Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on "Social Indicators"
Date: 2002-05-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European social policy, marginalisation, poverty, social analysis, social indicator, social participation

C 221/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Social Indicators’

(2002/C 221/13)

On 15 January 2002 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 23(3) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative Opinion on ‘Social Indicators’.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 May 2002. The rapporteur was Mrs Cassina.

At its 391st plenary session (meeting of 29 May 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 104 votes in favour, no dissenting votes and one abstention.

1. Report on indicators in the field of poverty and social

exclusion

1.1.
The Social Protection Committee (SPC) published a
Report on Indicators in the field of poverty and social exclusion
in October 2001, drawn up on the basis of the work carried
out by the technical sub-group on Indicators, following the
mandate from the Council. The conclusions of the European
Councils of Nice and Stockholm called for the Council to
adopt a set of indicators by 2001 to improve the understanding
and comparability of poverty and social exclusion in the EU,
with a view to achieving the goals set out in Lisbon designed
to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty and
exclusion (1) by 2010. This will support the development of
National Action Plans to combat poverty and exclusion
by improving the understanding of such phenomena and
encouraging the exchange of good practice, in the context of
the open method of coordination and the EC programme of
action on this matter, established by a decision of the European
Parliament and the Council (2). The proposed set of indicators,
which should be considered as a whole rather than as a set of
individual indicators, was drawn up to address social outcomes
rather than the means by which they are achieved.

1.2.
The methodology used by the sub-group on Indicators
focused on analysing and comparing national plans for social
inclusion with the emphasis on the following principles: the
indicators used must capture the essence of the problem and
must have an accepted interpretation and legal and scientific
basis; they must be timely, whilst being open to revision; they
must be mutually consistent; and they must be transparent
and accessible to the public.

The set of

1.3.
indicators is divided up into primary
indicators (covering the broad fields and the most important
elements of social exclusion) and secondary indicators (sup-
porting the primary indicators and describing other dimen-
sions of the problem). Both these levels have been commonly
agreed and defined by the Member States and will be used in
the next round of National Action Plans on social inclusion.
There may also be a third level of indicators that Member
States themselves decide to include in their National Plans, to
highlight certain specificities in particular areas, and to help
interpret the primary and secondary indicators.

1.4.

Primary Indicators:

— Low income rate after transfers (indicators 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d,

1e)

— Distribution of income (indicator 2)

— Persistence of low income (indicator 3)

— Median low income gap (indicator 4)

— Regional cohesion (indicator 5)

— Long-term unemployment rate (indicator 6)

— People living in jobless households (indicator 7)

— Early school leavers not in further education or training

(indicator 8)

— Life expectancy at birth (indicator 9)

— Self-perceived health status (indicator 10).

( 1) In the Italian Publication the expression ‘lotta alla povertà e
all’esclusione’ is used except for titles in official documents. The
term ‘emarginazione’ (in stead of ‘esclusione’) means the process
that can lead to ‘esclusione’ (to be excluded).

( 2) European Parliament and Council Decision No 50/2002/EC of
7.12.2001 establishing a programme of Community action to
encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social
exclusion.

1.5.

Secondary Indicators:

— Dispersion around the 60 % median low income thres-

hold (indicator 11)

— Low income rate anchored at a point in time (indi-

cator 12)

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/55

— Low income rate before transfers (indicator 13)

— Distribution of income — Gini coefficient — (indi-

cator 14)

— Persistence of low income (based on 50 % of median

income) (indicator 15)

— Long-term unemployment share (indicator 16)

— Very long-term unemployment share (indicator 17)

— Persons with low educational attainment (indicator 18).

1.6.
According to the Social Protection Committee, these
indicators will enable several key aspects of this multifaceted
phenomenon to be comparatively measured. The SPC rec-
ommends that further work be carried out in particular on:

— identifying further indicators on living conditions, includ-
ing social participation, recurrent and occasional poverty,
access to public and private services, territorial issues and
indicators at local level, poverty and work, indebtedness,
benefit dependency and family benefits;

— measuring the gender dimension in a more satisfactory

manner;

— improving the accuracy and comparability of indicators
on housing (decency of housing, housing costs and
homelessness), literacy, numeracy, quality adjusted life
expectancy, premature mortality by socio-economic sta-
tus and access to healthcare, groups not living in families,
especially the homeless but also those living in institutions
(children’s homes, orphanages, nursing homes in general,
prisons).

1.7.
Lastly, the SPC recognises the importance of greater
involvement of excluded people in developing indicators and
the need to explore the most effective means of giving a voice
to the excluded.

2. General comments

In recent opinions on several social issues, the EESC
2.1.
has underscored the need and the urgency to have ‘high
quality, comparable indicators’ (1), ‘sufficiently detailed to give
a true picture of the full
implications of the framework
analyses’. It is especially important to develop such indicators
in the field of social exclusion, given the complex and
multifaceted nature of the phenomenon. The report in dis-

cussion puts forward an initial set of key indicators. The EESC
strongly welcomes the work carried out by the sub-group on
Indicators and by the Social Protection Committee, looks
forward to further productive work from the SPC and con-
firms (2) that the EESC is most willing to cooperate and support
its work as a key plank in the efficient development of National
Action Plans to combat social exclusion.

in particular

The EESC welcomes

the dynamic
2.2.
approach which provides for the possibility to adapt and
develop indicators. This is vital in order to exploit the full
potential of the open method in this field, in which increasingly
accurate and up-to-date comparisons of national situations
and best practice are needed. The EESC also applauds the fact
that the Sub-Committee on Indicators has already begun to
examine in depth the key issues of illiteracy, cultural inclusion
and housing with a view to identifying new indicators and to
hone existing ones.

However it is important to check that the definition,
2.3.
and therefore the content, transparency and acceptability of
indicators is sufficient and whether some indicators need
further clarification in the short term. The EESC would like to
contribute to this by submitting the following comments and
suggestions to take work a step further.

3. Specific comments

3.1.
The EESC notes that the majority of indicators concern
income and considers that this could lead to an imbalance in
relation to the indicators describing and comparing the
qualitative aspects of social exclusion. The EESC is aware that
the key indicators were chosen objectively and factually, but
underscores the urgent need to define indicators that will give
an accurate picture of social participation, access to services
its
and self-perception of social exclusion.
opinions, the EESC has maintained that an adequate level of
income from employment
is a necessary but insufficient
condition to avoid or break out of the cycle of poverty and
social exclusion. The EESC is not contradicting the conclusions
of the Barcelona Summit (3) which state that ‘the best instru-
ment for inclusion is employment’; it is simply providing a
necessary clarification, in view of the multifaceted nature of
exclusion.

In several of

( 1) Quality of employment, OJ C 311, 7.11.2001. Safe and sustainable

(3) Part III, Contributions to the debate, Employment and Social

pensions, OJ C 48, 21.2.2002.

Policy.

(2) Proposal for a Council Decision setting up a Social Protection

Committee, OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, p. 2.3, 2.3.1.

C 221/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.9.2002

3.2.
The fight against social exclusion and poverty is part
of the Lisbon strategy which was confirmed at the Barcelona
summit indicating the need to significantly reduce the number
of people risking poverty and exclusion by the year 2010 (1).
In its summary report, the Commission also indicated the goal
of reducing such a risk by 50 % by the same year. Since the
main feature of the Lisbon Strategy is the high quality of the
European model of development in economic, social and
technological terms, the EESC highlights the need to keep the
concept of quality a priority at all times, both in measures to
foster the employability of persons suffering from or at risk
from exclusion, and in defining statistical instruments.

The indicators referring to education and skills need to
3.3.
be supplemented and refined. For example, ‘low educational
attainment’ does not cover a key element which the majority
of excluded persons have in common: the inability to perceive
themselves as citizens, and to fully understand and exercise
their rights and duties. This is predominantly due to a poor
basic education, but also and especially to a loss of awareness
of themselves and of reality, worn down by the struggle to
provide for their own basic needs. It is also essential to be able
to tackle cases of ‘functional illiteracy’ and therefore to be
equipped with the instruments needed to analyse and quantify
this phenomenon. In addition, the EESC notes that in its
opinion on the programme to combat exclusion and pov-
erty (2), it identified the risk of new forms of exclusion and
poverty linked to the development of new technology. If
excluded members of society cannot access the knowledge
society, new forms of exclusion risk being created. This aspect
should be tackled when drafting additional indicators.

The transfers mentioned in Indicators 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d
3.4.
refer to social security benefits granted to individuals or
families. The EESC considers that comparisons could be
distorted if the level of taxation and contributions is not taken
into account in this equation, since it is well known that these
figures differ greatly between Member States.

city. The provision for a third level of indicators enables
Member States to develop their own method of assessment,
broken down into regions or districts. The EESC hopes that
Member States will give this problem due attention when
defining indicators and when implementing National Action
Plans to combat social exclusion.

3.6.
The definition of Indicator 1b on ‘low income rate
after transfers with breakdowns by most frequent activity
status’ should be supplemented with a reference to irregular or
occasional activities and activities that are not officially
registered (irregular or undeclared work). These types of
activity are very common amongst excluded persons and are a
factor in triggering or exacerbating the conditions for social
exclusion.

3.6.1.
The EESC is aware that it is extremely difficult to
map irregular or undeclared employment, but underscores the
fact that people working in irregular conditions, although
benefiting from a certain level of income, do not have access
to minimum guarantees and the protection granted by contract
employment. They find themselves on the margins of society
and indeed of the law. Thus every effort must be made to
study irregular employment in depth in order to be able to
tackle the phenomenon and those who profit from it, and aim
to break the fatalist cycle that leads excluded and deprived
persons to seek and accept this type of employment. There is
a whole stratum of people whose earnings come from irregular
work and who end up being not only excluded but even
invisible from the rest of society. An indicator should be
developed to anticipate the future risk of poverty caused by
failure to pay contributions. Strong synergy between national
plans for social inclusion, national plans for employment and
fiscal policy is needed to tackle and overcome the scourge of
undeclared employment.

Indicator 1c on types of family also appears not to

3.7.
take into due consideration the following two cases:

3.5.
A further problem lies in calculating standards of
purchasing power. Since the Eurostat criteria are automatically
applied to determine this, as is done for surveys and reports
on economic and social cohesion, distinctive regional and
factors are overlooked. Purchasing power can vary
local
significantly within countries, regions and even within a single

3.7.1.
Large families (‘three or more children’ is too generic).
It is true that households with many children to care for are in
a minority, but this proportion changes for households living
in extreme poverty, where many families have two or three
times more children than average households.

( 1) Presidency Conclusions, point 24.
( 2) Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a programme of Community action to
encourage cooperation between Member States to combat social
exclusion fillin titolo , OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, point 2.5.1.

3.7.2.
One-parent families, for whom it makes a consider-
able difference whether there is one child to care for or two or
more, especially if the children are very young. With more
than one child to provide for it is practically impossible for a
lone parent to earn a sufficient income. As a result, they
become dependent on social security payments, sometimes
increasingly so.

17.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 221/57

3.8.
The EESC welcomes the fact that the indicator on ‘low
income rate after transfers with breakdowns by tenure status’
(1d), is soon to be developed, and that Eurostat has begun the
procedure to commission a study on this matter. It highlights
the importance of the Member States reaching an agreement
on the definition of persons without a fixed abode, who
represent a significant and specific percentage of excluded
persons. Moreover, there should be a distinction between non
rent-paying tenants and owners, since the latter still has to pay
for the upkeep of the property, whilst the former needs only
to pay subsistence expenses.

3.9.
Indicator 9 (life expectancy) should be separate from
disability-free life expectancy, which Eurostat already provides
for the Member States. The phenomenon of non-self suf-
ficiency is becoming increasingly common, especially amongst
older people and disabled people, and this must also be taken
into account.

4. Suggestions for the next stages of work

4.1.
The Social Protection Committee notes that a series of
new indicators should be defined and others improved,
made more accurate and useful for comparative analysis (see
point 1.6). The EESC believes that priority should be given to
indicators measuring social participation and access to services,
especially health services. The EESC also underscores its
comments on education and skills (point 3.3), employment
(point 3.6) and life expectancy (point 3.9).

4.1.1.
The EESC does not believe that social participation
should be measured against a common standard but against
the possibility of access to social activities, entertainment and
events, according to the relevant national customs and culture.
There are many forms of exclusion which do not depend
directly on the absence or inadequacy of income but on the
absence of an open and motivating context that fosters human
relations and group activities outside the family and workplace.
The EESC believes that all Member States should develop their

Brussels, 29 May 2002.

own third-level indicators for this, but also advocates holding
a discussion to assess the possibility of defining certain
common parameters.

4.2. Moreover the link between recurring or occasional
poverty and the development of intermittent or very occasional
employment should be studied to establish whether this type
of employment has created a new category of excluded
persons.

4.3. When working on indicators on indebtedness it is
important to distinguish between indebtedness (which can
usually be managed by an individual or household with a
secure income) and over-indebtedness (which leads to inability
to deal with the debt itself). This phenomenon affects Member
States to differing extents but it is often the first step towards
poverty and social exclusion. The EESC has followed this issue
for a while and adopted an opinion on this matter at its
plenary session of April 2002 (1). At this stage the Committee
would like simply to note that the problem of over-indebted-
ness cannot be tackled solely within the framework of National
Action Plans to combat social exclusion and poverty since it is
related to a network of bank and market mechanisms which
should be broached by a combination of national and Com-
munity measures.

4.4.
Lastly, clear indicators on the health and sanitation of
excluded persons should be drawn up in reference to housing
and the workplace, because the current set of indicators
only contains a self-defined health status by income level
(indicator 10). It could be interesting to develop indicators to
assess not only access to medical and health services but also
a person’s awareness and inclination to keep in good health
and to follow the basic rules of preventative medicine (gynaeco-
logical and dental check-ups, eye tests etc.), whilst taking into
account the subjective differences between people living in
poverty and people suffering from acute social exclusion, such
as those with no fixed abode.

(1) Household over-indebtedness in the European Union, OJ C 149,

26.1.2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS