^oC221B10 Officialjournal of the European Communities 28.8.89 
in the proposed programme, 
laydownquantifiablecriteriafor periodic assess 
ment of the progress achieved on projects, and of 
their results. 
o^^^o^o^^^^^o^^Co^^^^ 
AlD^ro^t^^O^^ 
Opinion on poverty 
(89BC221^^ 
On 2B April 1989, theEconomicandSocialCommitteedecided,inaccordancewiththe 
fourth paragraph of Article 20 of the rules of procedure and on the basis of the Information 
Report adopted by the Section for Social, Eamily, Educational and Cultural Affairs on 
9^iarchl989(^,to draw up an owndnitiative Opinion on poverty. 
The Section for Social, Eamily,Educational and Cultural Affairs,which was responsible for 
preparing the Committee'sworloon the matter, adopted its Opinion on6July!989.The 
rapporteur was ^irBurnel. 
At its 268th plenary session (meeting of 12Julyl989),the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Perms of reference 
The Opinion isalogical follow-up to the Information 
Report. The Economic and Social Committee has 
repeatedly exercised its institutional prerogative to 
commentonthemajoreconomic,socialandcultural 
problems of society.lts interest in poverty is therefore 
not newmt has always been concerned to expose blatant 
inequalities and to call for vigorous policies based on 
genuine solidarity.The Committee first used the Infer 
mation Report of the Section for Social, Eamily,Edu^ 
cational and Cultural Affairs asabasis for an Opinion 
on the Community action programme designed to foster 
the economic and social integration of the least privi 
leged groups. 
Poday, the Committee draws a political conclusion, 
neither the Information Report nor the Opinion deal 
^OD^^en^(^^r^^^ 0.0EL Inthis conte^t,the Committee wouldstress 
the need to^ 
— simplify and speed up the procedures so that small 
and medium^si^ed enterprises can participate more 
foone at Brussels, ^12 July 1989. 
with poverty in general, but essentially with situations 
of ^severe poverty.This does not narrow the Commits 
tee'sinterest. It merely shows that the Committeeis 
primarily concerned with the worseningsituationof 
the poor. 
^Ievertheless,the Committee states categorically that 
poverty ^r ^ with all its causes and all its conseD 
quences,mustbecombattedbecause it is an injustice 
which cannot be tolerated byasociety which professes 
humanist principles and values. 
Unfortunately poverty takes an ine^orablydownward 
spiral if measures are not taken to prevent and contain 
it. 
The fact that no societyhassucceededineradicating 
poverty should not lead us to regard it fatalistically as 
somethingtobe^putup with. As soon as we accept 
28. 8. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 221/11 
that progress must be shared by all and must serve the 
interests of mankind in general, greater liberty and 
justice will ensue. 
1.1. The topic to be discussed is severe poverty 
It results from three major handicaps: 
— homolessness or housing unfit for individuals or 
families, 
— lack of financial resources (primarily affecting the 
victims of long-term or recurrent unemployment), 
— lack of welfare and health protection. 
The poorest members of society have no 'safety net', 
are marginalized and are very often excluded from 
society. 
1.2. The objective is 
— to ensure that individuals and families suffering 
from severe poverty are able to once more enjoy 
their full rights as enshrined in the Universal Declar­
ation of Human Rights, e.g. freedom; justice; the 
right to work and to health care, etc. 
1.3. Action 
The Committee has given priority to three types of 
action, whilst not forgetting that there are also others 
of lasting value. 
The three priority areas are conceived in terms of 
rights: the right to education and training, the right to 
communication and information, and the right to a 
minimum guaranteed income with a view to reinte­
gration in society and working life. 
2. Preliminary remarks 
2.1. Poverty and severe poverty 
2.1.1. In 1970 and then again in 1985 the Commission 
conducted surveys to estimate the number of people 
living on incomes less than half the average income in 
their particular Member State. The surveys covered 
persons legally residing in each of the Member States 
concerned. 
According to this criterion the number of those living 
below the poverty line in the Community of Twelve is 
estimated to have gone up from 38 to 44 millions, i.e. 
from 11,8% to 14% of the population. Given the scale 
and value of these estimates, the Committee deeply 
regrets that the Commission is not in a position to 
be able to make an in-depth analysis of the patterns 
underlying these data. 2.1.2. The Committee would like to make two com­
ments and draw three conclusions regarding the Com­
mission's estimates. 
2.1.2.1. Two comments: 
a) In each of the Member States these figures are 
reached by simply adding together the number of 
people with low, very low or no incomes. The total 
figure thus conceals widely differing situations. 
b) Each Member State has its own individual spread 
of incomes, as well as different living conditions 
and life-styles. Poverty is therefore experienced dif­
ferently in each country of the Community whilst 
family solidarity varies a great deal. Poverty is also 
tackled in different ways in European societies, with 
social welfare schemes (e.g. unemployment benefits, 
family benefits and old-age pensions) varying so 
much that they have a powerful impact on levels of 
poverty and on the process of pauperization itself. 
2.1.2.2. Three conclusions: 
a) Despite measures taken at national and Community 
level between 1970 and 1985, the gap has not closed 
and there has been a marked increase (15,75%) in 
the number of persons with low, very low or no 
incomes (a rise of 6 millions, i.e. 1,9% of the total 
EC population). 
b) The years between 1970 and 1985 witnessed a 
change in the composition of Europe's poor. Overall 
there was a relative decline in the number of the 
poor from the elderly population and a sharp rise 
in the number of the poor from the ranks of the 
unemployed and single-parent families. Continuing 
high unemployment in the EEC could mean that 
severe poverty will be here to stay unless vigorous 
action is taken. 
c) However important the 'income' factor, it is not 
the sole cause of severe poverty or the slide from 
precariousness into severe poverty. There are clearly 
many different factors interacting with each other 
and creating a vicious circle (*). 
2.2. Basing its views on factual observations the Com­
mittee would like to emphasize the following: 
2.2.1. Before being a philosophical or moral prob­
lem, severe poverty is first and foremost a manyfaceted 
and sometimes hidden and unsuspected reality. This 
realization must be kept to the forefront of attention 
whenever action is taken to combat the causes and 
consequences of severe poverty. 
(') See Information Report and point 3.2.4. 
No C 221/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 8. 89 
2.2.2. Taking severe poverty to be the work of fate 
or an inevitable consequence of progress and change is 
tantamount to its tacit acceptance. This is an attitude 
which the Committee has always unanimously rejected. 
2.2.3. No one can be blamed for being poor. Poverty 
is an affliction and an injustice such as no one would 
wish on themselves. We, who have normal access to 
our social rights, fail to appreciate the impact which 
ignorance of these rights plays. Hasty judgements 
should always be eschewed: the poor person whom we 
might accuse of negligence is very often the victim of 
extenuating circumstances, family, social, psychological 
or physical. 
2.2.4. The Commission has quite rightly highlighted 
the fact that, whatever the other factors coming into 
play, a large number of persons are at risk solely because 
of financial hardship. 
Given the statistics available, it is not possible to put 
an exact figure on the number of those living in con­
ditions of severe poverty, but an estimate of between 
6 and 10 million people would appear to be realistic in 
the light of observations in the various Member States. 
3. Action 
The Committee advocates three types of action. Many 
of the potential solutions take up or are based on 
recommendations already put forward by the Com­
mittee. 
The main causes of severe poverty are very often insep­
arable from its consequences interacting and having a 
cumulative effect. The most important of these causes 
are: unemployment, the lack of general education and 
vocational training, homelessness, the inability to com­
municate, the lack of access to information, heavy 
indebtedness (often resulting from a lack of information 
and sometimes from misleading advertising), the col­
lapse of traditional family patterns, and ill-conceived 
or inadequate methods and means of health and social 
welfare protection. 
Many of these causes apply with a vengeance when it 
comes to particular categories such as the disabled, 
foreigners from poor countries, elderly persons living 
in social isolation, and more generally all those from 
disadvantaged family and social backgrounds or living 
in economically vulnerable areas with poor social infra­
structures. 
3.1. Action designed to influence behaviour 
3.1.1. Individual and collective action. Since severe 
poverty is a major challenge and the stakes are high, 
no one can escape his obligation to show solidarity. Hence the importance of education and of the develop­
ment of civic, moral and social awareness. Families (the 
place where elementary solidarity is first in evidence), 
schools and the media also have responsibilities. 
3.1.2. Political action. However necessary individual 
acts of generosity are, they can never replace political 
determination to take action. Political determination in 
turn can only exist if backed up by the conviction and 
firm commitment of ordinary citizens. 
The only way to eliminate or remove many of the causes 
of severe poverty (and to alleviate its consequences), is 
for political decision-makers to take legislative and 
budgetary action which will achieve significant results. 
Severe poverty lies heavy on the conscience and is 
intolerable from both an ethical and a social point of 
view. It is therefore essential to be self-critical and make 
an objective assessment of the results of earlier policies. 
Where structural reforms make reasonable sense they 
should be undertaken. Stop-gap solutions do not tackle 
the root causes of the problem; at best they merely 
conceal it for a while. 
3.2. Permanent action 
3.2.1. It is important to detect and identify cases of 
acute individual or family poverty whilst not forgetting 
that hardship may be hidden or not immediate 
apparent. 
Schools, the social and health services as well as a 
whole range of local institutions and organizations 
(neighbourhoods, villages, etc.) have a decisive role to 
play in uncovering severe poverty. 
3.2.2. It is important to measure severe poverty at 
every level of the social scale and in every geographical 
area so as to be able to assess the scale of the problem, 
its spread and its degree of severity. 
It is possible to mobilize public opinion in favour of an 
abstract concept but concrete facts are needed in theory 
is to be converted into a determination to act. This 
implies knowledge of actual cases and the establishment 
of precise, unanimously agreed objectives. 
3.2.3. Severe poverty is always a very serious matter 
even if the number of cases varies from one Member 
State to another. No Member State can therefore evade 
its responsibilities vis-a-vis the victims. 
In addition to solutions devised and financed by 
national governments and their agencies, the Com­
munity has a direct responsibility to show solidarity 
and meet the challenge of acute poverty in accordance 
28. 8. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 221/13 
with the spirit and letter of the Treaties and in keeping 
with the values and principles underlying its foundation 
and social objectives (1). 
This twin approach should lead to: 
a) the systematic inclusion of the 'severe poverty dos­
sier' in all economic, social and cultural debates. 
In seeking to restore to individuals and families the 
inalienable rights enjoyed by all citizens, priority 
must be given to using ordinary policies (i.e. policies 
on employment, housing, communications, train­
ing, health, etc.) to fight the social exclusion of the 
poor; 
b) an increase in the systematic exchange of infor­
mation and experiences between Member States; 
c) a more satisfactory definition of 'poverty' and 
'severe poverty' (i.e. one based on actual reality); 
d) the launching of tailor-made, adequately funded, 
Community programmes (2). 
3.2.4. The principal causes of severe poverty have 
already been identified (3) and these are the areas where 
sustained efforts must be made. 
This means: 
a) Unemployment (the Opinion thus refers to the Com­
mittee's earlier recommendations and positions 
which have lost none of their relevance). 
As long as high levels of unemployment persist, 
there will always be a major risk of severe poverty. 
Irrespective of the particular ill to be cured (includ­
ing unemployment), real solutions will not be found 
unless root causes are tackled. If we do not adopt 
a radical approach, we shall probably have to keep 
starting all over again and the consequences will 
gradually become more severe. 
The importance of unemployment does not by any 
means obscure other causes which are all frequently 
linked, interlocking and self-sustaining. This applies 
to: 
b) Housing. Homelessness is one of the main charac­
teristics of marginalization and exclusion from 
society and working life. The homeless are generally 
deprived of ordinary rights. They are usually 
(') Cf. ESC Opinion on Basic Social Rights (OJ No C 126, 
23. 5. 1989). 
(2) Cf. ESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Decision 
establishing a medium-term Community Action Programme 
to foster the economic and social integration of the least 
privileged groups (OJ No C 159, 26. 6. 1989). 
(-') Cf. Information Report, point 1.5. incapable of finding work apart from some 
extremely precarious jobs or those provided by 
charitable associations or organizations; 
c) The collapse of family structures, even though it is 
not possible to say whether this is a cause or a 
consequence. The breakdown of the family directly 
helps to precipitate the slide into severe poverty 
since it undermines those elementary forms of soli­
darity which a person should spontaneously be able 
to call on when in difficulties. 
d) The inefficiencies and inadequacies of social security 
and health protection policies and systems which 
too frequently exclude families in need of active 
support (in the form of benefits and social back-up 
measures) on account of the precariousness of their 
situations. 
3.3. Priority action 
The Committee follows the line taken in the Infor­
mation Report by advocating that preference be given 
to three areas of action. 
3.3.1. Education and training 
3.3.1.1. A vigorous campaign against functional illit­
eracy and semi-literacy. 
The Committee supports UNESCO which is to take 
steps next year to make the international Community 
aware of the social gravity of illiteracy and semi-lit­
eracy. 
3.3.1.2. A double-pronged attack on the causes and 
consequences of school failure: 
— causes related to inappropriate educational 
methods, the lack of educational and vocational 
guidance, and inadequate school funding, 
— causes related to social and family factors: the edu­
cation of parents, access of parents to information, 
housing, family income, parent-teacher relation­
ships. 
3.3.1.3. The Committee has very frequently ex­
pressed its views on the importance of such things as: 
— the relationship between school and the labour 
market, 
— educational and vocational guidance, 
— apprenticeships and schemes combining training 
and work, 
— further training. 
The Committee would reaffirm its previous stances and 
recommendations in all these areas. 
No C 221/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 8. 89 
3.3.1.4. Young people who fail to get through their 
school studies successfully are generally from families 
where parents have likewise experienced school failure. 
These problems are exacerbated today by the com­
plexity of the school syllabus and living conditions (e.g. 
the impact of the consumer society). 
These young people are thus sucked into the maelstrom 
of failure when they are still at school. Instead of 
removing difficulties for them, schools become the first 
stage in the process of marginalization, driving such 
young people either directly into revolt or into with­
drawal and isolation. For students classed as academic 
failures, school is a door opening only on to unemploy­
ment, casual labour and dead-end jobs. 
3.3.2. Communication and information 
3.3.2.1. Communication and information are essen­
tial rights: a free man needs to be able to communicate 
with his fellow human beings; information enables 
people to stay in touch with everyday life and public 
affairs. Without information the exercise of free choice 
is impossible. 
Removal of the possibility of communication thus leads 
very rapidly to a loss of independence and social iso­
lation. 
3.3.2.2. Power over information is indissociable from 
the exercise of responsibility towards the recipients of 
information — and particularly the poorest members 
of society who have great difficulties in understanding 
and in being heard and understood. 
People earning their living in all areas of information 
(media workers, civil and public servants, and those 
active in education, etc.) must therefore play an active 
role in combatting the causes and effects of social and 
cultural exclusion. This implies a simplification of the 
language used, particularly in the administrative sector, 
improvements in accessibility and mandatory individu­
alization of relations with the poorest of the poor. 
3.3.3. A minimum social reintegration 
income 
A minimum social reintegration income has two comp­
lementary objectives: 
3.3.3.1. The first is to provide individuals and famil­
ies with an income which not only guarantees a basic 
diet but also enables them to meet essential needs and 
carry out vital functions. 
3.3.3.2. A second, sumultaneous objective is to offer 
recipients of this 'differential income' social back-up 
and training opportunities to enable them to be gradu­
ally reintegrated (readjustments, if necessary, to cope 
with everyday life, and reintegration in the labour mar­
ket). Such measures would be applicable to persons 
of working age who are physically and intellectually 
capable of being trained and taking up work. 3.3.3.3. The provision of a minimum income, which 
is expected to be a major factor in eliminating margina­
lization, is subject to certain conditions and limitations: 
— it must be fixed at a level which encourages effort 
and work, 
— eligibility conditions must be straightforward, so 
that they can be easily understood by the target 
groups; otherwise individuals and families may be 
deprived of their entitlements, 
— social back-up measures must be relevant and must 
seek to achieve tangible, realistic and quantifiable 
objectives, 
— the social benefits and integrationist measures must 
be brought closer to the people concerned; this 
focusses the spot-light on local measures and ser­
vices, 
— it is absolutely essential to break the vicious circle 
of failure which leads to severe poverty; however 
modest any success may be, it will still be a first 
step on the road to reintegration, 
— measures to achieve reintegration must result in the 
offer of a job which, by its very nature, will be 
visible, concrete proof that 'progress' has been 
achieved, 
— work taken on under social reintegration schemes 
must offer all the usual contractual guarantees and 
must never indirectly lead to an erosion of social 
rights and guarantees, 
— people whose age, health or mental state prevent 
them from benefitting from reintegration schemes 
must be eligible for other types of aid, depending 
on their particular circumstances. 
4. Conclusions 
4.1. Freedom as well as political and social democ­
racy are incompatible with widespread poverty. 
4.2. Helping the extremely poor members of society 
to free themselves from dependence on social assistance 
should be our goal. This is to be done by harnessing 
individual capacities in such a way that the very poor 
can themselves be instrumental in rediscovering their 
freedom and their personal, social and family responsi­
bilities. 
4.3. All those holding positions of power (in what­
ever form) have a duty to reach out to help the poorest 
members of society. 
4.4. Success in the campaign to eliminate severe pov­
erty depends largely on problems being tackled locally. 
This observation, which has been borne out by experi-
28. 8. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 221/15 
ence, highlights the pre-eminent role played by local 
activists (elected representatives, government officials, 
social workers, local associations and organizations of 
every description ...). All of these individuals and agen­
cies must be given concrete support to take whatever 
action is felt necessary to ensure the success of the 
schemes for detecting severe poverty and bringing the 
poor back into society. 
4.5. Although the Committee limits this Opinion to 
severe poverty — and to severe poverty in the Com­
munity at that — it would nevertheless like to add three 
comments: 
4.5.1. Severe poverty is the culmination of a rela­
tively large number of stages, each stage rapidly follow­
ing more or less on the heels of the previous one. 
Instances of poverty must be identified and tackled at 
the earliest stages before they become severe. 
4.5.2. Some individuals, families and whole peoples 
are living on the margins of poverty. To ignore or to 
underestimate this reality is to run the risk of standing 
on the sidelines whilst the process of pauperization 
gathers speed and runs its full course. 
Done at Brussels, 12 July 1989. The commission is therefore right to ring the alarm 
bells and highlight the increase in the number of persons 
(both employees and the self-employed) living on low 
incomes. 
4.6. In the European Community six to ten million 
people are directly affected by extreme poverty. This is 
an intolerable state of affairs. 
However, this European reality must not make us blind 
to the fact that elsewhere in the world millions of men, 
women and children are dying of hunger. 
This disturbing situation, which will have daunting 
long-term consequences, has already been examined in 
several Opinions in which the Committee has under­
lined the importance of, among other things, the devel­
opment of technical aid, the use of food surpluses, the 
prices of raw materials and the problems posed by the 
over-indebtedness of the poorest nations. 
Today the spotlight is on severe poverty in the Com­
munity. Is this not an opportune moment to extend the 
debate to world poverty, examining its reality, causes, 
consequences and the resources needed to combat it? 
But to do this, Europe will have to overcome its own 
contradictions and become a fully-fledged Community. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE