are summarized below.

Economic framework

The report points out that much of the data collected only extends until 2005 because subsequent surveys had not yet been evaluated at the time the report was presented. The year 2005 was an economically weak year in which unemployment of 5.29 million people reached the highest point since reunification. The report does not yet capture the improvements between 2006 and 2008, which also resulted in increased gross income, but above all in a decrease in unemployment. (3rd ARB, 31)

In addition, reference is made to the shifting social structures, which in some cases also have an impact on the results of the studies and at least in some cases impair the comparability over time. The proportion of children with a single parent has risen from 12% in 1996 to 16% now (3rd ARB, 32). The proportion of the population with a migration background is just under 20%. For children in the age group up to 6 years, the proportion already exceeds 30% (3rd ARB, 32)

income

The annual gross average income fell in the period from 2002 to 2005 from 24,873 euros to 23,684 euros (price-adjusted based on the value of 2000). The proportion of low wages rose from 35.5% to 36.4% during this period. The net wages developed similarly from 19,255 euros to 18,778 euros. The wage increases achieved on the labor market could not fully compensate for the loss of value due to inflation.

At the same time, the distribution of income has become even more unequal during this period. The proportion of the total income from the 20% of the population with the lowest net equivalent income was achieved, decreased from 8.4% to 7.7%. In contrast, the share of total income that was achieved by the top 10% of income earners rose from 23.3% in 2002 to 24.9% in 2005. The at-risk-of-poverty rate, which was determined according to the method and data of the European community statistics, The SILC is based on the concept of relative income poverty and indicates the proportion of incomes that do not reach 60% of the median value of all incomes. (3. ARB, 39) The report names a poverty risk rate for Germany of 13%. France, Austria and Finland have similar rates; Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia and Slovakia (both 12%) and the Czech Republic and the Netherlands (both 10%) have better rates. (3rd ARB, 40)

In the period from 2003 to 2006, the number of people who received basic security in old age and with reduced earning capacity rose from 439,000 to 682,000. The federal government attributes the increase to several special effects, including the exposure of shameful old-age poverty, the newly started payments to people who live with their parents, and a separate information campaign. (3rd ARB, 50) In the same period, the number of recipients according to the fifth to ninth chapter SGB II (help in special situations) fell from 1,103,000 to 846,000 people. In the period under review, the benefits of earlier unemployment benefits (2004: 2.3 million people) and social assistance (2004: 2.9 million people) were combined to provide basic security for job seekers (2005: 5.3 million recipients of unemployment benefit II ). In total, around 9% of the population received benefits under SGB II. This group of people defines the minimum number of the poverty rate according to the definition of the European Union.

Key figures

According to the report, there were around 13,000 income millionaires in Germany in 1995 , 229 of whom lived in the east. The average net income of these people was DM 3 million. The average net household income in the former Federal Republic increased from DM 23,700 in 1973 to DM 61,800 in 1998. In the new federal states in 1998 it was around DM 47,400 per year. The average private wealth in West German households was around 254,000 DM, in the new federal states it was around 88,000 DM.

Distribution of private wealth

Data from 2008 is available for the reporting period on the distribution of private wealth in Germany . According to this, the 50 percent households in the lower half of the distribution only have a good one percent of the total net wealth, while the wealthiest ten percent of the households have more than half of the total net wealth. The wealth share of the top decile has continued to rise over time.

education

The proportion of young people (18-24 years of age) without any qualifications rose from 1996 to 2006 by 0.3 percentage points to 2.4%. A year of professional preparation is also counted as a qualification. The number of people without a vocational qualification is more important than a school leaving certificate. Here the proportion of people aged 15 to 65 who neither go to school nor study has risen slightly from 15.9% in 1996 to 16.3%. The rate for women fell from 20.4% to 18.6%, while for men it rose by 2.5 percentage points to 14% (3rd ARB, 61)

There is a continuing trend towards higher education. Among the 15- to 65-year-olds, the proportion with a university degree rose from 10.3% in 1996 to 12.6% in 2006. The age-dependent difference is shown if one also considers the group of 30- to 35-year-olds, in which the rate increased from 13.6% to 17.6%. In the group of 25 to 30 year olds, women had a higher rate for the first time in 2006 (12.3%) than men (10.9%). The quota for this age group is still relatively low because the degree is often not yet completed at this age.

There is a clear connection between a lack of education and unemployment. The unemployment rate for university graduates is stable at 4%. In contrast, it increased for people without a vocational qualification from 7.9% to 12.2% in 2006. (3rd ARB, 62) The report also refers to the fact that in Germany, after the PISA study 2006, a relatively there is a strong dependency between school performance and social origin. Nowhere is the difference between families with and without a migration background as clear as in Germany. (3rd ARB, 63) Although the problem of education is the subject of political discussion, the share of education expenditure in the gross domestic product fell from 4.12% in 1996 to 3.89% in 2005. (3rd ARB, 65)

Gainful employment

The number of people in employment in the Federal Republic of Germany was around 38 million between 1992 and 1998. In 1999 and 2000 the number rose to 39 million and remained at this level with minor fluctuations until 2006. In 2007 there was a significant increase to 39.8 million and in 2008, for the first time since reunification, the figure of 40 million employed persons was exceeded. The employment rate improved from 63.7% in 1998 to 69.4% in 2007 (3rd ARB, 66) The increase in employment affected the area of ​​marginally employed to a considerable extent, the number of which rose from 3.66 million in 1999 4.88 million in 2007. The number of temporary workers also increased sharply by 400,000 to 730,000 in the period from 2003 to 2007. Accordingly, the number of employees rose to a substantial extent in the low-wage sector (3rd ARB, 68)

The average number of unemployed in 1997 was 4.4 million (12.7%). It fell to 3.9 million (10.7%) by 2001. In the following period it rose again and in 2005 reached 4.9 million (13.0%), the highest value since reunification. In contrast, unemployment fell significantly in 2007 to 3.8 million (10.1%) and thus reached the lowest value in the period under review. The reported unemployment rate is statistically burdened by the combination of unemployment benefits and social assistance in 2005. The group of people recorded as unemployed for the first time comprises around 0.4 million people. The report notes that the unemployment rate only relates to the employed. If the self-employed are also taken into account, the rate is around 1.3 percentage points lower. However, the statistics do not include those people who take part in labor policy measures (further training, temporary positions). This group of people comprises between 800,000 and 900,000 people (3rd ARB, 70).

The question of employment has a fundamental influence on the risk of poverty. Among the unemployed, the at-risk-of-poverty rate is 43%, more than three times as high as that of the general population (13%). In 2007, two thirds of the unemployed (around 2.5 million people) received benefits to secure a minimum income according to SGB II, the so-called unemployment benefit II.

Family and children

The family is considered by the federal government, "a cornerstone of society." However, the development shows the growing importance of unmarried partnerships and single parents. In 1996, 13.1 million children under the age of 18 lived in 7.7 million (81.4%) households of married couples. The number decreased to 10.9 million (77.4%) children in 6.5 million (74.0%) households of married couples by 2006. The number of children in cohabitation increased from 0.6 million (4.1%) to 0.9 million (6.7%) with a corresponding increase in cohabitation with children of 0.5 million (4.8%) ) to 0.7 million (7.6%). The number of children with a single parent increased from 1.9 million (11.9%) to 2.2 million (15.9%), with the number of single parent households increasing from 1.3 million (13th , 8%) rose to 1.6 million (18.4%). Overall, the number of children fell in the observation period from 1996 to 2006 from 15.6 million to 14.1 million and the number of households with children from 9.4 million to 8.8 million (3rd ARB, 75) .

In 2005, the income situation of family households was on average 96%, slightly below the net equivalent income of all households. However, there are significant differences between the individual household types. The situation is particularly difficult for single parents and couples with three or more children (3rd ARB, 76).

Household type
2005
Single
parents
Couple with
one child
Couple with
2 children
Couple with 3 or
more children
all in all
Net equivalent income € 13,245 € 18,225 € 16,785 € 14,997 € 16,556
At risk of poverty rate 24% 8th % 9% 13% 11%

Another indicator of the extent to which children grow up in poverty is the receipt of benefits under SGB II. In 2008, 1.8 million children under the age of 15 were affected. This is a proportion of over 20% for which the payment of child benefit was insufficient for the family to reach the subsistence level. One of the main causes is the inability to work (3rd ARB, 78). The Federal Government also points out that there is a connection between poverty and lack of education in the household as well as poor school development of the children from these households (3rd ARB, 79).

health

In the analysis of the federal government, education, through which attitudes, convictions and values ​​are influenced, has a significant influence on the health of the citizens.

Enjoy good health
Education low medium high
Men 34% 51% 57%
Women 30% 47% 53%

It is essential that education has a positive effect on employment and income. Furthermore, with better education, a higher proportion of non-smokers, more physical activity and less often obesity are found (3rd ARB, 82).

The level of education also has an impact on the status in the world of work, where work-related stress, but also concern about the job, can be higher and affect health. A corresponding finding emerges from studies by the company health insurance funds , according to which the incapacity for work is significantly lower for voluntarily insured members than for compulsory members (3rd ARB, 83). Immediate negative effects on health result from job loss (3rd ARB, 84).

With children, not only the social status is important, but above all a functioning social environment has a positive effect on health (3rd ARB, 85).

Living

In the area of housing , the federal government notes an overall high level of supply, which also covers the needs of the increasing number of households (39.8 million in 2006). With an average growth of 1% in the years 1998 to 2006, rents rose less than the general price level of 1.6% in the period under review. (3rd ARB, 89)

In 2005, low-income households switched from housing allowance to reimbursements according to SGB II. While the housing allowance was only granted as a rent subsidy, benefits according to SGB II are reimbursed for all costs incurred, insofar as these are reasonable. This has partially improved the situation of the households affected. (3rd ARB, 91)

In eastern Germany in particular, the quality of the housing stock has improved further as a result of renovations. The urban development subsidy measures contributed to this. The problem of segregation exists in all large cities . Large residential complexes or individual urban districts with low-quality housing stock attract lower-income groups of the population and thus promote concentrations, especially of migrants. (3rd ARB, 94)

Participation in social life

The surveys on participation in social life show clearly below-average values ​​for the poorer population in the area of ​​political engagement (3rd ARB, 97). This applies similarly, if not quite as pronounced, to the activities in associations and initiatives as well as the various forms of voluntary and cultural work (3rd ARB, 99).

Group of people
2004
Member of a
political
party
Member of a
trade union

Participation in the collection of
signatures

Participation
demonstration

People below the
risk of poverty line
1.9% 5.3% 10.7% 1.2%
People above the
risk-of-poverty line
3.8% 14.2% 23.4% 6.2%
All in all 3.6% 12.4% 21.3% 5.8%

criticism

No data on wealth

Ulrike Herrmann criticizes that, despite the name, one knows everything about the poor (...) , but almost nothing about the really rich. Since there is no wealth tax , no data is collected on this - she speaks in this context of "holes in the statistics" that are not recorded. It is not a coincidence. The rich have invested a lot of lobbying work to prevent reliable statistics. They know very well that a distribution discussion cannot take place if the data is missing.

Poor definitions

Dagmar Schulze Heuling criticizes the definition of the variables used. Neither what is understood by poverty in the report nor how many poor there are in Germany is specified. The use of the measure of relative poverty does not measure the coverage of a minimum requirement, but a distribution pattern. On the other hand, wealth is already defined for single people with a net income of EUR 3,200.

Controversial data selection

The Financial Times Deutschland refers to the “ very controversial data selection ” of the poverty report. For 2006, for example, a poverty risk rate of 13 percent is given in the population. According to calculations by the DIW ( SOEP ), however, it was 18 percent. This is explained in the third poverty report with sample fluctuations, different income terms (in particular the different consideration of the rental value of owner-occupied residential property), different representativeness of the surveys and different treatment of missing or implausible information. Dagmar Schulze Heuling points out that income from undeclared work is usually not given in social statistical surveys. This increases the uncertainty in the estimate.

Lack of consideration of social wealth and consideration of social structure

Klaus Schroeder criticizes that the capitalized claims of the pension fund are not taken into account. Since the private pension provision of higher earners is taken into account, the inequality is exaggerated. Overall, this neglects a fortune of five to seven trillion euros. Dagmar Schulze Heuling agrees with this criticism. According to a study by DIW , taking pension entitlements into account means that the richest tenth no longer owns 15 times, but only 4 times as much as the average citizen. In the same interview, Schroeder points out that the social structure in Germany has changed over time. With an increase in the number of older people, single people and single parents with children, the average wealth of a single household is falling.

Allegation of refining the report (2008)

DIW and the opposition accused Labor Minister Olaf Scholz of having embellished the actual situation, especially with regard to child poverty, in the report.

Accusation of refining the report (2012/2013)

On November 28, 2012 it became known that the Federal Government, after intervention by Economics Minister Philipp Rösler, had the current report "beautiful", i.e. H. Made changes that gave a more positive view of things than the draft version. This is against the background that it is not the federal government who commissioned the report, but parliament, first pointed out and criticized by the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Strong criticism came from the unions because the revised draft of November 21, 2012 lacked critical sentences and references to inconvenient facts had disappeared.

"The federal government wants to water down, conceal and gloss over key statements in the report"

DGB board member Annelie Buntenbach is quoted as saying. The evaluation and analysis of the federal government was criticized by the trade unions, not the figures contained in the report. A link to this draft can be found in the Web Links section . This resulted in significant delays; the report, which was originally due to appear in 2012, was finally published on March 6, 2013. The final version also shows changes in content compared to the draft version, which were sharply criticized by the opposition, social associations, trade unions, etc. as "whitewashing". The differences between the individual versions of the report are documented on tagesschau.de .

Allegation of the fining of the report (2017)

In the Fifth Poverty and Wealth Report, too, there are serious changes between the original draft drawn up by the responsible Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor and the final version.

literature

  • E.-U. Huster, J. Boeckh, H. Mogge-Grotjahn (ed.): Handbook of poverty and social exclusion. Wiesbaden 2008.
  • Thomas E. Schmidt: Talking about the unnamed. In: The time . October 19, 2006 No. 43/2006.
  • WM Zenz, K. Bächer, R. Blum-Maurice (eds.): The forgotten children. Neglect, poverty and undersupply in Germany. Cologne 2002.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. Proportion of the population with an equivalent income below 60% of the median
  2. ↑ Risk of poverty in Germany 2016 , last accessed on October 17, 2016.
  3. Archive link ( Memento of the original dated December 6, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.destatis.de
  4. Hans Böckler Foundation: " [1] The poverty and wealth report of the federal government in the inequality discourse" number 121, March 2019, accessed on September 1, 2019
  5. - ( Memento of the original from December 24, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / pdok.bundestag.de
  6. a b Living conditions in Germany - The Federal Government's first report on poverty and wealth, 10 (PDF; 10.1 MB)
  7. Living conditions in Germany - The Federal Government's first report on poverty and wealth, 26 (PDF; 10.1 MB), The homepage provides an overview of the expert reports ( Memento of the original from March 14, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet tested. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of the Institute for Sociology at the University of Duisburg-Essen @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.sozialpolitik-aktuell.de
  8. Source: Poverty Report 2013 , p. XII.
  9. Number of employed persons in Germany ( Memento of the original from June 16, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. annual average from 1991 to 2008 (destatis) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.destatis.de
  10. ^ German Bundestag: Situation in Germany - Third Report on Poverty and Wealth. Notification by the federal government. Printed paper 16/9915, June 30, 2008, p. 82 .
  11. see the reference A. Klocke: Social capital as a resource for health in adolescence, in: M. Jungbauer-Gans, P. Kriwy (Ed.): Social disadvantage and health in children and adolescents, Wiesbaden 2004, pp. 85–96 .
  12. http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/digitaz/artikel/?ressort=me&dig=2013%2F03%2F07%2Fa0142&cHash=2be97abb149cde369f66986766c893d3
  13. a b c Dagmar Schulze Heuling: A country pays for itself poor in: Cicero Online from October 31, 2012
  14. Archive link ( Memento of the original dated November 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.statistik.lmu.de
  15. Süddeutsche Zeitung: " Political scientist Klaus Schroeder on the wealth report " - Interview by Jannis Brühl - September 19, 2012
  16. Kolja Rudzio: Poor paymaster. In: Die Zeit No. 14 of March 28, 2013, p. 25
  17. ^ Welt Online (Dorothea Siems): Olaf Scholz is said to have embellished the poverty report. May 20, 2008, accessed March 9, 2013 .
  18. Focus Online (AFP): DIW: Scholz hides the rise in poverty. May 20, 2012. Retrieved March 9, 2012 .
  19. Süddeutsche Zeitung: " Federal government embellishes poverty report "
  20. Spiegel Online from November 28, 2012: Inequality in Germany: Government deleted critical passages from the poverty report
  21. Spiegel online (dab / dpa): Despite the crisis: Germany's rich are getting richer. September 18, 2012, accessed September 18, 2012 .
  22. Poverty. Cabinet adopts poverty report. First rinsed soft, then decided . In: tagesschau.de , March 6, 2013. Accessed March 7, 2013.
  23. ZEIT Online: [2] " Censored and adorned , guest contribution by Christoph Butterwegge" April 12, 2017, accessed on September 1, 2019
  24. ZEIT Online: [3] " Government allegedly removed sensitive passages from poverty report ," December 5, 2016, accessed on September 1, 2019
  25. FOCUS Online: [4] " That is why the federal government is playing down social inequality ," April 13, 2017, accessed on September 1, 2019