COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 25.01.1999 
COM(1998) 774 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION 92/441/EEC OF 24 JUNE 1992 ON 
COMMON CRITERIA CONCERNING SUFFICIENT RESOURCES AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE 
IN SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the role of minimum income schemes within social 
protection systems as components of the fight against poverty, and to analyse the contribution 
of these schemes toward enabling social and economic reintegration. It is born of EEC 
Recommendation 92/441, of 24 June 1992, which was intended by the Council as a means of 
supporting the efforts being undertaken by Member States to address poverty and exclusion. 
Within the broad range of social transfers provided by social protection systems, minimum 
incomes are the final safety net mechanism of income redistribution. They help the poorest 
people in society by covering basic needs without any requirement for prior contributions. 
Behind the common principles expressed in the Recommendation lie complex and varied 
national methods of implementation. In fact, minimum incomes do not act in isolation in social 
protection systems, but form part of a range of benefits and social services, of which the report 
gives a first overview. 
The number of minimum income beneficiaries has risen since the end of the 1980s. There 
appear to be two main factors behind this rise. The first is higher and more persistent 
unemployment. The second relates to a rise in the numbers who have experienced social 
disruptions in their lives, i.e. family breakdown, forced migration, homelessness, over-
indebtedness, prison. Compared to the overall population, single men and single-parent families 
are over-represented. 
Member States, to varying degrees, relate minimum incomes to measures aimed at increasing 
access to employment. The range of action this implies includes: mobilising employment 
services more strongly for the most disadvantaged people; socially useful activities; job creation 
in the non-profit sector; financial incentives to employers to hire minimum income recipients; 
and helping people to move into employment without loss of income. These measures still have 
a limited impact and should evolve to improve integration of minimum income recipients into 
the labour market. This shift towards more active support for minimum income recipients of 
working age is consonant with meeting the commitments of the European employment strategy 
In looking for greater effectiveness, several Member States are widening their scope of 
intervention to include measures which aim at improving economic and social integration of 
minimum income recipients. This may cover broader social issues such as housing, education, 
family, health or citizenship. A more individualised approach is also being developed, in some 
Member States, which more actively involves minimum income recipients in designing personal 
projects with the support of social and employment services, as well as that of local partners. 
The Council Recommendation has helped to organise and stimulate the debate between 
Member States on the role and development of minimum income schemes. The schemes that it 
covers are continuously evolving and need to do so in a holistic way, in terms of general social 
policy action and, particularly, employment policy. In order to help optimise the effectiveness of 
Member States' action in delivering social protection, increasing access to employment, and 
developing social and economic integration, this report offers material with which to develop 
the debate and prepare the ground for implementing the new Article 118 of the future Treaty 
(article 137 of the consolidated version). 
Table of Contents 
I. The position of minimum income schemes in social protection systems 
1. The final safety net 
2. The contribution of other benefits 
3. A variability for work 
4. Social support 
II. Recent trends in the use of minimum income schemes 
1. The relief of poverty 
2. Who are the beneficiaries? 
3. Sliding down from unemployment benefit to minimum income 
4. Obstacles preventing exit from the schemes 
4.1 The risk of the benefit (raps 
4.2 Finding a job is not always enough 
HI. Pathways to employment 
1. What should be expected from employment services? 
2. How to improve employability? 
2.1 Improving skills and competences 
2.2 Specific measures, as temporary solutions 
2.2.1 Incentives for voluntary activities 
2.2.2 Subsidised jobs in the non-profit sector 
3. Access to (he labour market 
.31 Access to companies 
3.2 Financial incentives for returning to work 
3.2.1 Adjusting minimum income rates 
3.2.2 Smoothing (he transition from minimum income to a paid job 
IV. A step further, individual pathways to integration 
V. Perspectives, sufficient resources and assistance as a starting point for social and economic 
integration 
Annexes 
Council Recommendation 92/441/EEC of 24 June 1992 
Tables 
1. The national minimum income schemes, main associated benefits and services. 
2. Levels of support provided by the minimum incomes, family and housing benefits, 
expressed in purchasing power parities. 
3. Characteristics of minimum income recipients. 
4. The situation of minimum income claimants with regard to employment. 
5. Results achieved by socio-economic integration measures. 
In 1992 the Council adopted two Recommendations based on Commission commitments in its 
Social Action Programme for the implementation of the Community Charter on the 
Fundamental Social Rights of Workers (December 1989). The first1 deals with the 
convergence of social protection objectives and policies, and includes amongst its common 
objectives the guarantee of a level of resources in keeping with human dignity. The second 
Recommendation2 sets out the principles and conditions by which this guarantee is to be 
implemented. This Recommendation, a copy of which is enclosed, is the subject of this report. 
This report is based on three main sources. The first is the results of the 1996 European 
seminar organised in Lisbon3 when Portugal was about to introduce national minimum income 
provisions. The second is a further enquiry conducted among Member States in 1997. The third 
is work done by the European Foundation for the improvement of living and working 
conditions4. The report evaluates the role of minimum income schemes within social protection 
systems from the point of view of the fight against poverty It also analyses the contribution of 
these schemes to the social and economic reintegration of their recipients. 
The report should also be seen as having links with the Commission's activities to promote 
discussion on modernising and improving social protection in the European Union5 and with 
the European Employment strategy6. It forms part of the Commission's preparation for 
implementation of the new Article 118 of the future Treaty (article 137 in the consolidated 
version) in relation to social exclusion. 
I - The position of minimum income schemes in social protection systems 
The origins of minimum income schemes can be traced back to the very beginnings of public 
social assistance to the poor and disadvantaged when they were unable to make a living from 
other means. Providing a minimum income to people without resources was seen as a moral 
duty and helped to maintain a degree of social stability. As comprehensive social protection 
systems were being constructed, minimum income schemes were integrated into them to a 
greater or a lesser extent. 
In countries where social insurance based on employment predominates (for example, 
Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, and Luxembourg), minimum income schemes, which are 
not contribution-based and support people out of work, have remained outside of social 
security systems. The situation in the Netherlands is similar. Responsibility for management of 
these schemes has been left to local authorities. National authorities are involved to only a 
limited degree and do no more than establish a common legal framework for the various types 
of action. 
1 Recommendation 92/442/EEC of 27 July 1992, J.O. L 245 of 26-08-92. 
2 Recommendation 92/441/CEE of 24 June 1992, J.O. L 245 of 26-08-92. 
-^ "Minimum income policies in the European Union" Pierre Guibentif-Denis Bouget, 1997; published jointly by the 
Commission, the Portuguese Ministério da Solidariedade e Segurança Social and the Vniâo das Mulalidadcs 
porluguesas. 
4 "Report on GMJ development in EU Member Countries in 1992-1997", Matti Heikkila, Darren McCausland, working 
document, Dec. 1997. 
5 COM(97)102 final of 12-03-97 
6 European Employment Guidelines, Resolution of 15 December 1997, for 1998; COM(98) 574 final for 1999 
However, minimum income schemes have been perceived as intrinsic to those social protection 
systems where a more universal approach is adopted, based on people's needs and underpinned 
by the concept of assistance. This is the situation in Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Nordic 
countries and, more recently, Portugal. In these cases, minimum income schemes took on a 
more integrated appearance from the start, with higher-profile state intervention The 
Mediterranean countries lie between these two models; minimum income schemes are still 
relatively rare. There is none at all in Greece, some local schemes in Italy7 and schemes 
operated by the Autonomous Communities in Spain. 
These differences show up in the way that management and financing responsibilities are 
allocated at the national, regional and local levels. However, the fact that the schemes are faced 
with similar socio-economic changes and have to respond to the same types of problems helps 
to bring them closer together in practice. 
I - /. The final safety net 
Minimum incomes cover essential needs in situations of financial crisis. Ihey are non-
contributory, financed by tax revenues and secondary to family solidarity. 
Minimum income schemes operate as a final safety net for those unable to make their living 
otherwise. As mentioned in the Recommendation (C-2), minimum incomes provide a 
differential financial aid. They make up the shortfall between own and family resources -
whether in the form of earnings from work or other social benefits8 - and guaranteed minima. 
This general principle covers complex and varied national methods of implementation9. 
The schemes cover fundamental needs, as envisaged by the Recommendation (section C-l-a). 
The levels of the minimum incomes are generally defined for a country as a whole, but may take 
into account regional variations in the standard or cost of living. Minimum incomes are indexed 
to consumer prices or to other social benefits (section C-l c and e of the Recommendation). 
Minimum income schemes involve a preliminary assessment of the claimant's resources. As 
specified by the Recommendation (Section B.3), in all Member States this is an assessment not 
of the applicant but of the household situation10 in which that person lives. This is the critical 
criterion upon which the provision of assistance depends. The levels of payment then depend on 
the composition of the household. Minimum incomes are also subsidiary to family solidarity. 
To a greater or lesser extent claimants have to try to obtain any maintenance payments due to 
them. 
The secondary status of minimum incomes, compared with other social benefits 
(Recommendation, Section B-5), varies. In eight Member States -Belgium, Austria, Germany, 
Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal- minimum income claimants must have used 
up their entitlement to other social benefits. Minimum income support may temporarily be 
provided while awaiting a decision on claims for another benefit11. Several Member States, 
7 Italy did not respond to the Commission questionnaires in 1996 and 1997. 
** Taken in a broad sense of all social protection payments including other social minima. 
9 There are for example instances when minimum income is not granted whilst income from work or from other benefits is 
lower than the guaranteed minima. This question is discussed in several chapters (II-4-2, HI-3-2.2) as well as in the 
conclusions. 
1 (> There are variations in national definitions. 
1 ' As an example, Ireland in particular uses this arrangement. 
such as the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg, indicate that minimum incomes may also 
be used to supplement retirement or unemployment benefits. Only some Spanish Autonomous 
Communities do not allow a combination of these benefits with minimum incomes. In the UK, 
Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands, claimants need not have used all entitlements 
to other benefits. Minimum income schemes, nonetheless, remain the final safety net. 
Minimum incomes are non-contributory. No previous contributions need to have been made. 
Accordingly, funding of these measures in the Member States is, in general, dependent on tax 
revenues rather than on contributions paid from earned income. 
Minimum income schemes are not time-limited, in line with the Recommendation's requirement 
(Section B-4)12 The termination of payments depends on the level of resources of the 
household Despite this open-ended nature, minimum incomes in most Member States are only 
intended as a temporary measure to alleviate exceptional situations which recipients are 
expected to escape from, particularly through employment, with or without other assistance. 
I - 2. The contribution of other benefits 
Minimum income schemes do not act in isolation but rather as part of a range of various 
social benefits, social services and aid in kind. 
This report covers the schemes most generally applied (cf table 1). In Ireland and the UK, the 
schemes are divided into two benefits according to the work availability of the recipients. In 
some Member States specific non-contributory social minimum arrangements exist which cater 
for: 
- persons who have reached statutory retirement age: six Member States have such 
arrangements: Belgium, France, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and the UK13; 
people with disabilities: seven Member States have established minimum income for the 
most severe disabilities: Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and the 
UK (lootimic i;i>; - ' 
- lone-parent families: specific minimum income benefits exist to a certain degree in Belgium, 
France, Ireland and the UK (footnote i.i); 
Seven Member States set age requirements (18 years for Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, 
Portugal and UK14, 25 for France and Spain, and 30 for Luxembourg) which exclude part of 
the working-age population from the schemes. France, Spain and Portugal lower the age 
requirement when the recipient has responsibility for dependents. In addition, the schemes 
considered in this report often cover immigrants, asylum seekers, and nationals of non-EU 
countries provided they comply with residency requirements. 
Minimum income schemes do not act in isolation, so caution is needed when evaluating the 
specifically identified support provided by them in the Member States. They may complement 
some benefits, up to statutory maximum amounts, as outlined above. In addition their impact 
may be enhanced by other benefits (added to the minimum income maximum amounts), aid in 
kind or services to meet specific needs, as defined in the Council Recommendation (C-l,b). 
12 In Spain ;md in France, the limits imposed are offset by the possibility of as many renewals as necessary 
'•' Included in Income Support. 
14 16-17 years under restricted conditions. 
These additional benefits may be treated as rights or may be discretionary15 They cover needs 
relating to housing, health, education, travel, heating, food, clothing, or household equipment 
(cf.Tablel). 
1-3. Availability for work 
12 Member States require minimum income recipients to be available for work or training. 
Exceptions cover illness, disabilities, or caring for young children or disabled adults. 
As provided for in the Recommendation (B-3), minimum income schemes, except in France, 
require recipients who are able to work to be available to do so. They must be actively looking 
for work and be ready to accept any job which is suitable or appropriate. In Ireland and the UK 
the availability condition applies to Unemployment Assistance and the income-based 
Jobseeker's Allowance, respectively. !n France this condition does not apply. To find a job is 
one of the options of the overall integration process in which the "RMI" recipient is involved 
Two-thirds of "RMI" recipients are nevertheless registered job seekers. 
Member States define exceptions to the availability requirement quite similarly. Exceptions 
include people with disabilities1*, people not of working age, and people in charge of young 
children or adults with disabilities. The little data available shows wide variations between 
Member States in the numbers unavailable for work (33% of minimum income recipients in 
Sweden, 87.6 % in Luxembourg). This may relate to the existence or otherwise of separate 
assistance arrangements for such categories. People suffering from long-term illnesses which 
prevent them taking up employment (5% in Germany and Portugal, 30% in.Sweden) can also 
be added to these groups. Also, drugs and alcohol abusers, who tend to be over-represented 
amongst minimum income recipients, are sometimes considered suitable for work and 
sometimes not. 
As regards family responsibilities and the education of children, many Member States grant a 
temporary exemption from the availability for work requirement when recipients have children 
not yet of school age. Some Member States also apply more flexibility to single-parent families 
The problem of reconciling work with family life in this area is difficult. The approach adopted 
may have a direct effect on the lives and education of the children involved. Chiidcare 
provisions can facilitate access to work or training. These services are free in Sweden, included 
with the 'Toimeenlulotuki in Finland and this facility is planned for single-parent families in the 
UK. However, comprehensive information on this key feature of developing affordable and 
accessible facilities for low income families still needs to be gathered. 
1-4. Social support 
Half the Member States have set up social integration measures often associated to those of 
training and employment. 
The Recommendation advocates that entitlement to minimum incomes should be complemented 
by economic and social integration measures (Sections B-3, C-4). The Member States have, to 
varying degrees, taken action relating to health treatments, detoxification, advice on family 
budgets (over-indebtedness), children's education, mobility (driving lessons), learning 
'- This supplementary assistance may also be provided to people whose primary income is provided from means other than 
minimum incomes. 
1 However, a number of Member States (Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Germany) mention 
activities developed for people with disabilities. 
languages, rights and duties as citizens. Employment remains the ultimate objective for most of 
these accompanying measures. In some Member States, for example Belgium, Spain, and 
France, these measures are specified in individual integration contracts (see chapter IV) 
II - Recent trends in the use of minimum income schemes 
II - /. The relief of poverty 
Minimum income costs are small compared to overall social protection expenditures, but, for 
the majority of their recipients, they represent the major source of income. Their levels vary 
substantially between the Member States. 
Minimum income schemes concern the most acute situations of lack of resources. They are not 
intended to cover all situations of poverty. Social protection systems as a whole give a wider 
response to problems of poverty through the entire range of the social transfers they provide. In 
terms of budgetary expenditures17, minimum incomes cost very little18. However, for the 
majority of recipients, such minimum income payments remain significant, since they constitute 
their main or only source of income. 
Work on the evaluation of support provided by minimum incomes and their associated benefits 
remains incomplete and will be developed further in future reports. Table 2 gives an overview 
of the levels of support expressed in purchasing power parities and covering minimum 
incomes, housing benefits and family allowances. It shows very wide variations between 
Member States. Housing benefits and family allowances together can account for more than 
half of the assistance provided. For couples with two children, family allowances constitute 7% 
to 28% of the overall support19. This proportion increases in single-parent families and reaches 
42% in Finland. Housing benefits are more difficult to estimate as they can vary widely from 
region to region or from municipality to municipality within a single Member State. They can 
also depend on the personal situation of the recipient when calculated on the basis of actual 
housing costs. Their contribution to the support provided ranges from 7 % to over 50%. 
The complex interaction of these mechanisms on household income may hinder incentives for 
active labour market measures for many people (cf II-4.1). This important policy question is 
raised in the European Employment Guidelines and the national action plans. 
II - 2. Who are the beneficiaries? 
An increasing number of job seekers and people who have suffered disruptions in their lives. 
Single men and single-parent families form a large proportion of recipients20. Certain groups 
remain dependent on minimum income for a long period. 
17 "Social Protection in Europe 1997 "- Executive summary, COM (1998) 243 final. According to the European 
Household Panel, social transfers in the Union accounted for around 30 % of net household income in 1993. For some 
35 % of households, they were the main source of income and without them just under 40% of households would have 
had a level of income of under half the national average. After transfers, around 17 % of households in the 1 Jnion had ii 
level of income below this. 
IX "Social Protection in Europe 1997 " document of the services, April 1998, Using ESSPROS data on "social exclusion" 
expenditure accounts for 1.6% of the total EU (Greece excluded) in 1995. Spending on social exclusion was relatively 
low in most countries, zero or close to zero in the Southern Member States and only over 1% of GDP in Denmark and 
Sweden - though in this case there may be classification problems, insofar as expenditure on ensuring that nobody's 
standard of living falls below a minimum level can potentially be met through other elements. 
19 Children can be taken into account not only with family allowances which are included or not in the estimated available 
income of minimum income claimants, but also in adapting the minimum income amounts themselves. These two 
methods can be used in one country. 
20 Recipient = person who receives minimum income in his/her own name or as head of an eligible household. 
The size and composition of the population receiving minimum incomes is influenced by the 
provision of other specific income support arrangements targeting certain groups which aie not 
considered in this report (cf. 1-2). Furthermore, persons entitled to apply for a minimum income 
do not always do so. This can be explained by a lack of information, discouragement caused by 
the complexity of the administrative procedures, or social stigma which may be associated with 
claiming minimum incomes21. 
Nonetheless, the number of minimum income beneficiaries has risen in all Member States since 
the end of the 1980s22(table 3). There appear to be two factors behind this rise. The first is 
higher and more persistent unemployment. The second relates to a rise in the numbers who 
have experienced social disruptions in their lives, e.g. family breakdowns, forced migration, 
homelessness, delinquency, prison, over-indebtedness. 
Compared to the overall number of households, two main groups are over-represented among 
minimum income recipients. These are people living alone, mostly men (more than half of the 
recipients in all Member States with the exception of Denmark and Spain) and single-parent 
families, almost exclusively women with children (10 to 20% of GMI recipients, peaking at 35-
40% in some Spanish Autonomous Communities). There is also a significant proportion of 
young people among minimum income recipients. They take up minimum income at the outset 
of their working lives, in some cases even earlier. 
In part, these trends reflect the deterioration of labour market opportunities during the 1990s 
They are also linked to the choices made in social policies, especially in social protection 
systems. Couples, with or without children, are, for example, under-represented. Reasons for 
this can be found in the way social protection systems cater for families as well as in the greater 
likelihood that at least one partner will have a job. 
It is difficult to assess the effective duration of minimum income payments. Few Member 
States have data available, and the data that does exist is influenced by the administrative limits 
imposed on the schemes by the authorities. However, several Member States refer to an 
overall increase in the average duration of payments and to signs of long-term insecurity among 
certain recipients Approximately 10% of recipients claim minimum income for several years, 
for example in France and Finland. Nearly a third of recipients claim Unemployment Assistance 
for more than three years in Ireland This is despite the fact that minimum income schemes were 
designed as short-term assistance measures for people temporarily without financial resources. 
The longer people claim minimum income, the more difficult it becomes for them to leave the 
scheme In the Netherlands it is estimated that chances of leaving the scheme go from 49% the 
first year to 13% the fourth year, those of finding a job from 15 to 5%. 
II - 3. Sliding down from unemployment benefit to minimum income 
Restrictions in unemployment benefits make minimum income the only possibility for many 
unemployed people. 
Beneficiary: person who benefits from minimum income either directly or as a dependent of a recipient in the same 
household 
21 Follow-up reports are intended to study a wider range of factors linked to claimant eligibility, potential misuse and 
coverage of the schemes 
-2 Willi the exception of a temporary easing-offin I he Netherlands 
All Member States have identified the link between the rise in the level of unemployment and 
the growth in the number of minimum income recipients. At the same time that unemployment 
has risen, many Member States have shortened periods of entitlement to unemployment 
benefits, lowered the amounts paid or applied stricter qualifying conditions One third oC 
minimum income recipients are job seekers in Belgium, Germany and Sweden, two thirds in 
France, 86% in Portugal and 90% in Ireland (table 4). 
Minimum incomes may, therefore, supplement unemployment benefits when their individual 
rate or the rate applied to the household are higher than unemployment benefits. Also, the latter 
applies specifically to the unemployed person, with no account of household23. In Germany 
16% of the Sozialhilfe recipients between 21 and 65 receive it to supplement unemployment 
benefit. Of these, 33% are couples with children. This adds to the complexity of the 
administrative process. 
Minimum incomes are also used as a last resort when entitlement to contributory 
unemployment benefit ends, or when the conditions governing eligibility for these benefits are 
not met. Entitlement to unemployment benefit (insurance-based) requires previous employment 
with related social security contributions over a minimum period. This requirement generally 
rules out 
• young people leaving school, 
• people who have been unemployed for long periods or who have never worked, 
• people who have been in part-time employment or on fixed-term contracts where the 
entitlement conditions were not met. 
These groups can, therefore, be found among minimum income recipients. Given the minimum 
age requirement also existing in eight Member States, some young people find themselves 
unable to obtain any sort of economic support. 
A number of Member States, Austria, Germany, Spain, Finland, France, Portugal and Sweden 
have an assistance-based unemployment benefit which can be claimed when entitlement to 
insurance-based benefit ceases, generally at a lower level and subject to specific national 
conditions. However, one must have received the former to qualify for the latter; the categories 
mentioned above are still not eligible. This can represent an obstacle to job seeking where those 
under minimum income do not have the same access to general employment-related measures 
as those receiving unemployment benefits(cf.III-l). Ireland, the UK, Denmark and Luxembourg 
operate only two types of benefits for those seeking work, one contribution based, the other 
one income-based. They both give the same access to general employment-related measures 
An important side effect to note is that moving from unemployment benefits to minimum 
incomes often implies a shift in responsibilities from national budgets to regional and/or local 
budgets. This increases the pressure on those local economies which are suffering the highest 
unemployment. 
II - 4. Obstacles preventing exit from the schemes 
Labour market insecurities and complex benefit arrangements may contribute to the 
difficulties in leaving the schemes. 
-3 Except in Ireland, however, where the Unemployment Benefit is barely higher than the SWA and in the UK where the 
income-based JSA is at the same level as the income support. 
People will be willing to leave minimum income schemes when income from other benefits or 
employment can be expected to produce more than the maximum amounts set for minimum 
incomes. Obstacles they meet may be personal but may also be linked to the functioning of the 
schemes. 
II - 4.1 The risk of benefit traps 
Minimum income may complement other benefits when payments made are lower than their 
maximum amounts. In addition to the unemployment benefits mentioned above, minimum 
incomes can also top up disability, illness or retirement benefits (table 4). Breaking free from 
minimum income schemes, therefore, depends on decisions taken in the implementation of the 
other benefits. 
Minimum income can also operate with associated benefits and services which tend to 
multiply administrative procedures and eligibility conditions. Claimants who, because of their 
situation, have more problems in adapting are less likely to be able to address this 
administrative complexity easily. When they persist with their claim it is because they hope to 
get more security It is not surprising that they then may feel reluctant to leave such schemes 
for employment if the jobs offered are insecure, and the way back to minimum income coverage 
is administratively daunting. 
Also, minimum income recipients do not always get active support to find jobs and training, 
bringing another disincentive into the process. Several Member States' contributions to this 
report show that staff at local level are often over-stretched just in the processing of work and 
that not enough time is available to devote to integration and employment measures. All of this 
means that there is still much progress to be made in meeting the simplification requirement of 
the Recommendation (Section C-6), to make systems more effective, and to put into practice 
the Member States' objective in the active social and labour market policy field. 
U - 4.2 Finding a job is not always enough 
livery Member State has a share of recipients who are in active employment when they claim 
minimum income. This is the case for half the recipients in Sweden, 20% of whom work full-
time, 13% in France, the Netherlands and Finland, 8% in Luxembourg, 7.4% in Germany and 
5,3% in Portugal(table 4). This phenomenon has not previously been so evident in the Member 
States. Its growth is also related to the increase in part-time and atypical work. 
In response to these new situations and to facilitate the move into employment without income 
loss, Member States are trying to include in their schemes various formulae, either permanent 
or temporary, for minimum incomes to supplement wages (detail in chap.III.3.2.2). This new 
flexibility may also have the effect of increasing the number of beneficiaries. 
Ill - Pathways to employment 
The "availability for work" criterion included in national provisions24 has taken on renewed 
significance with the economic and budgetary constraints the Member States have been facing 
since the 1980s. Provisions now refer to being actively available, and the concept of "suitable" 
or "appropriate" jobs has been loosened. However, few minimum income recipients find a job 
either on their own or after referral to general training and employment measures. Member 
-4 Except in France. 
11 
States are seeking to improve these results and better target the limited resources available on 
those who need them most. 
This section does not examine the employment measures common to all job seekers, but looks 
at the specific steps involved in moving from minimum income to employment, the way 
Member States approach this issue (Recommendation, Sect.C-5) and the quality of jobs the 
recipients can expect to obtain. 
Ill - /. What should be expected from the employment services? 
That they co-ordinate their action with the services administering minimum income schemes 
and cater more for their recipients than in the past. 
As the main route back to the labour market, minimum income recipients who are available for 
work register with the employment agencies25. In principle, this enables them to be treated on 
an equal footing with others. 
In most countries, the shift from unemployment benefit to minimum income also means a 
change in the administration and delivery of benefits. Social services care for minimum income 
beneficiaries, rather than employment services. These services often operate separately. Social 
services have traditionally not seen their work in terms of addressing unemployment, but have 
considered it as only one among many difficulties faced by their clients. But, in some Member 
States they have gradually been called upon to play an increasingly active role in this field. This 
does not mean replacing employment agencies, but undertaking specific activities relating to the 
labour market. 
Some Member States, aware that this separation may not be helpful to the employment 
prospects of minimum income recipients are attempting to bring social and employment 
services closer. A first step involves including recipients in the target groups for employment 
measures along with the long-term unemployed (as in Belgium, France, Germany, Portugal, for 
example). It is also de facto the situation in Ireland and the UK where both groups of job 
seekers receive the same benefits. In Germany, up to 20% of participants in the employment 
support programme for the long-term unemployed can be recipients of the Sozialhilfe1{\ 
Portugal has also re-categorised Rendimento minima garantido recipients as a priority target 
group for measures financed by the European Social Fund. 
Another step, more difficult and longer term, involves focusing employment services more 
strongly on those facing the greatest difficulties, and developing partnerships with the services 
administering minimum income schemes to help to do so. In Belgium, public social welfare 
centres often work in partnership with training and employment services. France has put 
emphasis on re-channelling the resources of national employment agencies towards groups in 
greatest difficulty. In Germany a guidebook27 was published in 1998 by the Federal Authority 
for Employment and the Federal Union of local authorities to encourage co-operation between 
employment and social services in favour of Sozialhilfe recipients. 
-^ Compulsory in some Member States. 
26"Aklion Beschalligungshillen filr Lang/eitarbeillose 1995 bis 1999", 10-02-1995 
-' "Leitladen fur So/ialhiltetrager und Arbeitsamter zur beruflichen Eingliederung Arbeitsloser", Bundesanstall fur Arbeit 
und Ikmdesvereinigung der Kommunalen Spitzenverbiinde; Nurnberg/Kôln, Mârz 1998 
12 
In the Netherlands, public employment services focus effort on people who are most difficult to 
place. People are identified in co-operation with the local authorities in charge of the social 
services. By 2001, public employment services, social assistance offices and social executive 
agencies will merge into « one-stop-shop » front offices for all job seekers and benefit 
claimants, the Centres for Work and Income2* In the UK Benefits Agency staff are generally 
located with the Employment services, which are responsible for Jobseeker's Allowance 
recipients2'' The role of the Employment services has been reinforced. They contract with a 
wide range of local partners to deliver the New Deals for job seekers. 
Greater co-ordination between services tends to bring methods more closely in line with 
objectives, combining standardised administrative approaches with more personal support and 
counselling, as with the individual pathways to integration referred to below (chapter IV). 
Ill - 2. How to improve employability? 
Strong competition and lack of basic skills and competences prevent people from participating 
in general training programmes. Specific measures help to improve their employabiliiy and 
may help to compensate for educational and training deficiencies. 
ill- 2.1 Improving skills and competences 
Only a small percentage of minimum income recipients (table 5) take up training or a work 
placement. Quite apart from budget constraints, even if benefit recipients do have access to 
standard training measures, they often lack the basic skills and competences to fulfil entry 
requirements or to take full advantage of such training measures. 
Denmark has passed the Lov om Kommunal Aktivering30, under which local authorities are 
obliged to set up remedial education schemes (20% of participants in activation measures) and 
work training placements (60%). In the UK, during the 4 month "Gateway" period preceding 
the New Deal for the unemployed, help with basic skills can be provided by local partners. New 
Deal participants without National Vocational Qualification level 23i can be offered full-time 
education or training for up to 12 months. Sweden has a national education and training policy, 
the multi-annual "Adult Education Initiative" (1997-2002) and associated "employability 
institutes" (AMI). The compensatory education offered is however available in priority to 
people who have successfully completed compulsory secondary education. 
However the specific training courses involved tend to be restricted, of short duration and with 
a low take-up rate. These problems stem not only from budgetary constraints but more broadly 
from the absence of clear strategies to address the shortcomings of national education systems 
Training can be combined with work placements, which also tend to be of short duration. They 
are accompanied by financial compensation for employers (for example in Germany. 
Luxembourg, Belgium, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom). Germany has developed a 
tripartite (employee, employer, public employment service) integration agreement for the long-
term unemployed incorporating guaranteed training, the costs of which are covered by the 
-" SZW, ministry of social Affairs and employment, "The other face of the Netherlands, about preventing and combating 
hidden poverty and social exclusion'", progress report, April 1997 
-y People with specific social problems cans be referred to social services which remain separate 
30 replaced by the Lov om Aktiv Social-politik on 01-07-98 
3 ' follows compulsory secondary education 
13 
public employment service. Within the British New Deal for young people, employers sign 
quality commitments concerning in particular the training offered. 
Ill - 2.2 Specific measures as temporary solutions 
Nine Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom) have set up measures with the ultimate (often 
long-term) objective of reintegration into the labour market. Most Member States reserve them 
for recipients who are required to be available for work. Some Member States give access to 
them not only to those required to be available for work but also to some exempted groups 
such as single-parent families or older recipients (Denmark, Luxembourg and the 
Netherlands32). France and Portugal present them as possible options for all beneficiaries. 
Ill -2.2.1 Incentives for voluntary activities 
In these nine Member States, activities which are publicly useful are proposed as specific 
measures particularly by local authorities, in sectors such as public buildings and amenities 
maintenance, environmental improvement, services for local communities and hospitals. 
Participants receive a supplement to the minimum income in the form of a bonus or 
reimbursement of expenses. 
These measures avoid complete inactivity and reduce social exclusion. They also help people 
not capable of easily taking on the constraints of open employment. However, these measures 
do not reflect real labour market conditions in the nature of the work or the conditions of 
employment. The participants remain dependent on social welfare benefits and they cannot 
acquire insurance-based social protection entitlements such as pension and unemployment 
rights, except the non-contributory minima which exist in some Member States: As a result, 
these measures remain of limited use. They are marginal in France and they are being phased 
out in Germany and Luxembourg in favour of subsidised jobs in the non-profit sector. 
Ill -2.2.2 Subsidised jobs in the non-profit sector 
This option is the most favoured in those Member States where it exists. Local authorities are 
directly involved in job creation, particularly in the social economy sectors, local and public 
services and in some cases are themselves employers. The jobs are close in content to those 
described in section 2.2.1 but are better structured and often supported by employment 
contracts. Social security contributions are deducted, giving insurance-based social protection 
entitlements. 
These kinds of jobs include: 
- in Spain, the empleo social, 
- in Belgium, recruitment by the public social welfare centres of Minimex recipients who are 
then made available to work for local communities or NGOs; 
- in Germany, job creation by the municipalities, particularly for young people, under the Hilfe 
zur Arbeit programme; 
- in France, the contracts emploi solidarité (CES33) and emploi consolidé (CEC), for which 
RMI recipients are amongst the priority groups; 
- in Denmark, job training with public employers; 
- in Luxembourg, Affectations temporaires indemnisées, 
- in Ireland, the Community Employment Programmes; 
3- I,one-parent families, persons aged over 57/4, persons nol able to work for social or medical reasons 
- -' They cover '10% of Ihe labour market integration of RMI récipients. RMI recipients represent 30% of the signed CMS. 
14 
- and in the Netherlands, the Hanenpool (Job Pools) and Melkert experiments. 
The development of these measures places heavy demands on local authorities, forcing some 
Member States to reconsider the distribution of funds, staff and responsibilities. On the 
question of financing, the situation differs between Member States. In Luxembourg, Portugal 
and France34 budgets are national but their management is decentralised. In Sweden and 
Germany the local authorities have to foot the bill for all the costs of the minimum income 
schemes. In the other Member States, costs are shared between local and national authorities. 
However, finance is not the only question. A further consideration is whether local authorities 
have the staff and expertise to organise this activity effectively. 
Most jobs offered are of minimal quality, low paid, part-time, short-term, with little guarantee 
of renewal. Few last more than one year35. People hired on this basis do not always gain real 
work experience of use in a subsequent job. They still have problems finding their way back 
into the labour market on any kind of permanent basis. In the Netherlands in 1996, 6% of those 
in subsidised employment found a regular job, 16 % in Luxembourg in 1995. In France in 1996, 
27 % of those entered into RM1 schemes had found a job a year later. 44% were on assisted 
contracts36, with three-quarters of these having to accept part-time employment while waiting 
for a full-time opportunity. 
Ill - 3. Access to the labour market 
There are few measures for minimum income recipients. Member States are paying special 
attention to easing the transition to paid jobs in order to avoid income loss. 
Ill -3.1 Access to companies 
There are various measures offering incentives to employers. The most common are grants or 
a reduction in social security contributions within a framework of fixed-term contracts. Most 
Member States have made use of such measures without targeting minimum income recipients 
specifically. Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and the UK give 
incentives to employers to take on minimum income recipients. 
Measures are included to minimise the risk of employers substituting subsidised workers for 
existing staff. They encourage employers to keep on employees after the subsidised periods 
{contra/s-types in Luxembourg, tripartite agreements in Germany, agreements to meet quality 
criteria of the New Deal options in the UK, contrats initiative emploi, CIE, in France) 
Experience shows that employers are, on the whole, not well disposed to taking on the people 
who are brought to them in such arrangements. Yet, particularly because of pre-selection by 
employers before they start, the proportion of those who subsequently find a regular job is 
higher than with the previously-described options. It would be useful in future to evaluate the 
quality of the jobs offered. 
Apart from financial incentives, several Member States are trying to draw on the social 
responsibilities of companies and employees. Denmark organised a national and European 
conference on this subject in 199737. In France and Portugal employers and trade unions are 
-*4 Furthermore each Département has to use 20% of ils RM1 budget for specific integration measures (on he.illh. 
housing,...) which can complement the subsidised work contracts. 
• •* Kxcept lor instance, Ireland where those who are over .15 years and are difficult to place can be offered three year 
contracts, and France where CEC can be renewed for a maximal period of five years. 
-*6 Including subsidies to companies mentioned in section Hl-3. 
37 "A new partnership for social cohesion", Copenhagen, June 1997 
15 
brought together in local commissions for integration, designed to help create new employment 
opportunities at local levels. In Belgium the public social welfare centres (CPAS) seek 
partnerships with employers. 
A further option has recently been opened to minimum income recipients in France, Ireland, 
Spain and Portugal, that of assistance with creating one's own job or setting up a company. 
Specific subsidies are also given to set up entreprises d'insertion, undertakings which welcome 
and employ people with difficulties who are particularly vulnerable in labour market terms. 
Ill- 3.2 Financial incentives for returning to work 
When comparing net minimum income replacement rates against average wages38, the 
economic incentive to find work is, generally preserved in the case of people living alone. They 
account for almost half of minimum income recipients in the Union. In the case of couples with 
two children where only one parent is working, the replacement rates are significantly higher. 
However, replacement rates are lower in the case of both parents working, which is a very 
common situation in the Nordic countries and is becoming increasingly commonplace in the rest 
of the Union. Replacement rates for single-parent families have been somewhat underestimated 
as they do not take account of child-minding costs, which is a key factor when taking up a job. 
The comparison between minimum incomes and minimum wages39 is a topic of debate in 
several Member States. It would be useful to estimate in future the replacement rates against 
the statutory minimum wages40 as there is a high probability that the wages available to 
someone leaving minimum income schemes will be at this level. 
Ill - 3.2.1 Adjusting minimum income rates 
As an incentive measure to stimulate job search, Member States could, in principle, reduce 
minimum income rates. They do not do so because the rates are seen as minimum subsistence 
levels and decreases would be difficult to justify. Member States have, however, reinforced 
penalties for people in receipt of benefit who turn down a job or refuse to participate in 
integration measures. Benefits may be suspended for a few months, and the suspension 
extended in the event of a further refusal (as in Belgium, Spain, France, Luxembourg and 
Portugal) or the amount reduced (by 20% - 25% in Denmark, Germany, Finland; 15, 20 then 
100 % in the Netherlands; 40% of the personal allowance in the United Kingdom). It is usually 
possible to appeal against such a decision. There are few statistics available on the actual 
application of penalties (2.1% of the recipients in Portugal, 2.8% in Luxembourg, 5% of the 
signed contrats d'insertion in France). 
YU-3.2.2Smoothing the transition from minimum income to a paid job 
To ease transition from minimum income to a paid job, six Member States (Belgium, Denmark, 
France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands) have transitional periods (one to three years) during 
which minimum income can be used wholly or partly41 to top-up wages. Ireland and the 
Netherlands do so with the aim of encouraging part-time work42. Luxembourg indefinitely 
3X Or two third of these wages, family and housing allowances included; table 3.4 p.35 in "Social benefits and work 
incentives" , OI-CI), 1998 edition 
39 They exist in six Member States. 
4() On full time basis 
4' Sometimes in a degressive way 
4- NL for (hose over 57,5 and single-parent families with children under 5; 
IRL: concerns Unemployment Assistance and Lone Parents Assistance. 
disregards earnings up to a limit of 20% of the overall guaranteed income. Ireland and the UK 
allow minimum income to be claimed by people working up to 30 and 16 hours per week 
respectively43. Beyond these limits they have opted for a system of in-work benefits applicable 
only to families with children44. Only some Autonomous Communities in Spain have maintained 
a strict ban on receiving minimum income and being paid for work. 
The approach could be extended to associated benefits, as is the case for housing support in 
Ireland and the UK. Minimum income recipients would then have stronger positive incentives 
to take advantage of the possibility of employment. As yet, few Member States follow this path, 
perhaps because the complexity of the process and allocation of responsibilities at different 
administrative levels tend to slow progress. 
The effectiveness of such measures depends on ensuring appropriate connections between 
labour law, social protection, training and active labour market measures and tax systems. In 
line with the Commission White paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment45, 
Member States have taken steps to lower non wage labour costs for lower skilled workers. 
Furthermore Member States have now agreed upon a specific Employment Guideline46 aiming 
at reviewing and refocusing benefit and tax systems and providing incentives for unemployed or 
inactive people to seek and take up work or training opportunities. 
IV. A step further; individual pathways to integration 
Only a minority of recipients are able to leave minimum income schemes for a paid job. To 
achieve better results, a new approach is being developed based on individual contracts by 
which signatories commit themselves to personal projects. 
In the Member States with statistics on this issue (Table 5), the proportions moving off 
minimum income schemes annually ranged from 6% to 33 %. Those concerned did not 
necessarily find a job and where they did (13% in the Netherlands, two-thirds in France of those 
leaving the schemes), it is difficult to assess how permanent those jobs were. 
Member States have begun to investigate other avenues of social integration, to address the 
complexity of institutional and personal barriers to integration faced by people. For example, 
minimum income recipients may have difficulties in relation to family environment, education 
and housing, which might jeopardise their chances of finding and keeping a job. 
Social workers, often the main point of contact for minimum income recipients, observe a 
general difficulty in planning ahead and getting to grips with constantly changing training and 
employment measures. To remedy this problem, advice and services have been developed to 
help overcome disruptions and to enable people to operate on time scales more compatible with 
the pace of personal development. 
Tailor-made action plans are designed to facilitate a consistent approach over a period of time, 
taking into account the family and social environment. This may include, for example, seeking 
43 Under standard minimum income rules. 
44 A pilot "top-up earnings" scheme for others is on trial in the UK. In Ireland, the Back-to-Work Allowance, a three-year 
degressive support, is provided for newly-created additional jobs or for those who become self-employed. In-work 
benefits include housing costs. 
45 COM (93) 700 final 
46 Guideline 4 in European Employment Guidelines, COM(98) 574 final for 1999 
17 
more social autonomy (language courses, driving lessons, detoxification treatment), improving 
the family situation (children's education, reducing debts), participating in local self-help 
schemes, improving housing or training, learning about rights and duties as citizens. 
Employment remains, in most cases, the final objective. 
Member States have made varying amounts of progress in this area, for example: 
- in Finland, since March 1998, compulsory individual plans for those rejecting a job offer; 
- in Germany, the Gesamtplan provided for by the Sozialhilfe Act (§19 (4)); 
- in Denmark, the individuel handlingsplan which the local authorities are obliged to organise 
for Social Bistand recipients aged over 25; 
- the Dutch weg naar de arbeids markt for the long-term unemployed which comprises 
agreements relating to social integration, education and training; 
- the British "Jobseeker's Agreement" which is a condition of entitlement for the JSA and is 
reviewed fortnightly. It sets out the range of jobs which the job seeker is available for and the 
steps he/she agrees to take to find work. 
Other Member States have developed the pathway approach as a mutual undertaking which not 
only restores to minimum income recipients responsibility for their future, but also specifies the 
way the social and employment services should help to achieve his/her objectives. Also, in 
France and Portugal, these mutual undertakings formally involve local communities represented 
within specific integration committees which co-sign the commitments. 
These commitments correspond to the Belgian contrat d'intégration, the French con/rat 
d'insertion, the projet d'insertion in Luxembourg, the Spanish proyecto de integraciôn and the 
Portuguese acordo de inserçâo. They are essentially seen guidelines used by social workers on 
a discretionary basis. They cover about 15 % of the recipients in Belgium, 22%» in Portugal and 
28 % in France. These commitments are not direct employment contracts. Employment is one 
component among others in the overall objective of social integration. For instance in Portugal 
one out of five accorda de inserçâo deals with education, health and/or social support and one 
out of ten covers housing. 
V. Perspectives, sufficient resources and assistance as a starting point for social and 
economic integration 
In the Recommendation the Council had advocated the need "to recognise the basic right of a 
person to sufficient resources and social assistance to live in a manner compatible with human 
dignity as part of a comprehensive and consistent drive to combat social exclusion". Minimum 
income schemes respond to this in two ways. Firstly, they are the final safety net mechanism of 
income redistribution, and are vital at times of economic crisis and increased risk of poverty. 
Secondly, owing to the associated benefits and services, they constitute an anchor point on 
which to base social and economic reintegration of their recipients. 
The Council Recommendation has helped to organise and stimulate the debate between 
Member States. National schemes are converging in their scope and eligibility provisions. 
However, notable differences remain in the position of the schemes within social protection 
systems, their links with other parts of the structure of social and employment support, and the 
means of their implementation, such as guaranteed support levels and conditions for associated 
benefits and services. 
For the poorest people, reintegration into general (insurance-based) social security systems 
often means going back to a regular job. Only a minority of minimum income recipients can 
currently expect to do this. Most jobs offered are temporary solutions. The borderline between 
minimum incomes and wages is becoming blurred. The development of part-time and short-
term jobs has contributed to this. It is also possible that expanding the scope for minimum 
incomes to top-tip wages help a wider emergence of these new types of employment On the 
other hand one might wonder whether minimum incomes are the most appropriate instruments 
to support people in part-time and low-paid work. 
Given labour market insecurities, generating sustainable employment opportunities for 
minimum income recipients requires perseverance. Member States are committed to this in 
varying degrees. Initiatives taken include job creation in the non-profit sector, mobilising 
employment services and smoothing the transition between minimum incomes and wages 
without income losses. The individual agreements or contracts implemented in several Member 
States reinforce these processes by linking employment to a wider vision of social integration, 
and by more actively involving minimum income recipients. 
To continue working with the Member States with a view to improving the situation of the 
beneficiaries of schemes falling under the Recommendation, the Commission proposes to 
further develop the following questions: 
Optimise the social protection given 
- how to better cover essential needs and take into account associated benefits (housing, health, 
family, etc)? 
- can there be more consistency between social minima and other social benefits, in particular 
those related to unemployment and retirement? 
- to what extent can these schemes be used to top up wages? 
- how can the functioning of the schemes be improved for the benefit of their users? 
Increase the access to employment 
- how can we help recipients to better participate in general training and employment measures? 
- is it necessary to implement specific measures, if so, for what reasons and of what type? 
- what are the best ways to facilitate the transition to wages without income losses ? 
- can we improve the quality of employment offered and available to the recipients ? 
These questions should be addressed in conjunction with the European guidelines for 
employment and the national action plans. 
Develop social and economic integration 
- what are the rights and responsibilities of the recipients and their dependents? 
- how can co-ordinated responses to the multiple social and economic problems faced by the 
recipients be organised? 
- what does the rise in numbers of recipients of minimum incomes reveal about the way our 
social and economic policies are working to promote their stated objectives of social 
participation and cohesion? What solutions should we look for to improve social inclusion? 
The Commission also wishes to open the discussion to social partners, NGOs and other civil 
society organisations as major stakeholders in social and economic inclusion policies. The 
discussions which will be held and the orientations which can be drawn from them will 
contribute to preparing the implementation of the new Article 118 of the future Treaty (Article 
137 of the consolidated version). 
19 
Tabic 
National Minimum Income schemes, main associated benefits and services 
Basic scheme Main associated benefits and services 
Austria Sozialhilfe Housing benefit; suitable accommodation which is not covered by the 
standard rates of benefit are met by means of additional cash or non-cash 
benefits. Illness or health insurance. 
Belgium Minimexfminimum de 
moyens d'existence) -
Minimum inkomen In principle, Minimex covers all necessary costs. However, one-off 
payments may be issued at the discretion of local welfare offices. Main 
payments arc for e.g. housing and housing-related costs, medical costs, 
utilities arrears. 
Denmark Social Bistond Housing benefit. Education benefits for students living at or away from 
home. 
Finland Toimeentnlotuki Housing benefit. The Additional part of the living allowance' (for some 
discretionary expenses) covers especially high health care expenses of 
public health services, children's day care costs and especially high costs 
of work-related necessities. 
rai ice Revenu Minimum 
d 'Insertion - KM I Maximum housing allowance for tenants; exemption from housing lax. 
Free medical assistance. Within the Integration Contract, various means 
are put at the disposal of recipients. 
Germany Sozialhilfe Housing benefit. Health insurance or illness-related expenses. Education 
allowance; aid for exceptional cases. 
Ireland Supplementary 
Welfare Allowance 
Unemployment 
Assistance Housing benefit. Allowance for clothing and footwear for school-age 
children. Benefits in kind for bedding, fuel and other essential household 
equipment. 
Luxembourg Revenu Minimum 
Garanti - RMG Housing benefit. Free medical insurance. 
Netherlands Algemene Hijstand Housing benefit. Free medical insurance. 
Portugal Rendimento Minimo 
Garantido (RMG) Housing benefit. Medical costs (for certain categories), education grants. 
subsidised public transport. 
Spain Renta Minima Emergency social aid (housing, appliances, furniture). 
Housing benefit; allowance for single-parent families Sweden 
United 
Kingdom Socialbidrag 
Income Support 
Income-based Job 
seekers A llowance Housing benefit; denial treatment, subsidised glasses, fabric supports, 
milk and vitamins for children < 5 and pregnant women, school meals. 
Help with maternity and funeral payments. Cold Weather Payment for 
pensioners, disabled ,those with child < 5; local tax allowance. 
Minimum income recipients benefit from general national provisions relating to healthcare, education and 
family assistance. The above table only states services and allowances over and above the standard national 
provisions. Employment and training provisions are treated directly in the text of this report. 
References: 
-Pierre Guibentif, Denis Bouget, "Minimum income policies in the European Union'', Lisbon 1997. 
-National answers to 1996 Commission questionnaire on Guaranteed Minimum Income. 
-European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions, "Report on GMI development in EU Member 
States in 1992-1997". December 1997, Matti Heikkila, Darren McCausland. 
-OECE), "Social Assistance in OECD countries: country reports", 1996 
20 
Table 2 
Levels of Support provided by Minimum Incomes, Family and Housing benefits 
1995, expressed in purchasing power parities 
Member Slates A47 B D Dk E48 F Fin Irl 
49 L Nl p50 S UK 
51 
Single - no children 
Net overall support 
Housing benefit 
% 483 
27 499 
0 661 
36. 561 
9 304 
0 481 
40 644 
40 384 
0 808 
14 734 
21 221 
21 625 
7 661 
56 
Couple - 2 children 
Ncl overall support 
Housing benefit 
<»/ 
Family benefit 
% 1082 
15 
23 926 
0 
28 1230 
29 
7 1431 
0 
11 565 
0 
8 858 
31 
II 1266 
20 
14 852 
0 
9 1519 
7 
14 1090 
14 
10 654 
10 
10 1207 
14 
13 1094 
34 
11 
Single-parent family - 2 children 
Net overall support 
Housing benefit 
% 
Family benefit 
% 903 
18 
28 926 
0 
28 895 
34 
13 1007 
11 
26 504 
0 
10 760 
35 
12 1050 
24 
42 837 
0 
9 145 
10 
18 1006 
16 
11 476 
13 
13 994 
18 
14 960 
38 
16 
I lousing and family benefits are staled as percentages of the net overall minimum income support; a zero % means there is 
no separate housing benefit; it implies that the cost of housing should be covered by minimum incomes, figures shown are 
net aller taxes. Benefits are subject to taxes (income taxes and local taxes) in Dk, L, NL and tJK. 
References: 
- figures modelled on (he basis of OECD database on faxes. Benefits and Incentives; 
Internet : http://www.oecd.org/els.socpol/benefitscompendium/index.htni. 
- Purchasing power parities-Eurostat : Statistics in Brief- Economy and Finance, 1995/2. Each amount in a national 
currency is converted to common value reference, the PPA which makes it possible to purchase the same quantity of goods 
and services in each Member State for any one given year. 
47 Average of the 9 existing Sozialhilfe schemes (1 for each Bundesland). A very approximate amount of housing 
benefit has been included. It is not possible to estimate an actual amount because housing benefit varies greatly depending 
on individual circumstances. 
48 In each family Renta Minima and Family Benefits are taxable but none is paid by recipients as the amount of benefits 
does not exceed Tax Credits. 
3 Housing Benefit not included as data unavailable. Relatively few Supplementary Welfare Allowance recipients receive 
Housing Benefit. Lone-Parent Allowance, which comprises 68% of overall support is taxable but none is paid bv 
recipients as the amount does not exceed the Tax Free Allowance. 
50 |(^7 ^(j, [jIs( yCar 0f "RMG" implementation. 
• ' Income Support is taxable (partly taxable for Couple + 2 and Single + 2) but none is paid by recipients because the 
amount does not exceed 'fax Free Allowances. The small amount of tax which the table shows to be paid in the I !K is for 
a "local tax". However, this is balanced by a local tax benefit which is paid to minimum income recipients, therefore, 
actually no tax is paid. o i 
Table 3 
Characteristics of Minimum Income recipients 
% of recipients 
Persons living 
alone (m/f) 
Single-parent 
families (m/f) 
Couples with 
children 
No. of 
recipients 
Change since 
1990 % 
Total 
population 
covered 
Age 
Distribution B 
1997 
54 
19 
9,2 
80 020 
+ 62 
126 000 
(est.) 
27%<25 y 
51%<35v DK 
1994 
40.6 
25.3/15.3 
11.5 
1/10.5 
32.5 
290 000 
-16 
50% 
< 30 v D 
1996 
51,6 
22,7 
14 
1 377 945 
+ 11 
(/1995) 
2.688 805 
73% 
< 40 v E 
1997 
22 a 30 
35 a 40 
63 714 
+26 
(95 97) 
186 568 
2/3 
<45 v FI 
1994 
61,4 
36,9/24,5 
10,5 
1,3/9,2 • 
15,8 
339 020 
(1995) 
+ 87 
584 100 
(1995) 
2/3 
<30v FR 
1996 
1010 472 
+ 98 Irl 1997 
SWA 
72.8 
18 279 
r 604 
70% 
<39v U.A. 
159 777 
+ 14 
53 % 
<35v L 
1994 
66,5 
19,5 
8,2 
4622 
+ 73 
( 1986) 
6 804 
54% 
<40v NL 
1995 
57,6 
23,6 
11,8 
493 000 
-7 
60% 
<40v P 
1996 
9 
21,9 
89 937 
283 433 
51% 
<25v s 
1994 
61.5 
39 22,5 
r;2 
1.9 15,3 
15,6 
715 000 
+ 8 
(93 94) UK 
I.S. 
59 
27 
5 
4103000 
* 
9%< 25 v 
43% >60 v 1997 
JSA 
78 
1 
15 
1097000 
29 < 25y 
13>50v 
Recipients correspond to actual households as defined within each national scheme including all possible household compositions (a single person or a recipient and dependents, children and/or 
adults of the same family). The total population covered is generally estimated from the recipients" statements. 
R.eference : Pierre Guibentif - Denis Bouget, "Minimum Income policies in the European Union'', 1997 ; with the following additional references: 
B : Situation on January 97; les bénéficiaires du minimex en Belgique, 1990-1997 , Le Secrétaire d'Etat à l'intégration sociale, Jan Peeters; 
D : Situation on 31-12-96;; Sozialhilfe Statistisches Bundesamt ; 
Dk : Susanna Brogaard and Hanne Weise:: Evaluering afLov ont kommunal aktivering 1997: 
E : % vary according to Spanish Autonomous Communities; Fundacion Argentaria, 1995; 
F : Situation or, 31.12 96 , including overseas departments (DMO) which represent about 16% of total ; DIRMI/CAF, June 1997; 
P : Situation on 3 j -08-98; 
ERL : Situation on 31-12-97; SWA = Supplementary Welfare Allowance; the annual flow is higher ( 73 554 recipients in 1997) ; U.A. = Unemployment Assistance; 
L : 3rd GMI report of the Conseil Supérieur de I action sociale to the Chamber of Deputies, July 1996; data FNS/CDP Dec. 1994; 
ML : Data for recipients ranging from 18 to 64 years of age; 
UK: IS = Income support; JSA = income-based Jobseekers allowance; Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, Nov 97; Northern Ireland: Income support 100%) census, JSA 20% sample. Data rounded to 
nearest thousand; * Number of IS recipients increased by 36 % over period 1990/95 From October 1996, JSA replaced IS where it was paid to unemployed people. 
22 
Tabic 4 
The situation of minimum income claimants with regard to employment 
% of total claimants 
B 
D 
E 
Fin 
F 
lrl 
I, 
P 
S 
UK Employment 
2.8 
7.4 
very little 
III 
13 
not available 
8 
5.3 
50, of which 
20 full time 
not available Job seekers 
Paid 
7 
14.3 Unpaid 
30.1 
20.9 
1 xmg-term unemployed 
54.3 
13.8 Very little 
41.2 
90 
31 
86.2 
4 x national average 
21,1 (JSA) Training 
3.8 
(students) 
' 5.3 
slight 
6 
not available Other 
56.3 of which 10.8 family break-up, 9.6 
supplement to other benefits, 
2.9 disability/illness 
62.1 of which 14.8 family dependents; 7.1 
disability/illness; 1.4 retired persons 
Single-parent families 
76.7 supplement to other benefits 
26 
10 of which 2.6 disability/illness; 1.6 refugees 
51 of which 26 disability/illness, 18 spouse at 
home, 8 over 60 years old 
5 retired persons, 2.8 disability/illness, 0.7 
support of household 
33 disability/illness 
78.4 of which 34.1 retired, 19.5 single-parent 
families, 17.3 disability/illness 
nb: il is possible for a minimum income claimant to receive several other social benefits. 
References: 
National replies to 1997 Commission questionnaire with the following additional references:. 
B when claiming Minimex status; Enquête sur l'accroissement du nombre des demandes en vue de l'obtention du 
minimex. Union des villes et communes belges, section ('PAS; data for year 1994. 
D: situation on 31-12-1996 for persons 15 to 65 years old; Sozialhilfe Statistisches Bundesamt. 
E: Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos sociales, "Las rentas minimas de insercion ", origen, modelos y aplicacion en las 
Comunidades autonomas, 05-1997. 
F: when claiming RMI, Isa Aldeghi, Les nouveaux arrivants au revenu minimum d'insertion, enquête RMI 900 - CREDOC-
D1RMI1996, CREDOC, nov. 1996 
IRL: Supplementary Welfare Allowance + Unemployment Assistance ; Statistical information on Social Welfare Services-
Department of Social Community and Family Affairs - 1997. 
L: situation at the time of request; Rapport d'activité 1995 du Service Nationale d'Action Sociale 
P: Results for the trial period 1-7-96/ 31-10-97; 17 960 households received the "RMG" during this period. 11 482 households 
still received it on 30-07-97. 
S: Reply to 1996 questionnaire, data dated 1994. 
UK: Income Support + income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, Nov. 97; 
Northern Ireland: Income support 100% census, JSA 20% sample. 
23 
Table 5 
Results achieved by socio-economic integration measures 
% of total recipients 
Dk 
D 
E 
Fr 
L 
Nl 
P "Active" 
49 
8.4 
100 
in theory 
>28 
12.0 
21.8 No longer 
receiving 
min.income 
20 a 30 
33 
6.0 in 96 
32.9 employment 
15 
13 
empleo social 
27 
4.7 
11.6 
9.7 Unpaid work 
not available 
3.9 
not available Training 
34 
not 
available 
6 
3.5 
0.6 
21.5 Other 
50 in supplement to other 
benefits 
0.05 proyectos de inte-
gracion social (healthcare, 
children's education, ...) 
47 job seekers, 5 other 
79.5 exempt from MSC 
18.8 of which 4 have 
moved abroad, 4 marriages 
18.6, health ;' 23.7, social 
support; 7.8, housing 
« active »_= recipients who are engaged in active measures. 
Employment = people who have found a job, assisted or unassisted 
References: 
Member States' replies to 1997 Commission questionnaire with the following additional references: 
D : Participants in Hilfe zur Arbeit programme; Breuer Wilhem Revenu minimum garanti et politiques 
d'insertion sur le marché de l'emploi, le cas de l'Allemagne ISG, Sozialforschung und Gesellschaftspolitik, 
1995, based on investigation in 1992 
E: Ministerio de Trahajo y Asunlos sociales, "Las renias ni i ni nias de insercion", origen. modelas y aplicacion 
en las ( 'omunidades autonomas, 05-1997 ; l'undacion Argentaria, "Las renias minimas de insercion en lispana: 
entre la asistencta y la insercion. provisional version May 1995; data 1993 
F: Situation one year aller their admission in RMI scheme. 28 % "active" = those having signed a contrat 
d'insertion; Isa Aldeghi, Les nouveaux arrivants au revenu minimum d'insertion, enquête RMI 900 - CREDOC-
D1RMI 1996, CREDOC, Nov. 1996 
L: On 31-12-1995: out of 7 433 recipients, 5 912 (79,5%) were exempt from Mesures sociales complémentaires 
(MSC) 56,7% non-exempt are. « active »; 3"' report of « Conseil supérieur à l'action sociale to Chamber of 
Deputies, July 1996 
NL: Data 1991. study De l'assistance nationale à l'emploi, Social Affairs and Employment Ministry, May 1994. 
In 1995 the activation measures concerned 27,5 % of total recipients. 
P: Results from period 1-7-96/31-08-98; 21,8 % "active" = those having signed an acordo de inserçao 
24 
No 1. 245/46 Official Journal of the European Communities 
COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION 
of 24 June 1992 
on common criteria concerning sufficient resources and social assistance insocial protection 
systems 
(92/441/EEC) 26. 8. 92 
nil COUNCIL Ol LIU. I UKOI'I AN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 
thereof. 
Having regard tn the proposal Ironi the Commission ('). part in the economic and social life of the society in 
which they live and to become successfully integrated 
economically and socially; whereas the right of the 
least privileged to sufficient, stable and reliable 
resources should therefore be recognized as part of a 
consistent, overall policy for supporting their 
integration; 
I l.ivii*)> regard id ilu- opinion ol the European 
Parliament ( '), 
I lavmg regard to the opinion ol the Economic and Social 
Committee ( '), 
(1) Whereas reinforcing social' cohesion within the 
Community requires the encouragement of solidarity 
with regard to the least privileged and most vulnerable 
people; 
(2) Whereas respect lor human dignity is one of rhe 
fundamental rights underlying Community law, as 
recognized in the preamble to the Single European 
Act; 
( \) Whereas social exclusion processes and risks of 
poverty have become more prevalent and more 
diversified over the last 10 years, owing primarily to a 
combination of developments in the labour market 
with, in particular, growth in long-term 
unemployment, ami in family structures with, in 
particular, an increase in social isolation; 
(•I) Whereas there is a need lor general development 
policies capable of contributing towards halting the 
perceived structural trends to he accompanied hy 
specilic, systemic and coherent integration policies; 
(5) Whereas, consequently, social policy efforts need to be 
continued, their achievements reinforced and these 
policies adapted to the multi-dimensional nature of 
social exclusion, which involves linking the various 
forms of immediate assistance needed to measures 
aiming expressly at the economic and social 
integration of the people concerned. 
(6) Whereas people with insufficient, irregular and 
uncertain resources are unable to play an adequate 
(') Of No C Iftt, 21. h. I'>9|. p I. 
(') OJ No C I SO, |S. (,. |';i>2 
(') O) No C M. .!(> I I'Wi, ,,. | (7) Whereas on 29 September 1989 the Council Jnd the 
Ministers for Social Affairs meeting within the Council 
adopted a resolution on combating social exclusion (') 
which stressed that combating social exclusion may be 
regarded as an important part of the social dimension 
of the internal market; 
(8) Whereas the Community Charter of the Fundamental 
Social Rights of Workers, adopted at the European 
Council in Strasbourg on 9 December 1989 by the 
Heads of State or Government of 11 Member States, 
states, inter alia, in its eighth recital and in points 10 
and 25: 
'Whereas, (. . .) in a spirit of solidarity, it is important 
to combat social exclusion;' 
'According to the arrangements applying in each 
country: 
10. Every worker of the European Community shall 
have a right to adequate social protection and 
shall, whatever his status and whatever the si/e 
of the undertaking in which he is employed, 
enjoy an adequate level of social security 
benefits. 
Person who have been unable either to enter or 
re-enter the labour market and have no means of 
subsistence must be able to receive sufficient 
resources and social assistance in keeping with 
their particular situation.' 
'2.5. Any person who has reached retirement age but 
who is not entitled to a pension or who does not 
have other means of subsistence, must be entitled 
to sufficient resources and to medical and social 
assistance specifically suited to his needs.'; 
('')" OJ No (."277, 31. 10.'198"». p. 1. 
'2JT 
26. 8. 92 Official Journal of the European Communities No E 2-IS/47 
(9) Whereas the Commission has included this 
fundamental aspect of the fight against social exclusion 
in its action programme relating to the implementation 
of the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social 
Rights of Workers, while noting in particular the value 
of a Community initiative, in a spirit of solidarity, to 
assist the least privileged citizens of the Community, 
including the elderly, whose situation all too often 
resembles that of persons excluded from the labour 
market; exclusion, and to adapt their social protection 
systems, as necessary, according to the principles 
and guidelines set out below, 
B. to recognize this right according to the following 
general principles: 
1. it is to be a right based on respect for human 
dignity; 
(10) Whereas the implementation of a guarantee of 
resources and social assistance comes within the sphere 
of social protection; wheseas it is for Member States to 
define, in this connection, the legal nature of the 
provisions intended to ensure this guarantee, which in 
most Member States do not come within the sphere of 
social security; the scope of that right is to be defined vis-a-uts 
individuals, having regard to legal residence and 
nationality, in accordance with the relevant 
provisions on residence, wirh the aim of 
progressively covering all exclusion situations in 
that connection as broadly as possible, in 
accordance with detailed arrangements laid 
down by the Member States; 
II) Whcic.i'. H r. importai)! lo take aciotmi (hiring the 
progressive implementation of this recommendation of 
the availability of financial resources, of national 
priorities and of balances within national social 
protection systems; whereas there are disparities in 
development between Member States as regards social 
protection; 
( 1 2) Whereas, in its resolution on combating poverty in the 
European Community ('). the European Parliament 
declared itself in favour of establishing in all the 
Member States a guaranteed minimum income to help 
ensure that the poorest citizens are integrated into 
society; 
(13) Whereas, in its opinion on poverty of 12 July i 989 (*), 
the Economic and Social Committee also 
recommended the introduction of a minimum social 
income, both to act as a safety net for the poor and to 
boost their reintegration into society; I. every person who does not have access 
individually or within the household in which he 
or she lives to sufficient resources is to have 
access to such right: 
— subject to active availability for work or for 
vocational training with a view to obtaining 
work in the case of those persons whose age, 
health and family situation permit such 
active availability, or, where appropriate, 
subject to economic and social integration 
measures in the case of other persons, and 
— without prejudice to the Member States' 
option of not extending this right to persons 
in full-time employment or to students; 
4. access is not to be subject to time limits, 
assuming compliance with the eligibility 
conditions and on the understanding that, in 
practice, the right may be granted for limited but 
renewable periods; 
( 14) Whereas this recommendation does not affect national 
and Community provisions on right of residence; 
(15) Whereas the Treaty does not, in respect of the 
attainment of these objectives, provide for any means 
of action other than those laid down in Article 235, 
I. HEREBY RECOMMENDS MEMBER STATES: 5. the right is auxiliary in relation to other social 
rights. An effort should be made in parallel to 
reintegrate the poorest people into the systems of 
general rights; 
6. it is to be accompanied by those policies deemed 
necessary, at national level, for the economic 
and social integration of those concerned, as laid 
down in the resolution of the Council and of the 
Ministers for Social Affairs, meeting within the 
Council, of 29 September 1989 on combating 
social exclusion; 
A. to recognize the basic right of a person to sufficient 
resources and social assistance to live in a manner 
compatible with human dignity as part of a 
comprehensive and consistent drive to combat social 
(') OJ No C 262, 10. 10. 1989, p. 194. 
(') OJ No C 221, 28. H. 1989, p. 10. C. to organize the implementation of this right 
according to the following practical guidelines: 
I. (a) fixing the amount of resources considered 
sufficient to cover essential needs with 
regard to respect for human dignity, taking 
'£6 
No L 245/48 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 8. 92 
account of living standards and price levels 
in the Member State concerned, for 
different types and sizes of household; 
(b) adjusting or supplementing amounts to 
meet specific needs; 
(c) in order to fix the amounts, referring to 
appropriate indicators, such as, for 
example, statistical data on the average 
disposable income in the Member State, 
statistical data on household consumption, 
the legal minimum wage if this exists or the 
level of prices; 
(d) safeguarding an incentive to seek 
employment for persons whose age and 
condition render them fit for work; 
(e) establishing arrangements for periodic 
review of these amounts, based on these 
indicators, in order that needs continue to 
be covered; 
I. granting, to people whose resources taken at the 
level of the individual or the household arc lower 
than the amounts thus fixed, adjusted or 
supplemented, differential financial aid to bring 
them up to these amounts; 
taking the necessary measures to ensure that, 
with regard to the extent of the financial support 
thus granted, the implementation of the 
regulations in force in the areas of taxation, civil 
obligations and social security takes account of 
the desirable level of sufficient resources and 
social assistance to live in a manner compatible 
with human dignity; organizing, in so far as possible and in 
accordance with national provisions, the 
machinery for appeals to independent third 
parties, such as tribunals, to which the persons 
concerned should have easy access: 
D. to guarantee these resources and benefits within the 
framework of social protection arrangements; 
to determine detailed arrangements, finance costs 
and organize their administration and 
implementation in accordance with national 
legislation and/or practice; 
E. to implement the measures laid down in this 
recommendation progressively as from now in such 
a way that a report can be drawn up after five 
years, 
— taking into account economic and budgetary 
resources as well as the priorities set by national 
authorities and balances within social protection 
systems, and 
— where appropriate, varying their scope 
according to age group or family situation; 
F. to take appropriate measures: 
—• to collect information systematically on the 
actual arrangements for access to these measures 
for the people concerned, and 
— to carry out a methodical evaluation of their 
implementation and impact; 
II AND THEREFORE ASKS THE COMMISSION: 
4. taking every measure to enable those concerned 
to receive appropriate social support, 
conio ><ng measures and services such as, in 
par:.oilar, advice and counselling, information 
au J at i»'.i nice in obtaining their rights; 
5. adopting arrangements in respect of persons 
whose age and condition render them fit for 
work, which will ensure they receive effective 
help to enter or re-enter working life, including 
training where appropriate; 1. to encourage and organize, in liaison with the 
Member States, the systematic exchange of 
information and experiences and the continuous 
evaluation of the national provisions adopted; 
2. to submit to the European Parliament, the Council 
and the Economic and Social Committee, on a 
regular basis, reports based on information supplied 
by the Member States describing the progress 
achieved and obstacles encountered in implementing 
this recommendation. 
6. taking the necessary measures to ensure that the 
least privileged are informed of this right; 
simplifying as far as possible the administrative 
procedures and arrangements for examining 
means and situations involved in claiming this 
right; Done at Luxembourg, 24. 6. 1992. 
for the Council 
The President 
José da SILVA PENEDA 
•«•«asrf 
'fâf-

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 774 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 05 04 01 17 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-774-EN-C 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg