· ackowledgements the organisation of the first caritas europa report on poverty in europe would...

REPORT ON POVERTY IN EUROPE

Repo

rt 2

001

Caritas Europa, aisbl

4 rue De Pascale1040 Bruxelles

BelgiqueTel. 00 32 2 280 02 80Fax 00 32 2 280 16 58

[email protected]

Repo

rt 2

001

REPO

RT O

N P

OV

ERTY

IN E

URO

PE

Report on Povertyin Europe

Repo

rt 2

001

Ackowledgements

The organisation of the first Caritas Europa Report onPoverty in Europe would not have been possiblewithout the active involvement of Caritas EuropaMember Organisations and many colleagues workingin their Social Policy Departments. However theReport would not have come into being without thevision of Hermann Icking.

Caritas Europa is particularly grateful for theinformative, analytical and expert collaboration ofRebecca Weaver and Eileen Sudworth. Rebeccaprovided us with in-depth analysis of the statisticalindicators and data: her expertise was fundamental inorder to identify common denominators in thestatistical matrices of the tables and the graphic ofthe report. Thanks to her high quality editorial skills,Eileen revised the original text and helped us throughin pulling the different chapters together.

We are especially indebted to the Imprimerie LesEditions Européennes who, with great skill andpatience, designed the book for printing. Specialthanks to Jacqueline Tordoir and Tony Hardiment inthe Caritas Europa General Secretariat in Brusselswho contributed to check the information of thereport in relation to their own areas of competence.

We express our gratitude to Caritas Armenia, CaritasAustria, Caritas Bosnia-Herzegovina, Caritas Estonia,Caritas France, Caritas Ukraine, Caritas Switzerlandwho contributed the photos for this publication.

We hope that the report serves as backgroundinformation and as a working document for the manyprogrammes and projects related to povertyundertaken by Caritas Europa member organisationsand other international and non-governmentalorganisations.

Brussels, 1 February 2002Bruno Kapfer (Acting Secretary General)

Maria Francesca Vencato (Social Policy Officer)

Tables of contents

■ Executive Summary 10Introduction and Context 10Definition of Poverty 11The Countries covered in this Report 12The Statistical Survey - Demographics, Education and Development 13The Perspective of the Different National Caritas Organisations 16Conclusions and Recommendations 20

■ Introduction 23Caritas Europa and Poverty 27Methodology 28

■ Demographics, Education and Development 30Introduction 30Demography 37

Overview 37Group 1: The European Union Plus 37Group 2: The Accession Countries 38Group 3: Non-Accession Countries 39Group 1 Compared To Group 2 40Group 1 Compared To Group 3 40Group 2 Compared To Group 3 40

Education & Development 41Overview 41Group 1: European Union Plus 41Group 2: The Accession Candidates 43Group 3: Non-Accession Countries 44Group 1 Compared To Group 2 45Group 1 Compared To Group 3 46Group 2 Compared To Group 3 46

■ Group 1: EU plus Countries European Union Countries 47

Austria 48Overview 48Demographics 48Education & Development 48The Caritas Austria Perspective 48

Belgium 49Overview 49Demographics 49Education & Development 49The Caritas Belgium Perspective 50

Denmark 50Overview 50Demographics 50Education & Development 51The Caritas Denmark Perspective 51

Finland 51Overview 51Demographics 51Education & Development 51The Caritas Finland Perspective 52

France 52Overview 52Demographics 52Education & Development 53The Caritas France Perspective 53

Germany 53Overview 53Demographics 53Education & Development 54The Caritas Germany Perspective 54

Greece 54Overview 54Demographics 54Education & Development 54The Caritas Greece Perspective 55

Ireland 55Overview 55Demographics 55Education & Development 55The Caritas Ireland Perspective 56

Italy 57Overview 57Demographics 57Education & Development 57The Caritas Italy Perspective 57

Luxembourg 58Overview 58Demographics 58Education & Development 58The Caritas Luxembourg Perspective 58

The Netherlands 59Overview 59Demographics 59Education & Development 59The Netherlands Caritas Perspective 59

Portugal 59Overview 59Demographics 59Education & Development 60The Caritas Portugal Perspective 60

Spain 60Overview 60Demographics 60Education & Development 60The Caritas Spain Perspective 61

Sweden 61Overview 61Demographics 61Education & Development 62The Caritas Sweden Perspective 62

United kingdom 62Overview 62Demographics 62Education & Development 63The Caritas of England and Wales Perspective 63The Caritas Scotland Perspective 63

Andorra 64The Caritas Andorra Perspective 64

Iceland 64Overview 64Demographics 65Education & Development 65

Malta 65Overview 65Demographics 65Education & Development 65The Caritas Malta Perspective 66

Monaco 66

Norway 66Overview 66Demographics 66Education & Development 66The Caritas Norway Perspective 67

Switzerland 67Overview 67Demographics 67Education & Development 68The Caritas Switzerland Perspective 68

■ Group 2: EU Accession Countries 69

Bulgaria 70Overview 70Demographics 70Education & Development 70The Caritas Bulgaria Perspective 70

Czech republic 71Overview 71Demographics 71Education & Development 71The Caritas Czech Perspective 71

Estonia 71Overview 71Demographics 71Education & Development 72The Caritas Estonia Perspective 72

Hungary 72Overview 72Demographics 72Education & Development 73The Caritas Hungary Perspective 73

Latvia 73Overview 73Demographics 73Education & Development 74The Caritas Latvia Perspective 74

Lithuania 74Overview 74Demographics 74Education & Development 75The Caritas Lithuania Perspective 75

Poland 75Overview 75Demographics 75Education & Development 75The Caritas Poland Perspective 76

Romania 76Overview 76Demographics 76Education & Development 76The Caritas Romania Perspective 77

Slovakia 77Overview 77Demographics 77Education & Development 78The Caritas Slovakia Perspective 78

Slovenia 78Overview 78Demographics 78Education & Development 79The Caritas Slovenia Perspective 79

Turkey 79Overview 79Demographics 79Education & Development 80The Caritas Turkey Perspective 80

■ Group 3: Non-Accession Countries 81

Albania 82Overview 82Demographics 82Education & Development 82The Caritas Albania Perspective 82

Armenia 83Overview 83Demographics 83Education & Development 83The Caritas Armenia Perspective 83

Belarus 84Overview 84Demographics 84Education & Development 84The Caritas Belarus Perspective 85

Bosnia-Herzegovina 85Overview 85Education & Development 85The Caritas Bosnia-Herzogovena Perspective 85

Croatia 86Overview 86Demographics 86Education & Development 86The Caritas Croatia Perspective 86

Georgia 87Overview 87Demographics 87Education & Development 87The Caritas Georgia Perspective 87

Macedonia 88Overview 88Demographics 88Education & Development 88

Moldova 89Overview 89Demographics 89Education & Development 89The Caritas Moldava Perspective 89

Russian Federation 90Overview 90Demographics 90Education & Development 90The Russian Federation Caritas Perspective 91

Ukraine 92Overview 92Demographics 92Education & Development 93The Caritas Ukraine Perspective 93

Yugoslavia, Fr (Ser./Mont.) 93Overview 93Demographics 94Education & Development 94The Caritas Yugoslavia Perspective 94

■ Conclusions and Policy Recommendations 95

■ Caritas Europa Member Organizations 102

■ Bibliography 106

There are many poor people in all Europeancountries. The marginalisation of women and thediscrimination to which they are subjected areaggravating their situation nearly everywhere. Policies vary widely: for instance, Greece, Armeniaand Turkey devote 2 to 3% of the Gross NationalProduct to education, Sweden and Poland 8% andMoldavia 11%! Faced with such diversities detailed in the “PovertyReport” and the painful situations encounteredthroughout the European continent, Caritas Europahas conducted a statistical and descriptive study ofthe human condition thanks to the contributions of itsmembers in 44 countries.

Six segments of the population draw particularattention: ■ The unemployed, whether long-term or on

insufficient benefit ■ Persons who are working but are poorly paid or

are in a precarious situation, the now famous "working poor"

■ Single parents and large families ■ The elderly ■ Asylum seekers and migrants ■ Minorities

Major recommendations emerge which will bedeveloped by Caritas Europa and its members thisyear both with the authorities of the European Unionand of the fifteen Member States and all the otherEuropean countries. They concern accordingly boththe citizens of the European countries and migrantsliving there under one or another capacity: ■ On employment: access to work, minimum

wage, fight against discrimination ■ On family policy: financial support for the

education of the children and education systems that take particular account of the situation of families in difficulties

■ On old-age policy: home care, right to services particularly in Central and Eastern Europe

■ On relations between the European Union and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe: development of solidarity and the mechanisms of the structural funds, development of economic exchanges, support for countries which will not be joining the Union, cooperation with the civil society and NGOs.

The European countries have undertaken commitmentson the social front. Article 14 of the European SocialCharter of the Council of Europe, Turin 10 October1961, stipulates that the Contracting partiesundertake “to promote or provide services which, byusing methods of social work, would contribute to thewelfare and development of both individuals andgroups in the community, and to their adjustment andsocial environment; (and) to encourage theparticipation of individuals and voluntary or otherorganisations in the establishment and maintenanceof such services”. The Preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rightsof the European Union, Nice 7 December 2000,declares that: "Conscious of its spiritual and moralheritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible,universal values of human dignity, freedom, equalityand solidarity".

This "Report on Poverty" of Caritas Europa isintended to make a positive contribution to theanalysis of situations and resolution of problems. Avast European network of autonomous memberscommitted to social and medical work, emergencyand development at world level, Caritas Europaundertakes to contribute to the well-being and thegeneral interest, in the service of the mostunderprivileged of our brothers and sisters andtogether with them.

Denis ViénotPresident, Caritas Europa

2 January 2002

Preface

9

There is today an international consensus that thereduction and eventual eradication of povertyrepresents one of the most serious and urgenteconomic and ethical challenges of the 21st century. Inthe currently rapidly changing world order, it isrecognised that poverty is a multidimensional problemand one which impacts on every area of life - fromindividual well-being and dignity to policies at themacro level relating to economics, politics, socialbenefits systems, freedom and security. Momentousupheavals in recent years have irrevocably changed theglobal geopolitical landscape and have prompted arethinking of many of the precepts of conventionaleconomic wisdom, not least of which is theacknowledgement of the complexity of poverty. Thismatrix of changes can briefly be summarised as follows:

■ The geopolitical repercussions of the collapse of the Soviet Union/Eastern bloc which has, inter alia, resulted in the emergence of over 150 million "new poor" and has prompted a redrawing of the development map.

■ The failure of the anticipated 'peace dividend' to materialise and an increase in conflicts in the world - including in Eastern Europe. Death and devastation has been accompanied by a massive increase in the number of refugees, internally displaced persons, asylum seekers and migrants. At the start of 2001, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that "At the start of 2001, the number of people of concern to UNHCR was 21.8 million, or one out

of every 275 persons on Earth." This was prior to the current 'war against terrorism' and the bom-bings of Afghanistan, following the September 11 2001 atrocities in the United States.

■ The accelerated globalisation process which, whilst expected to produce overall gains, has resulted in growing inequity both between countries and within countries. Despite economicgrowth, as the United Nations Development Programme points out, in the OECD (Organisa-tion for Economic Cooperation and Development)countries (its 30 member countries are the richest in the world and include all 15 current EU Member States and the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey), 130 million people are income poor, 34 million are unemployed and adult functional illiteracy rates average 15%.

■ The globalisation process has also brought with it a heightened awareness of new forms of global interdependency in areas such as HIV/AIDS2, migration, trafficking girls and women3, global security, drug trafficking4 and international terrorism. This latter was brought home to the world community by the terrorist atrocities in the United States of September 11, 2001 which brought with it such tragic loss of life. These events and the subsequent 'war against terrorism' have fundamentally altered perceptionsof national security and, ultimately, the role of the nation State in the new world order.

■ Introduction and Context

This report on Poverty in Europe is the first of its kindproduced by Caritas Europa. Caritas Europa, withmember organisations in 43 countries of Europe, isone of seven regions of Caritas Internationalis, aCatholic confederation headquartered in the Vatican.This confederation is a network of 154 autonomousnational Catholic relief, development and social workorganisations in 198 countries and territoriesthroughout the world.

The report on Poverty in Europe has been compiledusing a) poverty and poverty related statistics andstatistical analysis commissioned by Caritas Europa1;b) contributions from the different Caritas memberorganisations throughout Europe.

Executive Summary

10

1 The statistics are drawn for the most part from the United Nations Development Programme, EUROSTAT, the World Bank. 2 The UNDP in its Human Development Report 2001 states that, by the end of the year 2000, 36 million people were living

with HIV/AIDS3 The UNDP cited above quotes a figure of 1.8 million women and girls victims of illegal trafficking.4 The UNDP report cited above notes that, in 1995, the illegal drug trade was estimated at US $400 billion.

11

5 The UNDP states that, by the end of the year 2000, 36 million people were living with HIV/AIDS6 The UNDP cited above quotes a figure of 1.8 million women and girls victims of illegal trafficking.7 The UNDP report cited above notes that, in 1995, the illegal drug trade was estimated at US $400 billion.8 The EU's Development Policy - Statement by the Council and the Commission, 31 January 2001

"Poverty is defined not simply as the lack of income and financial resources but also as encompassingthe notion of vulnerability and such factors as no access to adequate food supplies, education andhealth, natural resources and drinking water, land, employment and credit facilities, information andpolitical involvement, services and infrastructure. All of these are needed to enable disadvantagedpeoples to have control over their development, enjoy equality of opportunity and live in a saferenvironment. Community development policy must, therefore, support poverty reduction strategieswhich embrace these various dimensions and are aimed at consolidating the democratic process, peaceand the prevention of conflict, the development of social policies, the integration of social andenvironmental aims in macro-economic reform programmes, respect for equality between men andwomen, the reform or introduction of an appropriate institutional framework, the strengthening ofpublic and private sector capabilities and natural disaster preparedness."

This definition and the current global context is the starting point for this Caritas Europa report.

Inspired by the Gospels and Catholic Social Teaching,Caritas Europa has a holistic, human-centredapproach to development. The human person - andthe quality of his/her life - is at the centre of theCaritas approach. This is very much in line with thecurrent international thinking which sees poverty as amulti-dimensional, multi-faceted phenomenon and

which is based not solely on income, as hitherto, butincludes basic needs, basic human rights and suchintangibles as vulnerability, risk, inequality,marginalisation, discrimination, exclusion, feelings ofpowerlessness, the circumscribing of options andchoices. For example, the EU's development policy8

includes the following definition of poverty:

■ Definition of Poverty

■ The globalisation process has also brought with it a heightened awareness of new forms of global interdependency in areas such as HIV/AIDS5, migration, trafficking girls and women6, global security, drug trafficking7 and international terrorism.

■ Linked to this was the spate of international conferences in the 1990s, all of which brought with them a heightened awareness of the complexity of poverty and sustainable develop-ment and of the inter-relatedness of poverty, population, human rights, health and gender issues.

■ This same period has seen increased European integration - with the creation of the European Union in the Treaty of Maastricht and the launch on 1 January 1999 of the European Monetary Union (with the EURO coming into effect on January 1 2002) - and negotiations for enlargementof the Union. Thirteen countries currently have association agreements with the European Union and have applied for accession (c.f. Table below). The front-runners on the European adhesion list are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia,Slovenia and Cyprus. The other accession countries are: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Turkey.

12

9 The Human Development Index - HDI - was developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) some yearsago. The HDI is a composite index based on 3 indicators: a) longevity, as measured by life expectancy at birth; b) educational attainment, as measured by a combination of adult literacy (two-thirds weight) and the combined gross primary, secondary and tertiary enrolment ratio (one third weight); and, c) standard of living, as measured by Gross Domestic Product per capita (Purchasing Power Parity in $ US).

10 World Development Indicators 2001, the World Bank, April 2001, Washington DC.11 The term "roughly" is used since, because Caritas Europa is not linked to any political structure or construct, there are a

number of anomalies in the groupings : a) Caritas organisations correspond to national Catholic Bishop's Conferences. In

Based on the World Bank income aggregates, thecountries involved in Caritas Europa range fromGermany, with a gross national income (in US $Billions in 1999 figures) of 2,103.8 to Moldova, with agross national income (in US $ Billions in 1999 figures)of 1.5. In per capita terms, the gross national incomeper capita, per year (in 1999 figures) was US $25, 620in Germany and in Moldova US $41010.

The above table does not include countries, whereCaritas Europa has members, which are currently not featured in the UNDP Human DevelopmentReport - Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Monaco andYugoslavia.

In order to maximise clarity in such a diverse groupingof countries, they have been divided roughly11 into

The membership of Caritas Europa ranges from tinycountries such as Monaco, with a population of33,000 to the Russian Federation, home to 146.2million people. The countries in which Caritas Europahas members include those with a high HumanDevelopment Index (HDI)9 and those with mediumHDIs, as defined by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP): ranging from Norway, ranked

number 1 in the world, to Moldova, with an HDIranking of 98. In terms of the World Bankclassification based on income aggregates, adoptedas of July 1 2000, Caritas Europa includes members inthe high, middle and low income aggregate brackets,as the following table (information was obtained fromthat in the UNDP Human Development Report 2001)shows:

■ The Countries covered in this Report

HIGH INCOMEGNP per capita of $9,266 or more in 1999

■ Austria■ Belgium■ Denmark■ Finland■ France■ Germany■ Greece■ Iceland■ Ireland■ Italy■ Luxembourg■ Netherlands■ Norway■ Portugal■ Slovenia■ Spain■ Sweden■ Switzerland■ United Kingdom

MIDDLE INCOMEGNP per capita of $756 to $9,265 in 1999

■ Albania■ Belarus■ Bulgaria■ Croatia■ Czech Republic■ Estonia■ Hungary■ Latvia■ Lithuania■ Macedonia■ Malta■ Poland■ Romania■ Russian Federation■ Slovakia■ Turkey

LOW INCOMEGNP per capita of $755 or less in 1999

■ Armenia■ Georgia■ Moldova■ Ukraine

Classification of Countries by Income Aggregates

▼

13

the United Kingdom, there is a Bishops Conference for England and Wales and one for Scotland. The whole island ofIreland has one Bishops Conference. b) Although Cyprus is an EU accession country, it is not included in this reportsince, in Caritas Internationalis, this country belongs to the Middle East and North Africa Group. Conversely,Georgia, often regarded as part of Asia, is included in the Caritas Europa region. c) Some smaller countries - such asthe principalities of Monaco and Andorra - are included in the study but are not included in the overall statisticalanalysis. d) two countries - Iceland and Monaco - were not in a position to make a contribution to this study. f)although Malta is an accession country, it has been included in Group 1 as a special case since it corresponds moreclosely - politically and economically - to the countries in Group 1 rather than to the Group 2 Accession Countries.

three groupings: a) the European Union memberstogether with other richer western Europeancountries (Group 1 EU Plus); b) the countries whichhave applied for accession to the EU (Group 2

Accession Countries) and c) those countries which atpresent are not EU applicant countries.

The groupings adopted are consequently as follows:

In line with the concept of human-centreddevelopment and the multi-dimensional nature ofpoverty, the statistical survey has, as its starting point,investment in human and social capital. Thus thesurvey and analysis includes demographic data suchas life expectancy, population growth, urbanisation,health indicators - including HIV/AIDS, and publicspending on health. It also goes on to cover publicspending on education, enrolment ratios - including

between the sexes, income levels and gender-basedincome disparities, unemployment, computer andinternet usage, migrants and asylum seekers. EachGroup is analysed in turn and comparisons are madebetween the three Groups.

It is important to stress that specific aspects of asociety should not be dealt with in isolation but, froma starting point of investment in human and social

■ The Statistical Survey - Demographics, Education and Development

GROUP 1European Union Plus

EU■ Austria■ Belgium■ Denmark■ Finland■ France■ Germany■ Greece■ Ireland■ Italy■ Luxembourg■ Netherlands■ Portugal■ Spain■ Sweden■ United Kingdom

NON-EU■ Andorra■ Iceland■ Malta■ Monaco■ Norway■ Switzerland

GROUP 2Accession Countries

■ Bulgaria■ Czech Republic■ Estonia■ Hungary■ Latvia■ Lithuania■ Poland■ Romania■ Slovakia■ Slovenia■ Turkey

GROUP 3Non-accession Countries

■ Albania■ Armenia■ Belarus■ Bosnia-Herzegovina■ Croatia■ Georgia■ Macedonia■ Moldova■ Russian Federation■ Ukraine■ Yugoslavia FR

capital, should be seen as interrelated and mutuallyreinforcing - either positively or negatively dependingon how they are dealt with. For example, anundernourished or malnourished child living inpoverty will be more prone to illness and less likely todo well in terms of educational attainment. This inturn leads to low paid jobs, intermittent jobs becauseof ill health or unemployment. In its turn, this leads tofurther and chronic poverty. And the child, oncegrown, is likely to produce children who start thevicious circle all over again. Conversely, to create avirtuous circle, investment in health and educationleads to a healthier, more skilled workforce, withheightened earning capacity, higher socialcontribution, the ability to absorb new technology,and less chronic sickness. And, quite apart fromearnings' capacity, a healthier, more educated societyoffers greater opportunity and choice to its citizensfor a fuller life and greater potential to realise eachperson's capabilities.

From the statistical analysis, the following should behighlighted:

■ In Group 1, containing the EU Member States, together with other richer western European countries, the percentage of the population living in poverty (defined as half the average income) between 1987 and 1997, Italy, with 14.2% and the United Kingdom, with 13.4% recorded the highest levels. Belgium and Finland, both with 5.2% recorded the lowest. Although many statistics on this are lacking for Group 2 and Group 3 countries, Italy and the United Kingdom have a greater percentage of people subsisting on half the median wage. This is higher than that of the Czech Republic (2.3%), Hungary (10.1%), Poland (11.6%), and Slovakia (2.1%). They are surpassed by the Russian Federation, with 20.1% (UNDP 2001 Human Development Report).

■ As far as the equitable distribution of income is concerned, in the Group 1 (EU Plus countries), the United Kingdom is at the bottom of the league, with the richest 20% having 43% of the available income, and the poorest 20% sharing 6.6%. The first in the league table is Austria, with the richest 20% having 33.3% of the income and

the poorest 20% sharing 10.4%. It should be noted that the United Kingdom has less equity than all of the accession countries except Turkey, where the richest 20% have 47.7% of the income and the poorest 20%, 5.8% of the income. The UK is also less equitable than some of the Group 3 countries: Belarus, Croatia, and Ukraine. In Group 3, the highest inequity in income distribution is in the Russian Federation, where the richest 20% have 53.7% of the income and the poorest 20% a mere 4.4%. The most equitable, in Group 3, is Belarus where the richest 20% have 33.3% of the income and the poorest 20%, 11.4%.

■ The feminisation of poverty can, in large part, be seen in the gap between male and female earnings which exists in all the countries included in the study. The UNDP gives estimates for the year 1999 and in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)12. In Group 1, on average, women earn 51.8% of men's wages. The narrowest gap is in the United Kingdom where women earn 71.5% of male income. It is the highest in Malta, where women earn only 27.7% of male income. This figure represents the largest gap across all three Groups. In Group 2, women earn on average 60.73% of male salaries - a more equitable average than for Group 1. The narrowest gap between male and female earnings is in Lithuania where women earn 67.11% of men's earnings and the highest gap is Turkey with women's earnings at 44.8% those of men. Group 3 has an average of 59.70%. The narrowest gap is in Armenia where women earn 66.11% of male earnings. The highest gaps are in the Ukraine (54.37%), followed by Albania at 54.99%.

■ Long term unemployment (defined as unemploy-ment lasting longer than 12 months) is highest in Spain (8.1% of the workforce) and lowest in Norway, with 0.2% of the workforce.

■ According to available data, people lacking functional literacy (in the 16 - 65 year old age group) is a staggering 48% in Portugal. This is higher than the rates for the Czech Republic (15.7%), Hungary (33.8%), Poland (42.6%) and Slovenia (42.2%).

1412 Purchasing Power Parity is the rate at which $1 has the same purchasing power over domestic GDP as the US dollar has

over US GDP. PPP rates allow a standard comparison of real price levels between countries.

15

■ The percentage of GNP spend on education (for the years 1995-97) is, on average, 5.6% for Group 1, 5.1% in Group 2 and 5.4% in Group 3. This similarity between the Groups masks inequity between them. In Group 1, the highest expenditure is in Sweden (8.3% of GNP) and Denmark (8.1% of GNP) to a low in Greece of 3.1%. In Group 2, educational expenditure is highest in Poland (7.5% of GNP) and Estonia (7.2%) and is lowest in Turkey, at 2.2%. In Group 3, expenditure ranges from a high of 10.6% in Moldova to a low of 2% in Armenia.

■ Literacy rates and educational expenditure are obviously reflected in the use of information technology, which is an essential feature of globalisation. The number of personal computers per thousand people averages, in Group 1, 297.3; in Group 2, 88.1 and in Group 3 a very low average of 22.8. Again, there are disparities within groups. Four countries - Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Ireland - have in excess of 400 computers per thousand people. The lowest numbers are in Greece (60.2) and Portugal (93). In Group 2, the highest number per thousand is in Slovenia (251.4) and lowest in Turkey (33.8). Group 3 ranges from a 'high' of 67 in Croatia to a low of 8 in Moldova. The numbers of internet users mirror this pattern.

■ The probability at birth of not reaching 60 years old (as a percentage of the population between the years 1995 and 2000) is, in the EU countries, highest in Portugal (13.1%), followed by Denmark at 12%. In the Russian Federation, this figure is 30.1%, followed by Moldova (27.4%) and Ukraine (26.3%).

■ Life expectancy in Group 1 averages 77.6 years, compared with 71.5 years in Group 2 (Accession Countries) and 70.4 years (Group 3, non Accession Countries. Life expectancy at birth is

highest in Sweden( 79.3 years) where the number of doctors (311 per 100,000 people) and share of GNP spent on public healthcare (6.7% of GNP) is well above the average. In Group 2, Turkey has the lowest life expectancy at 69 years, followed by Romania at 69.8. In Group 3, life expectancy is highest in Croatia (73.3 years) where infant mortality is lowest (8 deaths per 1,000) and where the share of GNP (8.1%) spent on healthcare is the highest. The Russian Federation has the lowest life expectancy (66.1 years), followed by Moldova (66.6 years).

■ Infant mortality is lowest in Group 1 with an average of 4.9 deaths per 1,000 live births; followed by Group 2 with 14.9 per 1,000 and Group 3 with 20.9 per 1,000. In Group 1, infant mortality - at 6 per 1,000 live births - is highest in Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. In Group 2, the highest by far is Turkey, with a staggering 40 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to the Czech Republic and Slovenia with the lowest infant mortality rates of 5 deaths per live births. In Group 3, the highest is Albania (with 29 per 1,000), followed by Moldova (with 27 per 1,000). The lowest in this Group is Croatia, with 8 deaths per 1,000 live births.

A certain amount of caution is needed wherepercentages are used (since Group 1 countries arericher than Group 2 who are in turn richer than Group3) and this, therefore, inevitably impacts on net worthe.g. whilst Group 3 spends a higher percentage ofGNP on education than Group 2 and is only slightlylower than in Group 1, its GNP is much lower and thenet value diminishes accordingly.

Nevertheless a picture of disparities in key indicators- both between the countries of Europe and withinthem - clearly emerges. And much needs to be doneto even out such disparities and create a more justand equitable Europe.



Following the overall statistical survey and analysis,the third section of the report, again organisedaccording to the three Groupings, gives a perspectiveof the different national Caritas organisations againstthe backdrop of national statistical data.

Whilst statistical data sketch an overall picture,particularly with regard to the glaring disparitiesbetween male and female earnings, what is lessobvious in any statistical analysis is theinterrelatedness of the different factors comprisingthe poverty matrix and the 'intangibles' such asdiscrimination, vulnerability marginalisation and socialexclusion. This more sharply focused pictureemerges clearly from the contributions of the CaritasEuropa member organisations and stems directlyfrom their work on the ground with the poorest andmost needy. Cold, hard facts reveal patterns andtrends and highlight disparities both between andwithin countries. They do not - and cannot - revealthe depth of human pain misery experienced bymillions of people due to economic structural reform;civil strife and war; living on an island of poverty - asa pensioner, a homeless person, one of the long termunemployed, as a lone parent - amidst a sea ofplenty; discrimination experienced by immigrants,refugees, asylum seekers, and other minority groupsin society.

Despite the diversity of the countries included in thisreport, the existence of chronic poverty is a commondenominator. And poverty, far from decreasing, hastended to rise in recent years. The general downturnin the global economy has had adverse effects on allcountries. The prospect of a renewed downturn andpossible recession following the terrible events ofSeptember 11, 2001 in the United States, does notencourage optimism.

In addition to global economic slowdown, thosecountries involved in war and civil strife (particularlyBosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia) are experiencingparticular turmoil and the need to reconstructhousing and basic infrastructure before there can beany hope of economic recovery.

It is also true to say that those countries whoseeconomies are "in transition" from a state-dominatedsocialist system to a free market economy areexperiencing poverty, in particular the emergence ofthe "new poor", with much greater difficulty than thericher countries of western Europe. Economies intransition to liberalised market driven systems,experience rapid privatisation, low productivity, highunemployment, poor wages, the 'disappearance' ofthe middle classes, and wholly inadequate socialwelfare systems. The development of the 'blackeconomy' is particularly noted in countries such as theRussian Federation and the Ukraine. In Georgia,where the appropriate environment was not createdprior to the liberalization of prices, the transition hasbeen especially difficult and lengthy and has led tothe drastic impoverishment of a socially unprotectedpeople. It is estimated that 35% of the populationare living below the poverty line.

Poverty also appears to be particularly acute wherethere is mass migration from impoverished rural areasto urban areas in such countries as Albania andMacedonia. Other "new poor" are those who work inthe State-maintained social sectors e.g. doctors,teachers, civil servants. These comprise the "workingpoor" - employed, therefore unable to benefit fromunemployment payments, yet poorly paid and withtheir wages often in arrears. This is particularly acutein the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. Yet this

■ The Perspective of the Different National Caritas Organisations



problem is not confined to eastern Europe. In France,for example, there are 1,820,000 "working poor" ofwhom 270,000 have jobs of fixed duration. In theyear 2,000, 50% of people aged 55-59 years wereunemployed.

At the same time, there are common threads runningthroughout the reports from the Caritas Europamember organisations. The poor are often the leastwell educated, have the lowest paid jobs or areunemployed, have inadequate or no access to socialservices such as child care, health care and housing.With regard to this latter, the lack of housing which isaffordable for the poor or those on modest income iscommon to a number of countries of Europe. At oneend of the income scale, in the UK, a recent study bythe Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that roughly9.5 million people in Britain today cannot affordadequate housing conditions. In Moldova, at theother end of the income scale, in rural areas inparticular, homes are not equipped with piped waterand sewage systems. Heating is non-existent.Highlighted below are the major categories of peoplewho either live in poverty (temporary or chronic) orwho are particularly vulnerable/at risk of chronicpoverty.

The Unemployed

■ Every Caritas organisation points to the high levels of unemployment - particularly long term unemployment - as a key factor in the poverty matrix. This is often coupled with underemploy-ment, low pay, job insecurity, inadequate unemployment benefits. This is also linked to illiteracy or low educational and skills levels - inadequate to meet the exigencies of today's rapidly developing technological world. And prominent among the unemployed are young people, the middle-aged and the disabled, physically or mentally.

■ High levels of unemployment are rife across Europe and are cited from Austria to the Ukraine. In Austria, for example, of the long-term unemployed (defined as longer than 6 months), 32% are threatened by poverty. In Finland, in 2000 the unemployment rate rose, as a result of the recession of the 1990, to 9.8%. 27.2% of the unemployed are the long-term unemployed. In

the same year, among young people (aged between 15 and 24), 21.4% were unemployed. In Poland, high unemployment is coupled with an antiquated agricultural sector. In June 2001, there were almost 3 million unemployed people in Poland. In Croatia, due to economic restructuring, the unemployment rate is 24%.

■ Low pay continues to be a feature of most economies, even those which have established a legal minimum wage. In Switzerland, there were, in 1999, 414,000 households in the category of the "working poor". In Turkey, particularly among the poor in large cities, low wages play an important role in the fact that, in March 2001, more than 1 million people in Istanbul are effected by malnutrition. In the Russian Federation and the Ukraine, low wages, coupled with long delays in paying salaries, are resulting in a massive brain drain. The so-called 'budget sphere employees' (i.e. doctors, teachers) earn only 30 Euros a month. In Bulgaria, the average wage in 2000 was 127 Euro a month (with a minimum wage of 40 Euro). Even in Andorra - regarded as a fiscal paradise - government policy is one of keep labour costs low and reducing social benefits. This results in a highly vulnerable, unskilled workforce where job turnover is very high.

■ Unemployment benefits are generally inadequate and insufficient to protect the unemployed - particularly the long-term unemployed - from poverty. In Belgium, the unemployment benefit represents only 27% of the average wage. In Belarus the unemployment benefit is 30% of the minimum wage. Even in Norway, with the highest Human Development Index in the world and certainly the show case in terms of social security benefits, it is noted that these extensive benefits are geared to paid employment. Consequently, there is a level of poverty due to the lack of access to paid employment e.g. through illness.

■ The unemployment situation has other adverse social effects - homelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction. Drug addition, particularly among young people who often see little hope for the future, is on the increase - from Norway to Slovakia. Alcoholism is also more prevalent

18

13 Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Andorra, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Armenia, Belarus.

14 Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy (particularly in the Centre and North), United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania(especially elderly rural women), Albania, Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia and the Ukraine.

among the unemployed (and this, of course, reduces or eradicates opportunities for employment). In Poland, for example, alcoholism affects approximately l million people. Drug addiction and alcoholism, especially among young people, is also noted in Slovakia. The homeless face a similar vicious circle with regard to gaining employment. In Austria, in 1999, for example, the homeless comprised some 2,000 people who visit stationary accommodation centres, approximately 12,000 people living on the streets and at least 7,000 seeking shelter in the accommodation facilities of immigrant and refugee support centres. The homeless, sleeping in doorways or on park benches, begging in the streets, are now an all too familiar sight in cities throughout Europe.

Lone Parents and larger families

■ Some 14 countries13 mention in particular the plight of lone parents, particularly where the lone parent is female. Lone parents (and the elderly) are the major categories of people who live below the poverty line in Luxembourg, for example, 12% of people live below the poverty line, calculated at 60% of the average wage. In Austria, 47% of lone parents with no income from gainful employment are threatened by poverty.

■ Similarly, families with more than 2 or 3 dependent children feature among the poor.

■ The problem is exacerbated by inadequate benefits for lone parents coupled with the high price and/or lack of access to child care facilities.

■ Clearly the social system is geared to a concept of the family, with one breadwinner, usually male, and the partner arer of the children: This is an outmoded one and needs to be brought in line with the realities of the modern economy. Low pay, employment instability, inequity between male and female earnings, inadequate provision of affordable child care all conspire to place lone parent families or families with a larger than average number of dependent children at great risk of chronic poverty.

The Elderly

■ 17 countries14 highlight the elderly as being amongst the poorest sections of society. In Croatia, for example, 40% of the poor live in households where the head of the family is a retired person. In Austria 26% of one-person households living on pensions are threatened by poverty.

■ Again, the state pension schemes are highly inadequate. In Belgium, for example, pensions represent 37% of the average wage. In Bulgaria, the average social pension is just 40 Euro and the minimum pension is 23 Euro. The Ukraine has an average pension of a mere 12 Euro.

■ In a Europe of low or minus population growth rate, with rising life expectancy, the elderly form an increasing proportion of society. Countries - both the state and its citizens - have a duty to ensure that, after decades of economic contribution, the elderly have the opportunity to live full and meaningful lives.

Asylum Seekers

■ The numbers of asylum seekers or refugees hardly figure in the statistical survey - their numbers are too low to register meaningfully. And indeed, the number of asylum seekers as a proportion of total refugees, is extremely low. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that, at the start of the year 2001, the number of people of concern to UNHCR was 21.8 million. These included 12 million refugees (55%), 0.9 million asylum seekers (4%), 0.8 million returned refugees (4%), 6 million internally displaced people (IDPs) of concern to UNHCR (27%), 0.4 million returned IDPs (2%) and 1.7 million others of concern (8%). As can be seen from the above, the proportion of asylum, seekers in this group of people of concern to UNHCR is relatively small - and is roughly equal to the number of refugees who have returned to their countries. The vast majority of the refugee population are to be found in border countries. At the end of the year 2000, Asia hosted the largest refugee population (44.6%), followed by Africa (30%), Europe (19.3%), North America (5.2%), Oceania (0.6%) Latin America and the Caribbean (0.3%)

1915 Austria, France, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Turkey, Armenia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia16 Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Macedonia

■ 9 countries15 highlighted the difficulties faced by asylum seekers. It should be stressed that asylum seekers are people fleeing for their lives from war or persecution. Yet they all too often are confrontedwith a hostile, highly bureaucratic system. If they succeed in jumping this hurdle, they often face discrimination in terms of employment and housing.

■ In France, the situation of refugees is critical since they are ineligible for official aid until their status is recognised by the administration. Even then, limited in terms of amount and duration e.g. 274.40 Euros for 12 months for an adult. In Austria, their situation is acute if they fall outside the federal social care and assistance programme.If they do, they are not entitled to earn a living and end up living on the streets. In Germany, asylum seekers, together with migrants, are in the high risk category of poverty and social exclusion. They tend to end up in low paid jobs which German nationals refuse to do.

■ Yugoslavia is facing a particularly acute situation with regard to refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs). The great influx of non-Albanian people (Serbs, Montenegrins, Roma) from Kosovo, which started in June 1999, resulted in some 200,000 internally displaced persons who entered Serbia during the course of last summer. Among these refugees from Bosnia and Croatia, there are more than 500,000 located primarily in the northern part of the country.

■ Similarly, Bosnia-Herzegovina is facing the heavy consequences of war. Some 625,800 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina are still scattered over 40 other states, while the country has accepted 40,000 refugees from Kosovo. Some 100,000 people emigrated after the Dayton Peace Accord (initialled on November 21 1995) because of unemployment, national intolerance, and the inability to return to their homes.

Migrants

■ Migrants are another group which are particularly prone to poverty. Often escaping poverty in their own countries or in search of better standards of living for themselves and their families, they frequently find themselves discriminated against, in low paid employment or unemployed, living in inadequate housing conditions.

Minorities - the Roma people

■ Europe remains characterised by unacceptable forms of racism and xenophobia against minorities. Migrants are often encouraged by the host country to meet particular labour shortages or to perform the jobs which nationals are reluctant to do. Ironically - and particularly during times of recession and high unemployment - they are often made scapegoats and accused of "stealing our jobs" and are greeted with hostility by the host population.

2017 Enlargement and Civil Society, Proceedings of the European Commission-sponsored Caritas Conference, Brussels, October

1999. Available from Caritas Europa, 4 rue de Pascale, 1040 Bruxelles.

■ In this regard, since it is featured in a number of the contributions from eastern European countries16, particular mention should be made of the Roma people (also known as Rom, Romani or Romany). Often falsely labelled "Gypsies", the Roma are descendants of ancient warrior classes of northern India who first made their appearance in Europe in the 15th century. Their rich history is marred by successive waves of discrimination, persecution, forced assimilation and enslavement.The best-known horror story is the attempt to exterminate them by the Nazis. It is estimated that some 600,000 Roma people lost their lives in the Nazi pogroms. Statistics are hard to come by. Not surprisingly, given their history of persecution, among the Roma, there is a school of thought which rejects any data gathering on the basis of ethnicity. Where there are substantial populations of Roma people, they tend to be among the poorest of the poor. Catherine Magnant of the European Commission's Human Rights and Democratisation Unit, speaking at a European Commission sponsored Caritas Conference in October 199917, stated that there are some 8 million Roma living in Europe, with the vast majority (around 6 million) living in central

and eastern Europe. Roma communities are most numerous in Romania (between 1.8 to 2.5 million Roma people), Bulgaria (700,000 to 800,000), Hungary (500,000-600,000), Slovakia (400,000 to 500,000) and the Czech Republic (250,000 to 300,000). Caritas Europa member agencies are working with Roma people and Caritas Europa has established a working group on this issue.

■ In Bulgaria, Roma people fall into the category that registers the highest unemployment, illiteracy, low qualifications and high drop-out rate from schools. In Hungary, over the last decade, the Roma people have drifted towards the margins of society. The government is taking this on board, especially with regard to education. In Slovakia, it is noted, the Roma people's average life span is 15 years shorter than the rest of the Slovak population. In Macedonia, 95% of the Roma population is unemployed and, as a result, often live as squatters on communal property. They lack basic public services such as electricity, water and sanitation services. In Romania, they are included in the category most vulnerable to social and economic deprivation.

2118 Enlargement: Preparing for Accession, European Commission. Last updated on May 14, 2001.

Website: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e4000.htm.

As this report has amply demonstrated, poverty is amulti-dimensional, complex issue and therefore is notamenable to simplistic solutions. A holistic approachis necessary - not simply to alleviate poverty(although this is a good in and of itself) - but toeradicate it from society. The elimination of povertyinvolves tackling the root causes and putting in placea matrix of multi-sectoral approaches andprogrammes. In developing such approaches andprogrammes, the centrality of the human personmust be underscored. Thus, human dignity, equity,basic human needs and rights, participation, socialand political inclusion are all key concepts in thisapproach. In the current enlargement process whichseeks to embrace the associated countries of centraland eastern Europe, the European Council inCopenhagen (June 1993) developed the followingcriteria18:

■ The stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities (political criterion);

■ The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the European Union (economic criterion);

■ The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union (criterion concerning adoption of the Community acquis.

As a grouping of relief, development and social workorganisations throughout Europe, Caritas Europaplaces particular stress on the first of these criteria.Ensuring democracy (including political participation,the fostering of a vibrant civil society, social inclusion),the rule of law, respect for human rights in theirwidest sense and respect for and protection ofminorities are of paramount importance in thecreation of a more just, more equitable EuropeanUnion.

The report goes on to make policy recommendationsin the following fields: employment orientedactivities; education and training; social protection;healthcare; housing; lone parent families and familieswith more than 3 children; the elderly; asylumseekers; legally resident migrants; clandestinemigrants and victims of trafficking; relations betweenthe European Union and the countries of central andeastern Europe, both EU candidate and non-candidate countries.

In this Executive Summary, we would highlight thefollowing four areas:

Employment-oriented activities

Since unemployment has been identified as the keyfactor in the poverty matrix, particular attentionshould be given to the unemployed, particularly thelong-term unemployed. The promotion of job-oriented programmes, training and vocationalcourses would greatly facilitate the reintegration intothe labour market of those in long termunemployment.. Initiatives need to be developed toimprove infrastructures and create new jobs, placingparticular emphasis to the fight against socialexclusion.

Lone Parent Families and Families withmore than three children

There needs to be better harmony between thedemands of family life and the exigencies of earninga living. In this respect, accessible and affordablechild-care facilities such as kindergartens and nurseryplaces need to be made available to low-income,disadvantaged groups. Childcare subsidies andchildcare allowances are two important examples ofgood practice that would improve the participation inthe labour market - both for parents with a larger thanaverage number of dependent children and for loneparents.

■ Conclusions and Recommendations

In this respect and as is the case for all other socialservices, it is fundamental to ensure that thenecessary information should be readily accessibleand the procedure as simplified as possible. Suchtransparency of information would avoid currentproblems where those entitled fail to claim all theirdue benefits, either because of ignorance concerningentitlement or because of frustration related to theprocedure, and, as a result, fall below the socio-cultural minimum standard of living.

The Elderly

The old-age pension should allow a person withoutany other income a reasonable standard of living.

Relation between the European Union and the Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries (CEECs)

Stronger financial solidarity among the MemberStates of the European Union and the EU candidatecountries and the non-candidate countries of Europeshould be developed.

The EU Member States should develop theircommercial and cultural exchanges with thecandidate countries during the pre-accession phaseand as part of the accession strategy. In relation toeconomic globalisation of the economy, within theframework of world trade negotiations, the EuropeanUnion in particular should ensure that the situation incentral and eastern European countries is taken fullyinto account.

22

23

19 The Human Development Index - HDI - was developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) some yearsago. The HDI is a composite index based on 3 indicators: a) longevity, as measured by life expectancy at birth; b) educational attainment, as measured by a combination of adult literacy (two-thirds weight) and the combined gross primary,secondary and tertiary enrolment ratio (one third weight); and, c) standard of living, as measured by Gross Domestic Product per capita (Purchasing Power Parity in $ US).

20 The Human Development report is published annually by the UNDP, New York.

There is today an international consensus that thereduction and eventual eradication of povertyrepresents one of the most serious and urgenteconomic and ethical challenges of the 21st century. Inthe currently rapidly changing world order, it isrecognised that poverty is a multidimensional problemand one which impacts on every area of life - fromindividual well-being and dignity to policies at themacro level relating to economics, politics, socialbenefits systems, freedom and security. Momentousupheavals in recent years have irrevocably changed theglobal geopolitical landscape and have prompted arethinking of many of the precepts of conventionaleconomic wisdom, not least of which is theacknowledgement of the complexity of poverty. Thismatrix of changes can briefly be summarised as follows:

■ The geopolitical repercussions of the collapse of the Soviet Union/Eastern bloc which has led, inter alia, to new development thinking on what constitutes developed and developing countries - why should, for example, South Korea (with a Human Development Index (HDI)19 of 26) or Argentina (with an HDI ranking of 34) remain classified as "developing" countries, whilst others, such as Albania (with an HDI ranking of 85) or Moldova (with an HDI ranking of 98) not be classified as such. The events in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc led to the emergence of the "new poor"- estimated as long ago as 1999 by the UN Secretary General as an additional 150 million people.

■ Related to this is the failure of the 'peace dividend' to materialise, not least because of a sharp increase in conflicts in the world - in Africa but also in Eastern Europe resulting in heavy expenditure on emergency aid and peace-keeping forces. These conflicts have resulted in unprecedented numbers of refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants. Prior to the November 2001 bombing of Afghanistan, the UNHCR, in its latest information, states that "At the start of 2001 the number of people of concern to UNHCR was 21.8 million, or one out of every 275 persons on Earth."

■ The accelerated globalisation process - particularly with regard to trade, investment and information technology. Whilst this ongoing process is deemed to result in overall gains, there is, as the United Nations Development Programme has pointed out, a complex pattern of winners and losers, with the poorest countries bearing the brunt of the losses. In addition, there is growing inequity both between countries and within them. In the UNDP 1999 Human Development Report20 on globalisation, it is pointed out that "The income gap between the fifth of the world's people living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 60 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960". In its 2001 report states that "The richest 10% of the world's people received as much income as the poorest 57%". This stark reality, coupled with crippling debt and the global financial crisis which began in the late 1990's in South East Asia led to a fundamental rethinking of economic paradigms. In its 2001 Human Development Report, UNDP points out that, in the countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (its 30 member countries are the richest in the world and include all 15 current EU Member States and the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland and Turkey), 130 million people are income poor, 34 million are unemployed and adult functional illiteracy rates average 15%.

■ The globalisation process has also brought with it a heightened awareness of new forms of global interdependency in areas such as HIV/AIDS21, migration, trafficking girls and women22, global security, drug trafficking23 and international terrorism. This latter was brought home to the world community by the terrorist atrocities in the United States of September 11 2001 which brought with it such tragic loss of life. These events and the subsequent 'war against terrorism' have fundamentally altered perceptions of national security and, ultimately, the role of the nation State in the new world

Introduction

▼

24

21 The UNDP in its Human Development Report 2001 states that, by the end of the year 2000, 36 million people were living with HIV/AIDS

22 The UNDP cited above quotes a figure of 1.8 million women and girls victims of illegal trafficking.23 The UNDP report cited above notes that, in 1995, the illegal drug trade was estimated at US $400 billion. 24 An Enlarged and More United Europe, A Global Player - Challenges and Opportunities in the new Century, speech by

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, to the College of Europe, Bruges, 12 November 2001.

order. Speaking to the College of Europe in Bruges on enlargement on November 12 200124, European Commission President, Romano Prodi, said: "The terrorist attacks which struck the United States of America on the morning of 11 September propelled the whole world into a new, unknown and dangerous dimension. That morning marked the real beginning of the twenty-first century." In addition, it has resulted in a global economic slowdown and economic growth forecasts. On 15 November 2001, Paolo Garonna, Acting Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Europe pointed out: "The short-term economic outlook for the ECE region, and indeed for the world economy as a whole, has become exceptionally uncertain since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September. The current trends are pointing to a worst case scenario in which the simultaneous weakening of economic activity in the major economies, if allowed to continue, could push the global economy into deep recession." Particularly at risk from the current global downturn, he added, are those ECE countries with economies in transition, notably the countries of eastern Europe and the Baltic area25.

■ Linked to this was the spate of international conferences in the 1990s: The World Conference on Education for All (Jomtien, 1990); the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992); World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, June 1993); International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, September 1994); World Summit for Social Development (Copenhagen, March 1995); Fourth Conference on Women (Beijing, September 1995); Second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Istanbul, June 1996). All of which brought with them a heightened awareness of the complexity of poverty and sustainable development and of the inter-relatedness of poverty, population, human rights, health and gender issues.

■ This same period has seen increased European integration - with the creation of the European Union in the Treaty of Maastricht and the launch on 1 January 1999 of the European Monetary Union (with the EURO coming into effect on January 1 2002) - and negotiations for enlargement of the Union. Thirteen countries currently have association agreements with the European Union and have applied for accession

▼

25

25 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, launching its Economic Survey of Europe, 2001 No 2, in press releases of November 15 2001 entitled: 2002 - Global economy needs a growth locomotive, and 2002 - Transition economies: considerable risks due to the global downturn.

26 Association Agreements have given an added boost to the already considerable trade between the accession countries and the European Union. The Association Agreements provide the legal framework for association between the applicant countries and the European Union and cover their political and economic relations.

(c.f. Table below). The front-runners on the European adhesion list are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus. The other accession countries are: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia and Turkey. And, as is demonstrated in this report, accession countries (with the exception of Malta) are generally considerably poorer than the current grouping of 15 countries. Indeed, the European Union, in its latest briefing, Enlargement: Preparing for Accession (last updated on 14 May 2001), points out that with this first wave of accessions, the population of the European Union will be enlarged by 25% (or 100 million people in these six countries) to 500

million citizens. However, the European Union's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will grow by no more than 5%. As a result, the Community is providing 21 billion Euro in pre-accession aid to the Central and Eastern European countries for the period 2000-2006 (10.5 billion Euro through the PHARE programme, primarily for institution building and investment financing; 3.5 billion Euro in aid for agricultural development; and structural aid - primarily in the transport and environmental sectors - to the tune of 7 billion Euro). The following table indicates the accession countries, the date of their application to join the European Union and the date at which an Association Agreement was signed26.

Country

■ Bulgaria■ Cyprus■ Czech Republic■ Estonia■ Hungary■ Latvia■ Lithuania■ Malta■ Poland■ Romania■ Slovakia■ Slovenia■ Turkey

Association Agreement signed on

1-3-199319-12-19726-10-199312-6-1995

16-12-199112-6-199512-6-19955-12-1970

16-12-19918-2-1993

6-10-199310-6-199612-9-1973

Accession applicationsubmitted on

13-12-19953-7-1990

17-1-199624-11-199531-3-1994

13-10-19958-12-19953-7-19905-4-1994

22-6-199527-6-199510-6-199614-4-1987

26

This approach is in line with the InternationalDevelopment Targets (IDTs) established within theframework of the UN. In particular, these targets aim- by the year 2015 - at halving the proportion ofpeople on the planet who live in absolute poverty; atachieving universal primary education and eliminatinggender disparity in education; at reducing childmortality and at improving maternal health.

Thus there has been a paradigm shift from definingpoverty in purely economic terms to a greaterunderstanding of the complexity and the dynamic ofpoverty. Whilst encompassing a basic needs/basicrights approach, the new development thinking andthe clarification of the definition of poverty also

includes concepts of vulnerability, risk, inequality,marginalisation, discrimination, exclusion, feelings ofpowerlessness, the circumscribing of options andchoices. It follows, therefore, that a holistic approachmust, in addition to meeting basic human needs, giveequal focus to empowerment, inclusion, security,equity, the expansion of options, and participation.

All of the above represent both the context and thestarting point from which Caritas Europa hasprepared its first report on Poverty in Europe which,it is envisaged, will be reviewed, updated andenhanced as a regular report to contribute to thepoverty debate in general and poverty in Europe inparticular.

The realities outlined above triggered a review ofdevelopment thinking among theoreticians andpractitioners alike, including the European Union.Central to this thinking and the concomitant moreholistic approach to complex issues was theredefinition/clarification of the concept of poverty

and the need not merely to alleviate poverty but toembark on measures for its elimination.

In a seminal document, The EU's Development Policy- Statement by the Council and the Commission, of31 January 2001, poverty is defined thus:

"Poverty is defined not simply as the lack of income and financial resources but also as encompassingthe notion of vulnerability and such factors as no access to adequate food supplies, education andhealth, natural resources and drinking water, land, employment and credit facilities, information andpolitical involvement, services and infrastructure. All of these are needed to enable disadvantagedpeoples to have control over their development, enjoy equality of opportunity and live in a saferenvironment. Community development policy must, therefore, support poverty reduction strategieswhich embrace these various dimensions and are aimed at consolidating the democratic process, peaceand the prevention of conflict, the development of social policies, the integration of social andenvironmental aims in macro-economic reform programmes, respect for equality between men andwomen, the reform or introduction of an appropriate institutional framework, the strengthening ofpublic and private sector capabilities and natural disaster preparedness."

27

The inalienable dignity of the human person, theeradication of poverty and the struggle for a just andequitable society are at the heart of the work of theCaritas organisations, both in their own countries andoverseas. Underpinning all this work are the teachingsof the Gospels which stresses the duty to feed thehungry, to give shelter to those in need, to clothe the

naked and give succour to those in distress. Moreover,Caritas organisations are inspired by the extensivebody of Catholic Social Teachings, enshrined inparticular in papal encyclicals. As long ago as 1967,Pope Paul VI stated in his encyclical, PopulorumProgressio (The Development of Peoples):

■ Caritas Europa and Poverty

"The struggle against destitution, though urgent and necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather,of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fullyhuman life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he hasnot sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazaruscan sit down at the same table with the rich man." (paragraph 47)

Elsewhere in the same document is the following:

"To speak of development, is in effect to show as much concern for social progress as for economicgrowth. It is not sufficient to increase overall wealth for it to be distributed equitably. It is not sufficientto promote technology to render the world a more human place in which to live….Economies andtechnology have no meaning except from the human person whom they should serve. And people areonly truly human in as far as, masters of their own acts and judges of their worth, they are authors oftheir own advancement, in keeping with the nature given to them by their Creator." (paragraph 34)

This view of human centred development goes hand-in-hand with the preferential option for the poorand with the concept of solidarity. In his encyclical,

Solicitudo Rei Socialis (Social Concern), written by thepresent Pope, John Paul II in 1987 states:

"Solidarity…is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so manypeople, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneselfto the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are reallyresponsible for all." (paragraph 38)

In 1991, in Centesimus Annus (The Hundredth Year), Pope John Paul II underlines

"There are needs and common goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. It is the task ofthe State and of all society to defend them. An idolatry of the market alone cannot do all that shouldbe done." (paragraph 40)

28

The present study is a combination of a) overallstatistics/poverty related indicators and their analysis(gleaned from official sources such as EUROSTAT, theEuropean Union, the World Bank, the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), the United NationsHigh Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the CentralIntelligence Agency Factbook and are listed in theBibliography); b) contributions from individual membersof Caritas Europa who witness in their daily work thefundamental meaning of poverty in their societies.

In order to maximise clarity in such a diverse groupingof countries belonging to Caritas Europa, thecountries have been divided into three groupings.These can be summarised as: Group One: EuropeanUnion Member countries together with other richercountries of western Europe; Group Two: the EUaccession countries; and Group Three: the non-accession countries. Because Caritas Europa is notlinked to any political structure or construct, there areinevitably certain anomalies in the categoriesselected and to which the reader's attention is drawn:

■ Caritas organisations are set up by the respective national Bishops' Conference and correspond to them. In the United Kingdom, there are two Bishops' Conferences and hence two Caritas organisations: one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. The Bishops' Conference of Ireland is responsible for the whole of the island i.e. both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Hence, the Caritas organisations do not correspond exactly to the existing political definition of the United Kingdom.

■ Similarly, although Cyprus is an EU accession country, it is not included in this study since it is not a member of the Caritas Europa region. Rather it is a member of Caritas Middle East and North Africa region. Conversely, Georgia, regardedoften as part of Asia, is included in the Caritas Europa region.

■ Some smaller countries - such as Monaco and Andorra - are included in the study although they

■ Methodology

The commitment to human-centred development,justice, equity and solidarity which are leitmotifs ofCatholic social teaching are congruent with currentthinking on "human capital". For example, the UNExpert Group, established as a follow up to the World

Summit for Social Development and to prepare thenext session of the UN Commission for SocialDevelopment, held a meeting in Costa Rica (June 11-13 2001) to discuss expenditures in the social sector asa productive factor. The UN experts state:

"Because of its strong positive impact on the formation of human capital, spending on education andhealth are widely admitted as highly productive social investments. They contribute to the formation ofa healthier and more educated human capital that can render productive labour, economic growth, andultimately, a better and more equal society. However, social sector expenditure are broader thaneducation and health alone and include other spending items such as food and income supportprogrammes, labour-related spending, remedial and other services, and all-encompassing socialprotection. Often the positive impact of investment in these sectors may not be immediate, butnevertheless they are recognised as socially valuable and productive investments in the long-term.Social protection programmes provide a good illustration of this point. Among other goals, theseprogrammes protect individuals against risk or deprivation deemed unacceptable in a specific countrycontext. Social protection measures often represent a long-term commitment not only to help the lessfortunate and most vulnerable but also to ensure development of the human potential of everyone toits highest. Seen in a broader context, social protection is obviously a productive investment, benefitingnot only the immediate recipients but also society as a whole. There is a substantial cost to society whencomprehensive social security systems are not in place, particularly in times of major socialtransformations and transitions."

29

The next section of this report will focus on anoverview of each of the three Groups and similaritiesand divergences within and between them. Thefollowing three sections examine each Group

country-by-country, giving both statistical informationand the perspective of the Caritas Europa memberorganisation in that country. This is followed byconclusions and recommendations.

do not figure in the majority of official statistical data. For these countries in particular information has been taken from the CIA Factbook. The two principalities are not included in the statistical analysis due to a dearth of information.

■ Two member organisations were not in a position to assist with this report - Caritas Iceland and Caritas Monaco. It is, however, hoped that they will participate in any future endeavour of this kind.

■ Although Malta is an accession country, it has been included in Group One as a special case. Malta corresponds more closely - politically and econo-mically - to the countries included in Group One rather than those in the Group Two Accession Countries. Its inclusion in Group Two would thus

have a distorting effect on data analysis and disproportionately affect the outcome. Indeed the European Union itself regards Malta as a specific case different from the other applicant countries. The Commission's report, Enlargement: Preparing for Accession, cited earlier, acknowledges this and goes on to say: "The Commission's latest report on the progress made by Malta for accession indicates that the country must continue its efforts in implementing policies on equality of the sexes, the treatment of refugees and reform of the administra-tion. The report highlights that the priorities of Malta's accession partnership have for the most part been fulfilled. The most significant progress hasbeen made in the fields of industrial policy, justice and home affairs. Efforts should be maintained in the areas of State aid and the environment."

GROUP 1European Union Plus

EU■ Austria■ Belgium■ Denmark■ Finland■ France■ Germany■ Greece■ Ireland■ Italy■ Luxembourg■ Netherlands■ Portugal■ Spain■ Sweden■ United Kingdom

NON-EU■ Andorra■ Iceland■ Malta■ Monaco■ Norway■ Switzerland

GROUP 2Accession Countries

■ Bulgaria■ Czech Republic■ Estonia■ Hungary■ Latvia■ Lithuania■ Poland■ Romania■ Slovakia■ Slovenia■ Turkey

GROUP 3Non-accession Countries

■ Albania■ Armenia■ Belarus■ Bosnia-Herzegovina■ Croatia■ Georgia■ Macedonia■ Moldova■ Russian Federation■ Ukraine■ Yugoslavia FR

The Groupings selected are consequently as follows:

Caritas Europa commissioned a statistical survey andanalysis of all the countries, both in their Groups asoutlined earlier and as individual countries. Particularattention focused on demographic information (lifeexpectancy, population growth, urbanisation, healthindicators - including HIV/AIDS, public spending onhealth care); education and development (publicexpenditure on education; enrolment ratios,including between the sexes; income levels andgender-based income disparities; unemployment;computer and internet usage; migrants and asylumseekers;). Each Group is analysed in turn andcomparisons are made between the Groups.

Whilst a picture begins to emerge, particularly withregard to the glaring disparities between male andfemale earnings, what is less obvious in any statisticalanalysis is the interrelatedness of the different factorscomprising the poverty matrix and the 'intangibles'such as discrimination, vulnerability marginalisationand social exclusion. This more sharply focusedpicture emerges clearly from the contributions of theCaritas Europa member organisations and stemsdirectly from their work on the ground with thepoorest and most needy. Cold, hard facts revealpatterns and trends and highlight disparities bothbetween and within countries. They do not - andcannot - reveal the depth of human pain misery

experienced by millions of people due to economicstructural reform; civil strife and war; living on anisland of poverty - as a pensioner, a homeless person,one of the long term unemployed, as a lone parent -amidst a sea of plenty; discrimination experienced byimmigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and otherminority groups in our society.

It is perhaps useful to highlight some of these issuesat this juncture of the report and in the context of theframework of new global landscape outlined in theIntroduction. It is important to recall that specificaspects of a society should not be dealt with inisolation but, from a starting point of investment inhuman and social capital, should be seen as mutuallyreinforcing - either positively or negatively dependingon how they are dealt with.

■ Introduction

Demographics, Education and Development

30

"Society and state need to afford protectionagainst the nightmare of unemploymentthrough economic policies that ensurebalanced growth and full employment orthrough unemployment insurance andretraining programmes"

Centesimus AnnusPope John Paul II, 1991

Over the last few years, for example, the EuropeanUnion has been pursuing pro-poor strategies forhealth, AIDS and population (HAP). In the European

31

"Investment in improved health status is widely accepted as a cornerstone of poverty reductionstrategies. Better health is recognised as both a consequence and an engine for economic growth and,conversely, poor health is seen as both a consequence and a cause of poverty and inequality inopportunity and/or gender discrimination. The poor have the worst health indicators, the least accessto quality services and joint financing, the highest fertility and the largest burden of infectious diseases.Thus, good health among the poorest is a desirable good in and of itself and should be explicitlyrecognised as such together with education, nutrition and GNP per capita. Moreover, investment inHAP programmes can act as a catalyst for development in general.

"At the same time, the importance of the wider determinants of better health and health distribution iswell recognised. Poor and inadequate water supplies, food insecurity, lack of female education and therecognised link between health and gender, social exclusion, lack of access to information and services,HIV/AIDS, unsustainable population increase and environmental pollution have a detrimental effect onthe health status of people in a given country. There is, therefore, a need to shift from the promotionof medical models of health to a more integrated and participatory human and social developmentapproach."

"Human capital is a critical determinant of economic growth and development. Therefore, investing insocial sectors such as education is extremely beneficial. Globally, spending in the education sectorrepresents 5% of world GDP but it generates major multiplier effects in economic, social and culturalterms. It is hardly possible to imagine any society able to move forward without a well-developededucation system and consistent budget allocations on education. Usually, a greater amount ofeducational attainment indicates more skilful workers, who in turn can increase both production ofgoods and services and social cohesion. Well-educated workers also facilitate the absorption ofadvanced technology that leads to productivity gains. In addition, the level and distribution ofeducational attainment has a strong impact on social outcomes, such as child mortality, fertility,education of children and income distribution."

In similar vein, the UN experts meeting in Costa Rica,11-13 June 2001, on expenditures in the social sector

as a productive factor (cited earlier). Speaking abouteducation, the UN experts say:

As far as refugees and asylum seekers areconcerned, it will be seen from the statistical analysisthat their numbers are such a small percentage thatthey barely register. This should suggest that thisissue is an extremely serious one and ofunprecedented proportions. As the UNHCR 2001Factbook makes clear, at the start of the year 2001,the number of people of concern to UNHCR was 21.8million. These included 12 million refugees (55%), 0.9million asylum seekers (4%), 0.8 million returnedrefugees (4%), 6 million internally displaced people(IDPs) of concern to UNHCR (27%), 0.4 million

returned IDPs (2%) and 1.7 million others of concern(8%). As can be seen from the above, the proportionof asylum, seekers in this group of people of concernto UNHCR is relatively small - and is roughly equal tothe number of refugees who have returned to theircountries. The vast majority of the refugeepopulation are to be found in border countries. Atthe end of the year 2000, Asia hosted the largestrefugee population (44.6%), followed by Africa (30%),Europe (19.3%), North America (5.2%), Oceania(0.6%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (0.3%).

Commission document, Health, HIV/AIDS, Populationand Poverty Reduction, published in February 2000,this interrelatedness is aptly outlined as follows:

32

The following table shows the 10 largest groups of refugees - their country of origin and the main countries ofasylum, together with figures:

Country of origin**

■ Afghanistan■ Burundi■ Iraq■ Sudan

■ Bosnia-Herzegovina

■ Somalia

■ Angola■ Sierra Leone■ Eritrea■ Vietnam

Main Countries of Asylum

Pakistan/IranTanzaniaIranUganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia,Kenya, Central African Republic, ChadYugoslavia, Croatia, USA, Sweden, Netherlands, DenmarkKenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, DjiboutiZambia, DRC, NamibiaGuinea, LiberiaSudanChina, USA

Refugees

3,580,400568,000512,800490,400

478,300

447,800

432,700400,800376,400370,300

Origin of Major Refugee Populations 10 Largest Groups*

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

* An estimated 3.8 million Palestinians who are covered by a separate mandate of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are not included in this report. However, Palestinians outside the UNWRA area of operations such as those in Iraq or Libya, are considered to be the concern to UNHCR

** This table includes UNHCR estimates for nationalities in industrialized countries on the basis of recent refugee arrivals and asylum seeker recognition

Source: UNHCR 2001 Factbook

33

The table below shows the top ten countries whererefugees are/were seeking asylum in the year 2000 andbased on asylum applications. As will be seen,

Germany receives the largest number of asylumrequests, whilst Austria is currently ranked number ten.

Main Countries of Origin

Yugoslavia, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran

China, Haiti, Mexico, El Salvador, Somalia

Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iran

Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey

Yugoslavia, Russia, Iran, Albania, Kazakhstan

China, Turkey, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Sri Lanka

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Hungary, China, Argentina

Yugoslavia, Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iraq, Sri Lanka

Iraq, Afghanistan, China, Indonesia, India

Afghanistan, Iran, India, Iraq, Yugoslavia

Asylum Applications Submitted in Selected Countries in 2000

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

▼

Source: UNHCR 2001 Factbook

Asylum Applications

117,650

91,600

75,680

43,900

42,690

39,780

34,250

32,430

19,400

18,280

Country of Asylum

■ Germany

■ United States

■ United Kingdom

■ Netherlands

■ Belgium

■ France

■ Canada

■ Switzerland

■ Australia

■ Austria

34

UNDPHuman Poverty Index Chart

Probability People lacking Long-termat birth of functional unemploy-

Human Poverty not surviving literacy % ment (as % of Country Index to 60 aged 16 - 65 labour force) % Population below income poverty line

50% of median $11 a day $4 a dayincome (1994 PPP) (1990 PPP)

Rank Value % % 1995-2000 1994-1998 1998 1987-97 1994-95 1993-95

EU Plus

Austria " " 10,6 " 1,2 10,6 " "Belgium 13 12,5 10,5 18,4 5,5 5,2 " "Denmark 5 9,1 12 9,6 1,1 7,2 " "Finland 4 8,8 11,3 10,4 3 5,2 5 "France 8 11,1 11,4 " 4,5 8 10 "Germany 6 10,5 10,6 14,4 4,5 7,5 7 "Greece " " 9,4 " 5,9 " " "Iceland " " 8,7 " " " " "Ireland 16 15,3 10,4 22,6 5,6 11,1 " "Italy 12 12,3 9,1 " 7 14,2 " "Luxembourg 7 10,7 11,4 " 0,8 3,9 " "Malta " " 8,4 " " " " "Netherlands 3 8,5 9,2 10,5 1,4 8,1 7 "Norway 2 7,5 9,1 8,5 0,2 6,9 4 "Portugal " 13,1 48 1,9 " " "Spain 10 11,5 10,3 " 8,1 10,1 " "Sweden 1 6,8 8 7,5 2,8 6,6 6 "Switzerland " " 9,6 " 1,2 9,3 " "United Kingdom 15 15,1 9,9 21,8 1,8 13,4 16 "

Accession Countries

Bulgaria " " 18,8 " " " " 15Czech Republic " " 13,7 15,7 3,3 2,3 " <1Estonia " " 23,8 " " " " 37Hungary " " 21,9 33,8 3,5 10,1 " 4Latvia " " 23,7 " " " " 22Lithuania " " 21,6 " " " " 30Poland " " 17,5 42,6 4 11,6 " 20Romania " " 21,6 " " " " 59Slovakia " " 16,6 " " 2,1 " <1Slovenia " " 13,8 42,2 " " " <1Turkey N/A

Other Countries

Albania " " 12,4 " " " " "Armenia " " 14,7 " " " " "Belarus " " 26 " " " 22Bosnia-Herzegovina N/ACroatia " " 15,8 " " "Georgia " " 17,5 " " " " "Macedonia " " 14,5 " " " "Moldova " " 27,4 " " " " 66Russian Federation " " 30,1 " " 20,1 " 50Ukraine " " 26,3 " " " " 63Yugoslavia N/A

As is underscored in the statistical analysis andcontributions from Caritas Europa memberorganisations, low education attainment levels, longterm unemployment and increasing numbers ofpeople subsisting below the poverty line are

important factors in the overall picture of poverty inEurope. The following table, extrapolated from theUNDP Human Development Report 2001, amplyillustrates this:

35

Also underscored is the increasing gap not onlybetween richer and poorer countries, but also withincountries. Again using the UNDP Human DevelopmentReport 2001, the following table shows the level ofequity within societies. In Group 1, European UnionPlus Group, the United Kingdom emerges as the worstin terms of an equitable share of resources, with therichest 20% arrogating 43% of income whilst the poorest20% share between them 6.6%, and Austria as the mostequitable, with the richest 20% having 33.3% of the

income and the poorest 20% having 10.4% of theincome. In Group 2, the EU Accession Countries, almostall fare better than the United Kingdom. The oneexception is Turkey at the bottom of the league with therichest 20% accounting for 47.7% of consumption andthe poorest 20% sharing 5.8%. In Group 3, the Non-Accession Countries, the Russian Federation is at thebottom of the league, closely followed by Armenia - therichest 20% account for 53.7% and 50.6% respectivelyand the poorest 20% share 4.4% and 5.5% respectively.

UNDP-Inequity Chart

Surveybased on

Survey Income or GiniCountry HDI Rank Year Consumption Share of Income or Consumption Index*

Poorest Poorest Richest Richest10% 20% 20% 10%

EU Plus

Austria 16 1987 I 4,4 10,4 33,3 19,3 23,1Belgium 5 1992 I 3,7 9,5 34,5 20,2 25Denmark 15 1992 I 3,6 9,6 34,5 20,5 24,7Finland 10 1991 I 4,2 10 35,8 21,6 25,6France 13 1995 I 2,8 7,2 40,2 25,1 32,7Germany 17 1994 I 3,3 8,2 38,5 23,7 30Greece 23 1993 I 3 7,5 40,3 25,3 32,7Iceland 7 " " " " " " "Ireland 18 1987 I 2,5 6,7 42,9 27,4 35,9Italy 20 1995 I 3,5 8,7 36,3 21,8 27,3Luxembourg 12 1994 I 4 9,4 36,5 22 26,9Malta 30 " " " " " " "Netherlands 8 1994 I 2,8 7,3 40,1 25,1 32,6Norway 1 1995 I 4,1 9,7 35,8 21,8 25,8Portugal 28 94-95 1 3,1 7,3 43,4 28,4 35,6Spain 21 1990 I 2,8 7,5 40,3 25,2 32,5Sweden 4 1992 I 3,7 9,6 34,5 20,1 25Switzerland 11 1992 1 2,6 6,9 40,3 25,2 33,1United Kingdom 14 1991 I 2,6 6,6 43 27,3 36,1

Accession Countries

Bulgaria 57 1997 I 4,5 10,1 36,8 22,8 26,4Czech Republic 33 1996 I 4,3 10,3 35,9 22,4 25,4Estonia 44 1998 I 3 7 45,1 29,8 37,6Hungary 36 1998 C 4,1 10 34,4 20,5 24,4Latvia 50 1998 I 2,9 7,6 40,3 25,9 32,4Lithuania 47 1996 C 3,1 7,8 40,3 25,6 32,4Poland 38 1998 C 3,2 7,8 39,7 24,7 31,6Romania 58 1994 I 3,7 8,9 37,3 22,7 28,2Slovakia 35 1992 I 5,1 11,9 31,4 18,2 19,5Slovenia 29 1998 I 3,9 9,1 37,7 23 28,4Turkey 82 1994 C 2,3 5,8 47,7 32,3 41,5

Other Countries

Albania 85 " " " " " " "Armenia 72 1996 C 2,3 5,5 50,6 35,2 44,4Belarus 53 1998 C 5,1 11,4 33,3 20 21,7Bosnia-Herzegovina " " " " " " " "Croatia 46 1998 I 3,7 8,8 38 23,3 29Georgia 76 1996 I 2,3 6,1 43,6 27,9 37,1Macedonia 60 " " " " " " "Moldova 98 1997 I 2,2 5,6 46,8 30,7 40,6Russian Federation 55 1998 C 1,7 4,4 53,7 38,7 48,7Ukraine 74 1999 C 3,7 8,8 37,8 23,2 29Yugoslavia " " " " " " " "

36

Caritas Europa member organisations also highlightthe plight of youth, with few opportunities for gainfulemployment, and the elderly whose pensions arewholly inadequate to meet basic needs so that elderly

people find themselves between Scylla and Charybdis -whether to have food or whether to have heating inwintertime.

Finally, a special word needs to be said aboutdiscrimination on grounds of race, colour, creed,gender or sexual orientation. Discrimination - andindeed varying degrees of racism and xenophobia -persist throughout Europe. Much has been writtenabout the "feminization" of poverty and this isparticularly true of single mothers. Migrants, legaland illegal, and ethnic minorities are dispro-portionately represented among the poorest in oursociety. They are often in the lowest paid jobs, arefrequently unemployed and often do not know theirrights - if any - under the host country social securitysystem. They are further marginalised by racism andstereotyping, whether overt or covert. In this regard,since it is featured in a number of the contributionsfrom eastern European countries28, particular mentionshould be made of the Roma people (also known asRom, Romani or Romany). Their rich history is marredby successive waves of discrimination, persecution,forced assimilation and enslavement.

Where there are substantial populations of Romapeople, they tend to be among the poorest of thepoor. Catherine Magnant of the EuropeanCommission's Human Rights and DemocratisationUnit, speaking at a European Commission sponsoredCaritas Conference in October 199929, stated thatthere are some 8 million Roma living in Europe, withthe vast majority (around 6 million) living in centraland eastern Europe. Roma communities are mostnumerous in Romania (between 1.8 to 2.5 millionRoma people), Bulgaria (700,000 to 800,000),Hungary (500,000-600,000), Slovakia (400,000 to500,000) and the Czech Republic (250,000 to300,000).

% of population under age 15, 2001

% of male population aged 60+ 2001

% of female population aged 60+ 2001

Youth and Elderly as Percentage of Population

0 %

5 %

10 %

15 %

20 %

25 %

18 % 18 %

20 %

18 %

15 %14 %

23 %

21 %20 %

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3 (Excluding Belarus,Macedonia and Moldava)

Youth and Elderly Chart

28 Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Macedonia.29 Enlargement and Civil Society, Proceedings of the European Commission-sponsored Caritas Conference, Brussels,

October 1999. Available from Caritas Europa, 4 rue de Pascale, 1040 Bruxelles.

37

Overview

In many respects, demographic trends in Group 2(accession countries) are closer to those in Group 3(former Soviet countries) than in Group 1 (the EU PlusGroup). Group 1 is highly urbanised, with 78% of itspopulation living in urban areas compared with only65% of Group 2’s and 56% of Group 3’s populations.Moreover Group 1’s population is rising at an annualrate of 0.2%, against declines of 0.2% and 0.3% inGroups 2 and 3 respectively. Life expectancy inGroup 1 is 77.6 years, compared with 71.5 and 70.4years, and infant mortality in Group 1 is only 5 perthousand, against 15 and 21 per thousand in Groups2 and 3 respectively.

Thus, despite a higher incidence of HIV in theirpopulations, Group 1 countries have considerablybetter overall health indicators. Although this is

probably due in part to higher standards of living inGroup 1, levels of health care expenditure also seemto be significant: health care expenditure is 6.2% ofGNP in Group 1, but only 5.0% and 4.5% in Groups 2and 3. It is also noticeable that those Group 2 andGroup 3 countries with relatively high levels of healthcare expenditure tend to have better healthindicators than those with lower spending levels. Onthe other hand, there seems to be much weakercorrelation within Group 1 between health careexpenditure and health indicators. This suggests that,whereas excessively low health care expenditurelevels may be blamed for poor health indicators insome Group 2 and Group 3 countries, health careexpenditure in most Group 1 countries may alreadybe at a level above which health indicators areaffected by other factors.

*less than 0.01 - removed for calculation purposes

urban rural

Adult(% age15-49)

Women(age

15-49)

Women(% age15-49)

Children(age0-14)

Population (In % of

the total) 1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

Austria 8,1 -0,2 65 35 77,7 4 0,23 2000 0,0500% <100 302 6104,3 5,8Belgium 10,2 0 97 3 77,9 6 0,15 2600 0,0433% 300 395 7984,0 7,9Denmark 5,3 0,1 85 15 75,9 4 0,17 900 0,0225% <100 290 5861,7 6,8Finland 5,2 0 67 33 77,2 4 0,05 300 0,0075% <100 299 6043,6 5,2France 59 0,3 75 25 78,1 5 0,44 35000 0,7000% 1 303 6124,5 7,3Germany 82 -0,1 87 13 77,3 5 0,1 7400 0,1480% 500 350 7074,5 7,9Greece 10,6 -0,1 60 40 78 6 0,16 1600 0,0267% <100 392 7923,4 4,7Iceland 0,3 0,6 92 8 78,9 5 0,14 <100 0,0012% <100 326 6589,4 …Ireland 3,8 1 59 41 76,1 6 0,1 600 0,0100% 170 554 11197,9 4,7Italy 57,5 -0,3 67 33 78,2 6 0,35 30000 0,5000% 700 219 4426,6 5,6Luxembourg 0,4 1,1 91 9 77 5 0,16 - - 272 5497,9 5,4Malta 0,4 0,4 90 10 77,6 6 0,12 - - 261 5275,5 …Netherlands 15,8 0,2 89 11 77,9 5 0,19 3000 0,0600% 100 251 5073,4 6Norway 4,4 0,3 75 25 78,1 4 0,07 360 0,0090% <100 413 8347,9 7,4Portugal 10 0 63 37 75,2 5 0,74 7000 0,1400% 500 312 6306,4 5,2Spain 39,9 -0,1 77 23 78,1 6 0,58 25000 0,4167% <100 424 8570,2 5,4Sweden 8,9 -0,2 83 17 79,3 3 0,08 800 0,0267% <100 311 6286,2 6,7Switzerland 7,2 -0,2 68 32 78,6 3 0,46 5500 0,1833% <100 323 6528,7 7,6United Kingdom 59,3 0,1 89 11 77,2 6 0,11 6700 0,1117% 500 164 3314,9 5,6

Average 0,2 77,8 22,2 77,6 4,9 0,23 0,1293% 324,3 6,2

Group 1: The European Union Plus

■ Demography

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

PublicHealthExpen-diture (% ofGDP

1990-98

Percentcom-pared

toaverage

Physi-cians (Per

100.000people)

1990

InfantMortality

Rate (Per

1.000 live

births)1999

LifeEx-pectancyat Birth(Years)1995-2000

AnnualPopula-

tionGrowth

Rate1999-2015

TotalPopula-

tion(Millions)

1999Country

38

The 19 countries in Group 1 have populations rangingfrom a high of 82 million (Germany) to a low of 0.3 million(Iceland). The median is Sweden, with a population of 8.9million. Luxembourg, one of the smallest countries, hasthe highest population growth rate at 1.1% per annum,while Italy, one of the largest with 57.5 million has thelowest annual growth rate of –0.3. In Belgium, whichdepends on its centralised location and excellenttransport system to drive the economy, 97% of thepopulation resides in urban areas, while Ireland, which isstill highly reliant on agriculture, has a population ofwhich only 59% reside in urban areas.

Life expectancy at birth is highest in Sweden wherethe number of doctors and share of GNP spent onpublic healthcare is well above average. Portugal, at75.2 years, has the lowest rate of life expectancy.Perhaps not coincidentally, it spends less than

average on public health, has an above averageincidence of HIV in the population, and a relativelylow number of physicians per capita. Infant mortalityis highest in Greece (which ties with Ireland for lastplace in spending on healthcare) and lowest inSwitzerland, where spending on healthcare is wellabove average and the number of physicians percapita is about average.

The number of physicians per capita is highest inIreland, and perhaps helps to balance out thecountry’s low level of spending on health care. It alsohas the lowest incidence of people living with HIV. Inline with longstanding complaints about waiting listsfor health care, the UK has the lowest number ofphysicians of any Group 1 country. Public healthexpenditure is highest in Germany, which ranks aboutaverage on most of the health indicators.

The 11 countries in Group 2 have populations rangingfrom a high of 65.7 million (Turkey) to a low of 1.4million (Estonia). The median is Bulgaria, with apopulation of 8 million. Turkey is not only the largestcountry in the Group but also has the highestpopulation growth rate at 1.2 per annum, while Estonia,has the smallest population and the lowest annualgrowth rate of –1.1. In the Czech Republic, 75% of the

population resides in urban areas, while at the otherend of the spectrum Slovenia, which is highly reliant onalpine tourism and agriculture, has a population ofwhich only 50% resides in urban areas. Life expectancyat birth is highest in Slovenia where the infant mortalityrate is among the lowest in Group 2 (5 deaths per1,000) and the percentage of GNP spent on publichealthcare is well above average for the Group.


urban rural

Adult(% age15-49)

Women(age

15-49)

Women(% age15-49)

Children(age0-14)

Population (In % of

the total) 1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

Bulgaria 8 -1 69 31 70,8 14 0,01 - - 345 2314,0 3,8Czech Republic 10,3 -0,2 75 25 74,3 5 0,04 500 0,0100% <100 303 2032,3 6,7Estonia 1,4 -1,1 69 31 70 17 0,04 <100 0,0004% <100 297 1992,1 5,5Hungary 10 -0,5 64 36 71,1 9 0,05 270 0,0030% <100 357 2394,5 5,2Latvia 2,4 -0,6 69 31 69,6 17 0,11 250 0,0015% <100 282 1891,5 4,2Lithuania 3,7 -0,3 68 32 71,4 18 0,02 <100 0,0003% <100 395 2649,4 4,8Poland 38,6 -0,1 65 35 72,8 9 0,07 - - 236 1582,9 4,7Romania 22,5 -0,3 56 44 69,8 21 0,02 750 0,0036% 5 184 1234,1 5,6Slovakia 5,4 0 57 43 72,8 9 * <100 0,0007% <100 353 2367,7 5,7Slovenia 2 -0,2 50 50 75 5 0,02 <100 0,0012% <100 228 1529,3 6,6Turkey 65,7 1,2 74 26 69 40 0,01 - - 121 811,6 2,2

Average -0,3 65,1 34,9 71,5 14,9 000 0,0026% 281,9 5,0

Group 2: The Accession Countries

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999


1990-98

Percentcom-pared

toaverage

Physi-cians (Per

100.000people)

1990

InfantMortality

Rate (Per

1.000 live

births)1999


AnnualPopula-

tionGrowth

Rate1999-2015

TotalPopula-

tion(Millions)

1999Country

39

Turkey, at 69.0 years, has the lowest of lifeexpectancy, with Romania at 69.8 years a closesecond. Turkey also has the highest infant mortalityrate in Group 2, spends the least on public health asa share of GNP and has proportionately the fewestphysicians; however, it does have the lowestincidence of HIV (0.01%). Latvia has the highestincidence of people living with HIV: 0.11% of people

aged 15 -49 are infected. The number of physiciansper capita is highest in Lithuania (395 for every100,000 people) with Hungary running a closesecond. Public health expenditure as a share of GNPis highest in the Czech Republic (6.7% compared toan average of 5.0%); it ranks about average on mostof the health indicators.

The 11 countries in Group 3 have populations rangingfrom a high of 146.2 million (Russia) to a low of 2 million(Macedonia). The median is Croatia, with a populationof 4.7 million. Ukraine, which at 50 million has thesecond largest population, also has the lowest annualgrowth rate of –0.9, whilst Albania, one of the smallestwith 3.1 million, has the highest annual growth rate of0.6%. Albania also has the highest rural population at39%; on the other hand, 77% of the population in theRussian Federation resides in urban areas.

Life expectancy at birth is highest in Croatia (73.3years), where the infant mortality rate (8 deaths per1,000) is the lowest in Group 3 and the share of GNP(8.1%) spent on public healthcare is also highest. Russia,at 66.1 years, has the lowest life expectancy, with

Moldova (66.6 years) a close second. The infantmortality rate is highest in Albania (29 deaths per1,000), which also has the fewest physicians (129 forevery 100,000 people). Armenia, with 0.01% of peopleliving with HIV, has the lowest incidence of HIV in thepopulation; the Ukraine, which has 0.96% of peopleaged 15 -49 living with HIV, has the highest. Thenumber of physicians per capita is highest in Belarus(443 per 100,000) with Georgia (436 per 100,000)running a close second. There is a high degree ofcorrelation between public health expenditure andhealth indicators: as indicated above, these are best inCroatia, which has high public health expenditure, andworst in Albania, which has proportionately the lowestlevel of public health expenditure.


urban rural

Adult(% age15-49)

Women(age

15-49)

Women(% age15-49)

Children(age0-14)

Population (In % of

the total) 1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

Albania 3,1 0,6 39 59 72,8 29 * - - 129 41,1 3,5Armenia 3,8 0 70 30 72,4 25 0,01 <100 <100 316 100,6 3,1Belarus 10,2 -0,4 71 29 68,5 23 0,28 3,5 <100 443 141,0 4,9Bosnia-Herzegovina 43 57 - - - …Croatia 4,7 0 57 43 73,3 8 0,02 <100 <100 229 72,9 8,1Georgia 5,3 -0,6 60 40 72,7 19 * <100 <100 436 138,8 0,5Macedonia 2 0,2 62 38 72,7 22 * <100 <100 204 64,9 5,5Moldova 4,3 -0,2 46 26 66,6 27 0,2 1 <100 350 111,4 6,4

so low Russian I don't Federation 146,2 -0,6 77 23 66,1 18 0,18 32,5 think 1,8 421 2015,4 4,6

they're right

Ukraine 50 -0,9 68 32 68,1 17 0,96 70 7,5 299 95,2 3,6Yugoslavia … … 52 48 … … - - - … …

Average -0,2 66,6 44,3 70,4 20,9 000 314,1 4,5

Group 3: Non-Accession Countries

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999

PeopleLivingwith

HIV/Aids1999


1990-98

Percentcom-pared

toaverage

Physi-cians (Per

100.000people)

1990

InfantMortality

Rate (Per

1.000 live

births)1999


AnnualPopula-

tionGrowth

Rate1999-2015

TotalPopula-

tion(Millions)

1999Country

40

Group 1 Compared To Group 2

The median population sizes are roughly the same inGroup 1and 2 – around 8 million, though Group 1 hasseveral countries (Germany, France, UK, Italy) withpopulations that exceed 50 million; in Group 2 Turkey isthe only country with such a large population. Averagepopulation growth rate is lower in Group 2 (around –0.3compared to 0.2 for Group 1). The highest annualpopulation growth rates in the groups are similar:Turkey’s is 1.2%, while Luxembourg’s is 1.1%. At theother end of the scale Estonia’s –1.1% is substantiallylower than Italy’s -0.3%. More of the Group 2 populationlives in rural areas than Group 1’s (34.9% as opposed to22.2%). Average life expectancy in Group 2 issignificantly lower than in Group 1: 71.5 years comparedto 77.6 years; Turkey’s Group 2 low of 69 years comparesto the low of 75.2 years in Group 1 (Portugal).

Likewise infant mortality rates are much higher in Group2, though Turkey with an infant mortality rate of 40deaths per 1,000 live births somewhat skews theaverage: without Turkey the Group 2 average is 12.4rather than 14.9 deaths per thousand. The proportion ofpeople living with HIV is lower in Group 2 than Group 1.Latvia with 0.11% is the highest in Group 2: this is,however, far lower than the incidence in Portugal, whichat 0.74% of the adult population has the highestincidence. The number of physicians per 100,000 is muchlower in Group 2, though again this number is slightlyskewed by Turkey, which at 121 physicians per 100,000 isabout 100 physicians per thousand lower than thenearest Group 2 country. Without Turkey, the Group 2average of 298 per 100,000 is much more in line with thatof Group 1(324.3 per 100,000). Public health expenditurein Group 2 at 5% of GDP is lower than that of Group 1(6.2%); again, Turkey, where health expenditure is only2.2% of GDP, distorts the Group 2 average.


The median population in Group 3 is much smaller thanin Group 1: 4.7 million as compared to a Group 1median of 8.9 million. (It should be noted thatpopulation figures for Yugoslavia and BosniaHerzegovina are unavailable.) Average annualpopulation growth is lower in Group 3: around -0.2%,compared with 0.2% in Group 1. The high of 0.6%(Albania) is much lower than that of Luxembourg (1.1%),and Ukraine’s –0.9% annual growth rate (the lowest inGroup 3) is substantially lower than Italy’s -0.3%. More ofGroup 3 countries’ peoples live in rural areas than Group1’s (44.2% as opposed to 22.2%). Life expectancy inGroup 3 is significantly lower than Group 1: the averageof 70.4 years in Group 2 compared to an average of 77.6years in Group 1. Russia’s low of 66.1 years compares toa low in Group 1 of 75.2 years (Portugal). Likewise infantmortality rates are much higher in Group 3, where there

is an average of 20.9 deaths per thousand against aGroup 1 average of 4.9 deaths per thousand. Albania, at29 deaths per thousand, has the highest rate. Theproportion of people living with HIV is slightly higher inGroup 3 than Group 1 (although the Russian figureseems unlikely to be as low as the reported 0.18%).Ukraine, with 0.96%, has a higher incidence of HIVamongst adults than Portugal’s Group 1 high of 0.74%.The number of physicians per 100,000 is only slighterlower in Group 3 (314.1 per 100,000) than Group 1(324.3 per 100,000). However, this number includesformer Soviet Union countries where public serviceshave noticeably declined: consequently, healthexpenditure may be more accurate in measuring theprovision of healthcare. At 4.5%, average healthexpenditure in Group 3 is significantly lower as a shareof GNP than in Group 1 (6.2%). However, Croatia (8.1%)and Moldova (6.4%) lead the way in this area.


The median population in Group 3 is much smaller thanGroup 2: 4.7 million compared to 8 million, thoughGroup 3 includes Russia (146.2 million people andUkraine with 50 million) while in Group 2 Turkey is theonly country with a population of more than 50 million. Inboth groups the average annual population growth rateis negative: around -0.3% in Group 2and -0.2 in Group 3.However, Group 2’s high of 1.2% (Turkey) is much higherthan that of Albania (0.6%), which is the highest in Group3. Slightly less of Group 2’s population (65.1%) lives inurban areas than Group 3 (66.6%); however, the latterfigure would be much lower without Russia, where 77%of the population lives in urban areas. Albania (39%) hasthe lowest urban population in Group 3, well belowSlovenia, which at 50% has the lowest urban populationin Group 2. Life expectancy in Group 2 is slightly lowerthan Group 2: the average of 71.5 years in Group 2 isonly slightly higher than the average of 70.4years inGroup 3. Turkey’s Group 2 low of 69 years compares tothe low in Group 3 of 66.1 years in Russia. Though infantmortality rates are lower in Group 2 (14.9 per thousand,compared with 20.9 per thousand in Group 3, the rate of29 deaths per 1,000 in Albania is much lower than the 40per thousand reported in Turkey in Group 2.

The incidence of HIV is higher in Group 3 than Group 2,and Ukraine with the Group 3 high of 0.96% has a farhigher incidence than Latvia (Group 2’s highest), wherethe incidence is 0.11%. The number of physicians per100,000 is significantly higher in Group 3 (314.1/100000) than Group 2 (281.9/100 000), though if Turkey isexcluded, the group averages are similar. At 4.5% ofGDP, public health expenditure in Group 3 is only slightlylower than that of Group 1 (6.2%). Georgia spends only0.5% of GDP on public health, much lower than Turkey(Group 2’s lowest) which spends 2.2% of GDP on health.

41

Overview

The educational and economic differences betweenthe three groups of countries are more complex thantheir demographic trends. Group 1 countries tend tohave higher enrolment ratios, while Group 2 andGroup 3 are similar to each other. Likewise, Group 1has significantly more scientists and engineers percapita. On the other hand, the group average shares inGNP of public expenditure on education are much thesame (with much more variation between individualcountries). Despite female enrolment ratios30 beinghigher than male enrolment ratios in all three groups,male incomes are higher in all three groups. Thebiggest differences between men’s and women’s

incomes are in Group 1 countries, where on averagemen earn nearly twice as much as women. Theindicators that show the greatest hierarchy betweenthe three groups are the numbers of computers percapita, the amount of internet use, and income levels(particularly men’s income levels). In these respects,Group 1’s averages are far ahead of Group 2’s, whichin turn are significantly ahead of Group 3’s. Thenumber of refugees as a proportion of totalpopulations is very low (typically less than one per tenthousand) in most countries of every group, with onlya few countries such as Germany and Armeniareporting significantly more.

Group 1’s women have a slightly higher enrolment ratiothan men on average: 94.7 for women compared to91.2 for men. Belgium has the highest enrolment ratios,111 for women and 107 for men. The lowest is inLuxembourg where it is 74 for women and 71 for men.The number of scientists and engineers as a share of the

population is highest in Sweden (3.8/thousand) andlowest in Portugal (1.2/thousand); the average is2.5/thousand. Public expenditure on education ishighest in Sweden (8.3% of GNP) and Greece andBelgium tie for last place, with 3.1% of GNP. The Group1 average is 5.6% of GNP spent on education.

Austria 89 90 1,627 5,4 256,8 1,84 02 3%Belgium 111 107 2,272 3,1 315,2 1,4 01 4%Denmark 101 94 3,19 8,1 414 1,5 02 8%Finland 108 99 2,799 7,5 360,1 2,143 04 1%France 96 93 2,659 6 221,8 5,37 0 09%Germany 93 95 2,831 4,8 297 14,4 01 8%Greece 81 80 773 3,1 60,2 0,75 0 07%Iceland 91 86 … 5,4 … …Ireland 93 89 2,319 6 404,9 0,679 01 8%Italy 87 81 1,318 4,9 191,8 7 01 2%Luxembourg 74 71 … 4 … …Malta 79 82 … 5,1 … …Netherlands 100 104 2,219 5,1 359,9 3 01 9%Norway 99 95 3,664 7,7 446,6 2 04 5%Portugal 99 94 1,182 5,8 93 0,7 0 07%Spain 99 91 1,305 5 119,4 4,652 01 2%Sweden 107 95 3,826 8,3 451,4 3,666 04 1%Switzerland 81 87 3,006 5,4 461,9 1,427 02 0%United Kingdom 112 100 2,448 5,3 302,5 2,5 0 04%

Average 94,7 91,2 2.5 5,6 297,3 19,9%excluding Greece

Group 1: The European Union Plus

■ Education & Development

Combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross

enrolment ratio %1999CountryEU Plus

MaleFemale

PublicExpenditure on Education

(As % of GNP)1995-97

PersonalComputers (Per 1.000

people)1999

28 Enrolment ratios are the number of students enrolled in education, regardless of age, as a percentage of the population of official school age i.e. enrolment ratios will therefore include adults returning to education.

Scientists andengineers

in R&D (Per million

people) 1987-97

Internet Users

in Thousands 1999

Internet Users as apercent ofpopulation

42

The number of computers per thousand ranges from461.9 (Switzerland) to only 60.2 (Greece). Scandinavia,on the whole, has the highest incidence of computerusers: with a range of 360.1/thousand (Finland) to 451.4(Sweden). 19.9% of Group 1’s population claims to usethe Internet; Norway claims the most users (45.45%),while the UK has the fewest (4.22%). At 0.1% of thepopulation, numbers of refugees tend to be low:Germany has the highest share with 1.12% of thepopulation while Luxembourg with 0.001% has thelowest. Unemployment was highest at 14% in Spain,and lowest in the Netherlands (2.6%). Overall, theaverage of Group 1 was 6.6%. Incomes - represented inUS $ at 1999 figures range from a high of $22,000 forwomen in Norway to a low of $6,500 for women inMalta. Men’s incomes range from $63,500 inLuxembourg to $1,300 in Portugal. On average womenearn $16,300: about 52% of the average income formen: $31,900. The gap between male and femalesalaries is closest in the UK (71.5%) though Scandinaviain general is a close runner -up. The gap is widest inMalta where women earn only 27.2% of a man’s salary.Turkey, at 69.0 years, has the lowest of life expectancy,with Romania at 69.8 years a close second. Turkey alsohas the highest infant mortality rate in Group 2, spendsthe least on public health as a share of GNP and hasproportionately the fewest physicians; however, it doeshave the lowest incidence of HIV (0.01%). Latvia has thehighest incidence of people living with HIV: 0.11% of

people aged 15 -49 are infected. The number ofphysicians per capita is highest in Lithuania (395 forevery 100,000 people) with Hungary running a closesecond. Public health expenditure as a share of GNP ishighest in the Czech Republic (6.7% compared to anaverage of 5.0%); it ranks about average on most of thehealth indicators.

Austria 76,6 88,4 165 65 76,6 146,7 0 05% 16,445 34,182 04 8 3,1Belgium 204,7 179,3 384 196,6 179,4 375 0 08% 15,51 35,798 04 3 4,1Denmark 155,309 86,855 68,45 - - - 0 05% 21,274 30,565 07 0 2,8Finland 142 143 285 131 130 261 01 0% 18,405 28,023 06 6 5,6France 1613,4 1436,7 3050,2 1607,7 1452,1 3059,7 01 0% 17,525 28,554 06 1 3,1Germany 1775 2074 3849 1598 1905 3503 01 0% 15,846 31,994 05 0 3Greece 289,8 88,8 478,5 - - - 01 1% 9,401 21,595 04 4 3,8Iceland 2,3 1,8 4,1 - - - 0 03% 21,297 34,335 06 2 4,3Ireland 47,8 78,8 126,6 37,5 59,4 96,9 0 05% 14,347 37,641 03 8 9,9Italy 1431 1313 2745 1404 1266 2669 01 0% 13,632 31,238 04 4 2,7Luxembourg 2,587 2,947 5,534 2,523 2,828 5,351 0 03% 22,733 63,473 03 6 5,7Malta 1,007 6,43 7,437 1,084 6,611 7,695 0 05% 6,526 24,017 02 7 3,4Netherlands 181 155 337 - - - 0 03% 16,405 32,17 05 1 4Norway 35 40 75 33 42 75 0 03% 22,037 34,96 06 3 2,7Portugal 140,35 107,59 247,95 115,67 105,92 221,6 0 04% 11,163 21,348 05 2 2,7Spain 1696,1 1364,3 3060,3 1503,5 1102 2605,5 01 4% 10,741 25,747 04 2 4Sweden 122 154 276 107 133 241 0 06% 18,032 27,065 06 7 4,3Switzerland 71,8 70 141,8 62,4 59,2 121,6 0 06% 17,977 36,569 04 9 3United Kingdom 678,6 1097,8 1776,4 656,5 1095,2 1751,7 0 06% 19,753 27,611 07 2 3

Average 6,6% $16,3 $31,9 51,8

Unemployment (Per thousand)1998 Total


unemploy-ment

Estimated earnedincome(PPP US$)

1999 % femaleof male

gdp-realgrowthrate (%)Country

EU Plus Female Male Total Female Male Total 2000(CIA) Female Male

Austria 83 000 %Belgium 18 000 %Denmark 69 000 %Finland 13 000 %France 130 000 %Germany 976 0 01%Greece 6 000 %Iceland …Ireland 1 0,002 %Italy 23 000 %Luxembourg 1 0,001 %Malta ….Netherlands 139 000 %Norway 48 000 %Portugal …Spain 6 000 %Sweden 160 000 %Switzerland 82 000 %United Kingdom 137 000 %

Average 118,3 0,1%

Refugees By Country of asylum

(Thousand)1999

Refugees By Country of asylumas a percent

of populationCountryEU Plus

43

Bulgaria 228,2 269,2 497,4 245,9 288 534 01 8% 3,951 6,251 06 3 5Czech Republic 214,3 165,4 379,6 248,1 222,3 470,4 0 09% 10,214 15,98 06 4 2,5Estonia 30,2 40 70,2 34,1 47 81,1 01 2% - - 6,4Hungary 123,8 189,2 313 114 170,7 284,7 0 09% 8,381 14,769 05 7 5,5Latvia 77,7 82,9 160,6 72,9 4,4 167,3 0 08% 5,021 7,716 06 5 5,5Lithuania 107,7 137,2 244,9 113 150,3 263,3 01 1% 5,406 8,055 06 7 2,9Poland 965 843 1808 - - - 12% 6,453 10,561 06 1 4,8Romania 322,1 410,3 732,4 327,4 462,5 789,9 01 2% 4,441 7,711 05 8 2,2Slovak Republic 149,6 167,5 317,1 190,3 226,6 416,8 01 7% 8,393 12,912 06 5 2,2Slovenia 35 40 75 34 37 71 0 07% 12,232 19,942 06 1 4,5Turkey 416 1041 1547 471 1259 1730 10% 3,937 8,772 04 5 6

Average 11,2% $6,2 $10,2 06 1



unemploy-ment



gdp-realgrowthrate (%)

CountryAccessionCountries

Female Male Total Female Male Total 2000(CIA) Female Male

Like Group 1, Group 2 ’s women have a slightly higherenrolment ratio than men on average: 77.9 forwomen compared to 75.5 for men. Estonia has thehighest enrolment ratios, 89 for women and 84 formen. The lowest ratio for women is in Turkey where itis 55; the enrolment ratio for men in Turkey ties withRomania for lowest with 69. The number of scientistsand engineers as a share of the total population is

highest in Slovenia (2.3 per thousand) and lowest inLatvia (1.0 per thousand). The average is 1.6 perthousand. Public expenditure on education is highestin Poland (7.5% of GNP); Turkey is in last place,registering 2.2% of GNP spent on education. Thenumber of computers per thousand people rangesfrom 251.3 in Slovenia to 33.8 in Turkey.

On average, 6.5% of Group 2’s population claims touse the Internet; Estonia claims the highestpercentage of users (14.3%) while Turkey (2.3%) and

Bulgaria have the fewest (2.9%). At 0.002% of thepopulation, refugees barely register: Slovenia has thehighest percent with 0.008% while the Czech

Bulgaria 76 69 1,747 3,2 26,6 0,235 0 03%Czech Republic 70 69 1,222 5,1 107,2 0,7 0 07%Estonia 89 84 2,017 7,2 135,2 0,2 01 4%Hungary 83 79 1,099 4,6 74,7 0,6 0 06%Latvia 83 80 1,049 6,5 82 0,105 0 04%Lithuania 83 77 2,028 5,9 59,5 0,103 0 03%Poland 86 83 1,358 7,5 62 2,1 0 05%Romania 70 68 1,387 3,6 26,8 0,6 0 03%Slovak Republic 77 74 1,866 4,7 109,7 0,6 01 1%Slovenia 85 80 2,251 5,7 251,4 0,25 01 3%Turkey 55 68 291 2,2 33,8 1,5 0 02%

Average 77,9 75,5 1.6 5,1 88,1 6,5%excluding

Turkey

Group 2: The Accession Candidates


enrolment ratio %1999CountryAccessionCountries

MaleFemale


(As % of GNP)1995-97


people)1999


in R&D (Per million

people) 1987-97

Internet Users

in Thousands 1999


44

Republic with 0.001% has the fewest. Unemploymentwas highest at 17.7% in Bulgaria, and lowest inSlovenia (7.1%). Overall, the average of Group 2 was11.2%. Women’s incomes range from $12,200 inSlovenia to $3,900 and $4,000 in Turkey and Bulgariarespectively. Men’s incomes range from $19,900 inSlovenia to $6,300 in Bulgaria. On average womenearn $6,200: about 60.7% of the average income formen ($10,200). The gap between male and femalesalaries is closest in Latvia (where on average womenearn 65.1% of men’s incomes). The gap is widest inTurkey where women earn only 44.9% of a man’ssalary.

Bulgaria 1 0,00145%Czech Republic 1 0,00133%Estonia …Hungary 5 0,00781%Latvia …Lithuania …Poland 1 0,00154%Romania 1 0,00179%Slovak Republic …Slovenia 4 0,00800%Turkey 3 0,00405%

Average 0,002%


(Thousand)1999


of population

CountryAccessionCountries

Like Group 1, Group 3 ’s women have a slightly higherenrolment ratio than men on average: 77.8 forwomen compared to 75.7 for men. Albania has thehighest enrolment ratios, 99 for women and 95 formen. The lowest ratios for men and women are inCroatia where they are 69 and 68 respectively,although Georgia and Macedonia report similarly lowratios. The number of scientists and engineers per

thousand is highest in Russia (3.6 per thousand) andlowest in Yugoslavia (1.1 per thousand). The averageis 1.8 per thousand. Public expenditure on educationis highest in Moldova (10.6% of GNP); Armenia is last,registering 2.0% of GNP spent on education. Thenumber of computers/ per thousand people rangesfrom 67 (Croatia) to 5.2 (Albania) followed byArmenia: 5.7. The average is 22.8 per thousand.

Albania 99 95 … … 5,2 0,003 000%Armenia 77 82 … 2 5,7 0,03 0 01%Belarus 79 75 2,248 5,9 … 0,05 000 %Bosnia-Herzegovina … ... … … … 4Croatia 69 68 1,916 5,3 67 0,2 0 04%Georgia 71 69 … 5,2 … 0,03 0 01%Macedonia 70 70 1,335 5,1 … 0,03 0 02%Moldova, Rep.of 75 70 ,,330 10,6 8 0,025 0 01%Russian Federation 82 75 3,587 3,5 37,4 2,7 0 02%Ukraine 78 77 2,171 5,6 15,8 0,2 000 %Yugoslavia, FR … … 1,099 … 20,7 80(Ser./Mont.)

Average 77,8 75,7 1.8 5,4 22,8 1,2%excluding Moldova

Group 3: Non-Accession Countries


enrolment ratio %1999CountryNon-accessionCountries

MaleFemale


(As % of GNP)1995-97


people)1999


in R&D (Per million

people) 1987-97

Internet Users

in Thousands 1999


45

Albania - - - - - - 16-25% 2,248 4,088 05 5 7,5Armenia - - - - - - 20% 1,775 2,685 06 6 5Belarus 70,6 35,3 105,9 61,3 34,1 95,4 2.1% (official) 5,373 8,599 06 2 4Bosnia-Herzegovina - - - - - - 35-40% - - 8Croatia 97,541 100,936 198,477 116,576 117,395 233,971 02 2% 5,3 9,612 05 5 3,2Georgia 131,3 159,7 291 117,4 160,1 277,5 14.9% ('99) - - 1,9Macedonia - - - - - - 03 2% … - 5Moldova, Rep.of - - - 73,633 13,598 187,231 1.9% (official) 1,618 2,495 06 5 -1,5Russian Federation 4090 4787 8876 4357 4966 9323 10.5% (official) 5,877 9,283 06 3 6,3Ukraine 1422 1515,1 2937,1 1263,3 1435,5 2698,8 4.3% (official) 2,488 4,576 05 4 6Yugoslavia, FR - - - - - - 30%… … 15(Ser./Mont.)

Average $3,5 $5,9 06 0



unemploy-ment



gdp-realgrowthrate (%)

CountryNon-accessionCountries

Female Male Total Female Male Total 2000(CIA) Female Male

Albania 4 000 %Armenia 296 000 %Belarus … Bosnia-Herzegovina …Croatia 28 000 %Georgia 5 000 %Macedonia 21 000 %Moldova, Rep.of …Russian Federation 80 000 %Ukraine 3 000 %Yugoslavia, FR …(Ser./Mont.)

Average 0,1%


(Thousand)1999


of population

CountryNon-accessionCountries

On average, 1.2% of Group 3’s population claims touse the Internet, Croatia claims the highest percent ofusers (4.3%) while Armenia (0.1%) and Ukraine havethe fewest (0.4%). Refugees are 0.1% of thepopulation: Armenia (0.42%) has the highest percentwhile Albania, Georgia and Ukraine all have thefewest with (0.01%). Unemployment was highest at35 -40% in Bosnia -Herzegovina, and lowest inMoldova (1.9%). Incomes range from a high of$5,900 for women in Russia to a low of $1,600 and$1,800 for women in Moldova and Armeniarespectively. Men’s incomes range from $9.600 inCroatia to $2,500 in Moldova. On average womenearn $3,500: about 59.7% of the average income formen: $5.900. Male and female salaries are closest inArmenia (66.1%); the gap is widest in Ukraine wherewomen earn only 54.4% of a man’s salary.

Group 1 Compared To Group 2 The average enrolment ratio is higher in general forGroup 1 than for Group 2: women have an average ratioof 94.7 in Group 1 as compared to 77.9 in Group 2 whilemen have an average ratio of 91.2 in Group 1 comparedto 75.5 in Group 2. Estonia has the highest enrolmentratios in Group 2, reporting 89 for women and 83 formen. Turkey has the lowest enrolment ratio for women:55, while its enrolment ratio for men (68) ties for lastplace in Group 2 along with Romania. Turkey is unusualfor Group 1 and Group 2 in that the enrolment ratio forwomen is significantly lower than that of men. Thenumber of scientists and engineers per thousand ishigher in Group 1; with an average of 2.5 per thousandversus 1.6 per thousand (excluding Turkey) in Group 2.Slovenia with 2.3 scientists and engineers per thousandis closest to the average of 2.5 per thousand for Group1 and is significantly higher than Portugal (1.2 perthousand). Latvia with 1.0 scientists and engineers perthousand has the lowest ratio. Public expenditure oneducation is not significantly lower in Group 2 (5.1% ofGNP) than Group 1’s average (5.6%).

Poland’s high of 7.6% is significantly higher than theGroup 1 average, though Turkey’s 2.2% of GNP spent oneducation is much lower than the 3.1% reported inGreece and Belgium. The number of computers perthousand decreases significantly in Group 2. Overall,Group 2 averages 88.1 computers per thousand whileGroup 1 averages 297.3. Slovenia, with 251.4 computersper thousand reports the most, while Bulgaria, with 26.6per /thousand just beats Romania for the fewest.Internet users are also much lower: 6.5% of Group 2 usethe internet compared to a Group 1 average of 19.9%.Estonia reports that 14.3% of the population uses theinternet – the highest for Group 2 while Turkey reportsthat only 2.3% of the population use the Internet.

On average 0.002% of Group 2’s population, refugeesbarely register, whilst Group 1 reports 0.1% on average.Slovenia has the highest percent of refugees reporting0.008% while the Czech Republic, with 0.001% has thelowest. Unemployment, with an average of 11.2% onaverage in Group 2 is higher than the Group 1 averageof 6.5%. However, the highest unemployment 17.7%(Bulgaria) is in line with the 14% reported in Spain.

46

Incomes in general are lower: the average for women inGroup 2 is $6,200 while it averages $16,300 in Group 1.The average for men is $10,000 in Group 2 compared toan average of $31,000 in Group 1. The gap is narrowerbetween men’s and women’s salaries in Group 2: womenmake 60.7% of men’s salaries on average in Group 2compared to 51.8% on average in Group 1.

Group 1 Compared To Group 3 The average enrolment ratio is higher in general forGroup 1 than for Group 3: women have an average ratioof 94.7 in Group 1 as compared to 77.8 in Group 3 whilemen have an average ratio of 91.2 in Group 1 comparedto 75.7 in Group 3. Albania reports the highestenrolment ratios in Group 3 reporting 99 for women and95 for men in line with Group 1. Croatia has the lowestratios for Group 3: reporting 69 for women and 68 formen. The number of scientists and engineers perthousand is higher in Group 1; with an average of 2.5per thousand versus 1.8 per thousand (excluding Turkey)in Group 3. Russia with 3.6 scientists and engineers perthousand is closest to the high in Group 1 of Swedenwhich has 3.8 scientists and engineers per thousand.Though Yugoslavia reports the lowest number ofscientists and engineers with 1.1 per thousand, that issimilar to Portugal which reports 1.2 per thousand.

Overall, public expenditure on education is not significantlylower in Group 3 (5.4% of GNP) than Group 1’s average(5.6%). Moldova’s high of 10.6% is significantly higher thanSweden, which at 8.3% spends the most of GNP oneducation of a Group 1 country, though Armenia’s 2.0% ofGNP spent on education is much lower than the 3.1%reported in Greece and Belgium. The number of compu-ters per thousand decreases significantly in Group 3.Overall, Group 3 averages 22.8 computers per thousandwhile Group 1 averages 297.3. Russia, with 37.4 computersper thousand reports the most, while Albania (notwith-standing its high education enrolment ratio), with 5.2 perthousand has fewest followed by Armenia and Moldova.

Internet users are also much lower: 1.2% of Group 3 usethe internet compared to the Group 1 average of 19.9%.Croatia reports that 4.3% of its citizens use the internet– the highest for Group 3 while Albania beats Belarusand Ukraine for last place, reporting that only 0.1% ofthe population use the internet. The share of refugeesreported in Group 3 on average is in line with Group 1which reports 0.1%. Armenia (probably because of thewar over Nagorno Karabakh) reports 0.42% whileAlbania, Georgia and Ukraine report 0.01%.

Unemployment is high, although official figures areunlikely to be wholly reliable. However, the highestunemployment is reported in Bosnia -Herzegovina 35 -40% and Croatia (22%). Incomes in general are muchlower than Group 1: the average for women in Group 3is $3,500 compared to an average of $16,300 in Group1. The average for men is $5,900 in Group 2 comparedto an average of $31,900 in Group 1. The gap betweenmen’s and women’s salaries is slightly narrower in Group3: women earn 59.7% of men’s salaries on average inGroup 3 compared to 51.8% on average in Group 1.

Group 2 Compared To Group 3 The average enrolment ratio is slightly higher in generalfor Group 2 than for Group 3: women have an averageratio of 77.9 in Group 2 as compared to 77.8 in Group 3while men have an average ratio of 75.5 in Group 2compared to 75.7 in Group 3. Albania with 99 forwomen and 95 for men has a higher enrolment ratiothan Estonia (the highest in Group 2) which reports 89for women and 84 for men. Except for Turkey, enrolmentratios are higher for women than for men across bothGroup 2 and Group 3. The number of scientists andengineers per thousand is higher in Group 3; with anaverage of 1.8 per thousand versus 1.6 per thousand inGroup 2. Russia with 3.6 scientists and engineers perthousand leads the way and is much higher thanSlovenia which, with 2.3 scientists and engineers perthousand, is highest in Group 2. Latvia with 1.0 scientistsand engineers per thousand has the lowest ratio forGroup 2, but this is lower than the 1.1 scientists andengineers per thousand reported by Yugoslavia.

Public expenditure on education is higher on average inGroup 3 (5.4% of GNP, though since the countries areless wealthy the net effect is obviously less): Moldovaspends 10.6% of GNP on education while Poland onlyspends 7.5%. The low in Group 2 of Turkey (2.2% ofGNP) is in line with that of Armenia, which at 2% is thelowest in Group 3. The number of computers perthousand decreases significantly from Group 2 to Group3. Overall, Group 2 averages 88.1 computers perthousand while Group 3 averages 22.8. Croatia’s 6 perthousand (the highest for Group 3) is nowhere near thatof Slovenia which reports having 251.4 computers perthousand. Bulgaria, which with 26.6 per thousand is thelowest in Group 2 is far ahead of Albania (the lowest inGroup 3), which reports only 5.2 per thousand.

Internet users in Group 3 decrease by about 5%, lessthan the 13% decrease from Group 1 to Group 2 butfrom a lower base. Estonia reports that 14.3% of thepopulation uses the Internet, the average is 6.5% inGroup 2. Croatia, the country with the highest incidenceof internet users in Group 3 is only 4.3% while theaverage is 1.2%. On average, with 0.002% of Group 2’spopulation, refugees barely register, while Group 3reports 0.1% on average. Slovenia has the highestpercent of refugees reporting 0.008% while the CzechRepublic, with 0.001% has the lowest. This compares toGroup 3 where Armenia (0.4%) has the highestincidence of refugees, while Albania has the lowest,0.015%. The highest unemployment in Group 2 is17.7% (Bulgaria) while Group 3 has a high of 35 -40%reported in Bosnia Herzegovina. In line with thedecrease from Group 1 to Group 2, salaries decreasefurther from Group 2 to Group 3 though from a smallerbase and thus a lower percentage. The average for menis $10,000 in Group 2 vis-à-vis an average of $5,900 inGroup 3. The gap is narrower between men’s andwomen’s salaries in Group 2: women earn 60.7% ofmen’s salaries on average in Group 2 compared to51.8% on average in Group 1; this gap widens onlyslightly in Group 3: women earn 59.7% of men’s salariesor 3.5K on average.

47

Group 1: EU Plus Countries

European Union Countries

48

Overview

Austria’s well-developed market economy and highstandard of living is closely tied to other EUeconomies, especially Germany's. Austria joined theEuropean Union in 1995 and the European MonetarySystem in 1999. Growth is expected to remain atabout 3% in 2001.

Demographics

At 8.1 million, Austria’s population is median for Group1 countries. Its negative growth rate is slightly belowaverage for the EU, but life expectancy, at 77.2 years,is about average for this Group. 35% of Austrians liverurally, a significantly higher proportion than theGroup 1 average of 22%. Infant mortality, at 4.0deaths per 1000, is better than the Group 1 average.The proportion of Austrians living with HIV is 0.23%,which is in line with other Group 1 countries. There are302 physicians per 100,000 people, slightly fewer thanthe Group 1 average; the share of GNP spent onpublic health expenditure is also slightly below theGroup 1 average.

Education & Development

Austria’s men and women both have enrolment ratiosof 90, which is slightly below the Group 1 average of95 for women and 91 for men. This slightly loweroverall level of education is reflected in the number ofengineers per 1000 which at 1.6 per 1000 isconsiderably lower than the EU average of 2.5 per1000. Public expenditure on education, however, at5.4% of GNP is close to the Group 1 average. Thenumber of computer users per 1000 is slightly lowerthan the average Group 1 country of 297, but theinternet is widely used: more than 22% of thepopulation use the internet, compared to the Group 1average of about 20%. The proportion of refugees isclose to the Group 1 average of 0.1%. From 1998 –1999, unemployment decreased for both men andwomen, though women were slightly less likely thanmen to be unemployed. At 5.4% unemployment isbelow that of the Group 1 average of 6.6%. Incomelevels are in line with Group 1: women earn only 48%of men’s income, which is close to the Group 1 averageof 52%.

The categories of people mostly affected by povertyare mainly:

■ lone parents with no income from gainful employment (47% of them is threatened by poverty);

■ one-person households living on pensions (26% of them is threatened by poverty);

■ people from non-EU countries (30% of them is threatened by poverty);

■ long-term unemployed (defined as longer than six months) (32% of them is threatened by poverty);

■ people of working age living in households where nobody is gainfully employed (26% of them is threatened by poverty).

However, these results are due to a modification in thecalculation: For the first time the EUROSTAT-scale(1;05;0,3) was used in calculating actual poverty andthe risk of being reduced to poverty in Austria. Incomparison to the former scale (1;07;0,5), this has ledto a change in the groups of persons concerned.

Children and families who, in the earlier statistics, wereconsidered as being threatened by poverty are lessprominent. According to the old scale, 25% of thehouseholds with 2 or more children are prone topoverty. According to the new calculation this figure isnow 19%.

Asylum seekers represent a group extremely affectedby poverty especially when they fall outside the federalsocial care and assistance programme("Bundesbetreuung"). This means they are not entitledto earn their livelihood and, as a consequence, end upliving on the streets. Moreover, in addition to facingdiscrimination when looking for employment orhousing, the situation of non-EU migrants is alsoadversely affected by discrimination on the part of thesocial welfare system (e.g. limited transfer paymentsfor people in need, limited social welfare benefits – ifany at all – little or no access to publicly assistedhousing) and by legal restrictions as they try to enterthe labour market. In 1999, the homeless was

■ Austria

The Caritas Austria Perspective

49

Overview

Belgium has prospered in the past half century as amodern, technologically advanced European state andmember of NATO and the EU. Belgium’s moderneconomy capitalises on its central geographic location,highly developed transport network, and diversifiedindustrial and commercial base. With few naturalresources, the economy is particularly dependent onthe state of world markets. Belgium became a chartermember of European Monetary Union (EMU) inJanuary 1999.

Demographics

With a total population of 10.2 million, Belgium’spopulation is roughly median for Group 1 countries.Its flat growth rate is slightly below average for Group1, though life expectancy, at 77.9 years, is aboutaverage for this Group. 97% people live in urban areaswhich is much higher than the Group 1 average. Infantmortality, at 6 deaths per 1000, is slightly higher thanthe Group 1 average. At 0.15% the proportion ofpeople living with HIV is lower than other Group 1countries, as is the proportion of women and childrenwith HIV. Belgium’s strong health system is reflected in

both the number of physicians and the level of publichealth expenditure, which, at 7.9% of GDP is 1.7%above the Group 1 average.


With a ratio of education 111 and 107 respectively,Belgium’s men and women are educated far abovethe Group 1 average, though public expenditure oneducation, at 3.1% of GNP, is well below the Group 1average. (However, with a ratio above 100 oneshould note some double counting.) This higheroverall level of education is not reflected in thenumber of scientists and engineers per 1000 which at2.3 per 1000 is slightly lower than the Group 1average of 2.5 per 1000. The number of computerusers, at 315.2 per 1000 is higher than the Group 1average. The internet is not as widely used as in mostGroup 1 countries: only 13.7% of the population usethe internet, which is well below the Group 1 average.The proportion of refugees is only 0.02% of thepopulation, lower than the Group 1 average of 0.1%.Unemployment decreased for women and not formen from 1998-1999, although, as a whole, womenare more likely to be unemployed than men(197/1000 for women compared to 179.4/1000 for

■ Belgium

comprised of some 12,000 who visit stationaryaccommodation centers, approximately 2,000 livingon the streets and at least 7,000 seeking shelter in theaccommodation facilities of immigrant and refugeessupport centers.

The threat of poverty for retired people stems from theminimum pension payments, which are simply too low.In the final analysis, the root cause of the problem isthe fact that the pension scheme is geared to the"average male work biography", characterised byuninterrupted full-time employment. This increasinglydoes not reflect the reality for many people,particularly women.

Lone parents not gainfully employed are mostlythreatened by poverty because they do not havesufficient access to adequate childcare facilities (e.g.

opening hours, costs, location within reasonablereach…). This inadequate access also often obligesone of the parents in two parent-households to remainat home and thus unable to find paid employment.

Moreover transfer payments for people in need("Notstandshilfe") are not sufficient to protect thelong-term unemployed against poverty. The final meshin Austria's social safety net consists of social welfarebenefits to meet special contingencies. However, thisis based on the social and medical care principle andwhich does not guarantee basic material needs. Inconsequence, people who fall through the net of thesocial insurance system (retirement benefits,unemployment insurance) lack any guarantee ofhaving their financial needs met nor are they providedwith care facilities.

50

men). Unemployment, at 8.4%, is significantly higherthan the Group 1 average. Incomes in general are inline with Group 1 as a whole: income for men is

slightly higher than Group 1 average, but womenearn only some 43% of men’s income.

Caritas Europa has the following memberorganisations in Belgium: Caritas Catholica Belgica,Caritas Catholic en Belgique Francophone etGermanophone, Caritas Vlaanderen, Caritas SecoursInternational Belgique.

According to the Centrum voor sociaal beleid (theUniversity of Antwerp's social policy centre), thepercentage of households that are below the so-calledsecurity threshold in Belgium has increased from 5.9%in 1988 to 7.7% in 1997. In terms of individuals, thepercentage rose from 5% to 6.4% in the same period.The Centre has highlighted the crucial role played bythe social security system as a poverty-preventionmechanism. However, that mechanism is increasinglyunder threat. The Secretary General of theEmployment and Labour Ministry, Michel Jadot,recently confirmed that current unemployment benefitsin Belgium amounted to only 27% of the average wage,disability benefits 30% and pensions 37%.

The majority coalition currently in power in Belgiumhas adopted the slogan, Etat social actif (active socialstate), which places emphasis on the citizen's activecontribution. This philosophy is also found in policiesto combat poverty. The Belgian Social Integration

Minister, Vande Lanotte, recently proposed that thegovernment approve a draft reform of the minimummeans of existence (the minimex) to be replaced by anintegration income. This draft reform involves greaterdemands placed on the beneficiaries of the system -with benefits henceforth be granted to potentialbeneficiaries through a contract system. If the draftreform is approved by the parliament, assistancewould be only given if more stringent conditions arefulfilled. Some fear that the result of such tightening ofconditions will be a decrease in the protection of theneedy.

Yet currently, the social security system has a largesurplus, which could be usefully spent in four differentareas:

■ on old-age pensions, in order to ease the expected demographic problems;

■ to bring down employers' social contributions, a demand put forward with insistence by the employers, in addition to a decrease in corporate taxes on profits;

■ on an increase in social security benefits; ■ on increasing sickness-disability benefits, which

have accumulated substantial overruns.

Overview

Denmark has evolved into a modern, prosperousnation that is participating in the political andeconomic integration of Europe, and, althoughDenmark has rejected EMU, the Danish currencyremains pegged to the EURO. The thoroughlymodern market economy features high-techagriculture, up-to-date small-scale and corporateindustry, extensive government welfare measures,comfortable living standards, and high dependence onforeign trade.

Demographics

With a total population of 5.3 million, Denmark issmaller than most other Group 1 countries. Though itsgrowth rate is slightly positive, it is still below averagefor Group 1. 85% of Danes live in urban areas, whichis more than the Group 1 average of 78%. Lifeexpectancy, at 75.9 years, is slightly below average forthis group; infant mortality, at 4.0 deaths per 1000, isalso slightly lower than the Group 1 average. At0.17%, the proportion of people living with HIV islower than other Group 1 countries, as is theproportion of women and children with HIV. Denmark

■ Denmark

The Caritas Belgium Perspective

51

Overview

In the last 50 years, the Finns have made a remarkabletransformation from a farm/forest economy to adiversified modern industrial economy: per capitaincome is now on par with other countries of WesternEurope. Finland has a highly industrialised, largely free-market economy, with per capita output roughly that ofthe UK, France, Germany, and Italy. Rapidly increasingintegration into the European Union - Finland was oneof the 11 countries joining the EURO monetary system(EMU) on 1 January 1999 - is likely to dominate theeconomic picture over the next several years.

Demographics

With a total population of 5.2 million, Finland is smallerthan other Group 1 countries. With a flat growth rate,

it is below average for Group 1. 33% of the people livein rural areas as opposed to a Group 1 average of 22%.Life expectancy, at 77.2 years is in line with Group 1’saverage, and infant mortality, at 4 deaths per 1000, isslightly lower than the Group 1 average. Theproportion of people living with HIV is 0.05%, and islower than other Group 1 countries, as is theproportion of women and children with HIV. Finlandhas fewer physicians, only 92.2%, of the averageGroup 1 country, and spends 5.2% of GDP on healthcare, 1% above the Group 1 average.


With a ratio of 108 for females and 99 for males, morewomen have access to education than men – thougheven the male ratio is far above the Group 1 averageof 91 for males. Public expenditure on education, at

■ Finland

The people that are most directly affected by povertyproblems are often the ones who experience specialsocial problems, such as the mentally ill and drug andalcohol abusers. They lack a more direct and activeparticipation from the part of the local authorities. Oneof the major problems in relation to sustainabledevelopment has been the priority given by a largepart of the population to single family housing, leadingto additional demands for energy and transportation.

Also, differences in housing costs for similar qualityhousing between privately owned homes, privatehousing for rent and non-profit housing has tended toreduce the mobility of the population, making itdifficult to obtain a sound functional distribution ofhousing, as related to family size and age.

The Caritas Denmark Perspective

has proportionately fewer physicians than the Group 1average, but spends 6.8% of GDP on health care,which is above the Group 1 average.


With an enrolment ratio of 101 for females and 91 formales, more Danish women have access to educationthan Danish men. This reflects the overall tendency inGroup 1 for more women to have access to educationthan men. At 8.1% of GNP, public expenditure oneducation is well above the Group 1 average; this isreflected in the number of scientists and engineers per

1000, which at 3.2 per 1000 is higher than the Group 1average of 2.5 per 1000. The number of computers at414 per 1000 people is considerably higher than theGroup 1 average. The internet has high penetration inDenmark: 28.3% of the population use the internet.The proportion of refugees is only 0.08% of thepopulation, slightly lower than the Group 1 average of0.1%. More Danish women than men wereunemployed in 1998-1999, though at 5.3%unemployment is slightly lower than that of Group 1.While incomes in general are in line with Group 1 as awhole, the gap between men's and women's earningsis considerably less than the Group 1 average. Womenearn some 70% of men’s income.

52

Due to the economic recession in the 1990s and thesubsequent period of large-scale unemployment, thepublic sector, NGOs and parishes have ended up in asituation where they are now facing enormouschallenges. Many people were strongly influenced bythe recession, and permanent imprints of it may haveremained. Whilst many have been able to weather therecession and maintain their earnings and their homes,many others have been less fortunate. Unemploymentreduced the income of nearly a million householdseither in the short-term or more permanently. Tens ofthousands lost their property, owing to the fact thatthey were over extended, had guarantee liabilities, ortheir houses or flats fell in value, or their businessactivities ended in bankruptcy. One of the key factorsexplaining poverty in our country is the long-termunemployment. In 2000 the unemployment rate was9.8%. 27.2% of the unemployed suffered from long-term unemployment. In the same year, among youngpeople (15-24 years) 21.4% were out of work. Moreand more Finns have for different reasons fallenthrough the existing social safety nets.

People experience severe income problems and manyfind it difficult to cope. Over the past few years,dozens of food banks have been established toprovide food assistance in different parts of Finland. Inspite of economic growth, the need for assistance hasbeen on the increase. Another serious povertyproblem is represented by the growing number ofhouseholds dependent on income support. From thesocial costs 30% was allocated for elderly people, 26% for health, 12% for children and 11% forunemployment. In Finland the taxation of income andproperty is very high. In international comparisons,Finland's taxation of families with one income earner isthe highest in the world. The divorce rate in Finland ishighest in Europe.

The gap between the haves and the have-nots is nowmarked and is in danger of being passed down fromone generation to the next in the classic poverty trap.

Overview

France has been a major political driving force behindthe economic integration of Europe. In recent years,its reconciliation and co-operation with Germany haveproven central to the project, including the advent ofthe EURO in January 1999. France is in the midst of atransition from an economy that featured extensivegovernment ownership and intervention to one thatrelies much more on market forces. The governmentremains dominant in some sectors, particularly in

energy, public transport and defence industries, but ithas been relaxing its control since the mid-1980s

Demographics

With a total population of 59 million, France is one ofthe largest Group 1 countries. With a growth rate of0.3%, it is just above average for Group 1. 75% of thepopulation live in urban areas, a proportion that isclose to the Group 1 average. Life expectancy, at 78.1

■ France

The Caritas Finland Perspective

7.5% of GNP is well above the Group 1 average; thisis reflected in the number of scientists and engineersper 1000 which at 2.8 per 1000 is slightly higher thanthe Group 1 average of 2.5 per 1000. The number ofcomputers at 360 per 1000 people is higher than theaverage Group 1 country but the large number ofinternet users suggests a relatively high level of ITsophistication: 41.2% of the population use theinternet - more than double the Group 1 average.

The proportion of refugees is only 0.02% of thepopulation, well below the Group 1 average of 0.1%.Slightly more women than men were unemployed ingeneral in 1999, though unemployment at 9.8% ismuch higher than the Group 1 average. Incomes forboth groups are much higher than Group 1 as awhole, and like Denmark, the gap is narrowerbetween men's and women's earnings, who reportearning about 66% of men’s income.

53

Overview

As Western Europe's richest and most populous nation,Germany remains a key member of the continent'seconomic, political, and defence organisations.Germany possesses the world's third mosttechnologically powerful economy after the US andJapan. However, structural market rigidities - includingthe substantial non-wage costs of hiring new workers -have made unemployment a long-term, not just acyclical, problem.

Demographics

With a population of 82 million, Germany is the largestGroup 1 country. With a growth rate of -0.1%, it is justabove average for Group 1. 87% of the population livein urban areas, which is higher than the Group 1average. Life expectancy, at 77.3 years is in line withGroup 1’s average, though infant mortality, at 5 deathsper 1000, is slightly higher than the Group 1 average.The proportion of people living with HIV is 0.10%, andis lower than other Group 1 countries, as is the

■ Germany

The Caritas organisation in France is called SecoursCatholique.

The difficulty in finding stable employment in thecountry is one of the major causes of poverty.Currently there are 1,820.000 “working poor” ofwhom 270,000 have a job with fixed duration. InFrance the poor is a person earning 556.43 EURO permonth. In the year 2000, half the population agedbetween 55 and 59 was unemployed. The lone-parentfamilies are the category that is most directly affectedby this situation. Indeed, because of the high price ofchildcare centres, the lone parent has the mostdifficulty in finding an appropriate environment in

which to leave their children whilst they work. Inaddition, those in prison represent a major category atrisk of poverty, given the fact that they leave fromprison with only 7.62 EUROs in their pockets. Thesituation of refugees is also critical since they areineligible for any official aid until their status isrecognised by the administration. Even then,assistance is usually given for a very limited time andfor low amounts of money (e.g. 274.40 EURO for 12months for an adult, 106.71 EURO for 12 months for achild). The lack of sufficient lodging for poor people isa further source of social concern, since the housingmarket is effectively closed to the needs of peopleearning a modest income.

The Caritas France Perspective

years is in line with Group 1’s average, though infantmortality, at 5 deaths per 1000, is slightly higher thanthe Group 1 average. The proportion of people livingwith HIV is 0.44%, and is higher than other Group 1countries, as is the proportion of women and childrenwith HIV. France has proportionately fewer physiciansthan the Group 1 average, but spends 7.3% of GDP onhealth care, 1.1% above the Group 1 average.


With a ratio of 96 for females and 93 for males, morewomen have access to education than men do –though even the male ratio is above the Group 1average of 91 for males. Public expenditure oneducation, at 6% of GNP is above the Group 1

average; this number is reflected in the number ofscientists and engineers per 1000 which at 2.7 per1000 is slightly higher than the Group 1 average of 2.5per 1000. The number of computers at 222 per 1000people is significantly lower than the average Group 1country and this, coupled with a relatively low numberof internet users (9.1%), suggests a rather low level ofIT sophistication. The proportion of refugees is 0.17%of the population, just above the Group 1 average of0.1%. Slightly more women than men wereunemployed in general in 1999, and overallunemployment at 9.7%, is much higher than the Group1 average. Incomes for women are higher than inGroup 1 as a whole. However, the narrower gapbetween men's and women's earnings is due not tohigher salaries but because men’s salaries in generalare lower.

54

Poverty in Germany is mainly caused by the high rateof unemployment, often caused by the lack of propereducation and training for many young people. TheState does not provide sufficient support for familieswith several children in terms of education anddaycare. Because of family duties, one of the twopartners has often to remain at home and cannot

generate an income. The insufficient social securitybenefits for lone parents exacerbate the problem ofsocial exclusion because of poor financial and socialresources. Asylum seekers and migrants representanother category at risk of poverty and social exclusionsince they have generally a low paid job or a job thatGerman nationals refuse to do.

Overview

Democratic elections in 1974 and a referendumcreated a parliamentary republic and abolished themonarchy. Greece joined the European Community in1981 (which became the EU in 1992). Greece has amixed capitalist economy with the public sectoraccounting for about half of GDP. Greece is a majorbeneficiary of EU aid, equivalent to some 4% of GDP.The economy has improved steadily over the last fewyears. Major challenges remaining include thereduction of unemployment and further restructuringof the economy, including the privatisation of someleading state enterprises.

Demographics

With a total population of 10.6 million, Greece’spopulation is roughly median for Group 1 countries.

Its growth rate of –0.1 is slightly below average forGroup 1, though life expectancy, at 78 years, is aboutaverage for this Group. 40% of the people live in ruralareas as opposed to a Group 1 average of 22%. Infantmortality, at 6 deaths per 1000, is slightly higher thanthe Group 1 average. At 0.16% the proportion ofpeople living with HIV is lower than other Group 1countries, as is the proportion of women and childrenwith HIV. Though Greece has a large number ofphysicians (121% of the average Group 1 country) theirpublic health expenditure, at 4.7% of GDP is 1.5%below the Group 1 average.


With a ratio of enrolments of 81 and 80 for women andmen respectively, Greece’s population are uniformlyeducated at a lower level than the Group 1 average,and public expenditure on education, at 3.1% of GNP

■ Greece

The Caritas Germany Perspective

proportion of women and children with HIV. Healthcare is a priority; Germany has a higher number ofphysicians, (107.9% of Group 1 average), than theaverage Group 1 country, and spends 7.9% of GDP onhealth care, 1.7% above the Group 1 average.


With a ratio of 93 for females and 96 for males, moremen have access to education than women do; theratio for males is above the Group 1 average of 91 butthe enrolment ratio for females is only just below.Public expenditure on education, at 4.8% of GNP, isbelow the Group 1 average, though the number of

scientists and engineers - at 2.8 per 1000 - is slightlyhigher than the Group 1 average of 2.5 per 1000. Thenumber of computers at 297 per 1000 people is in linewith the average Group 1 country, though the level ofinternet users at 17.6% is below the Group 1 average.There are significantly more refugees in Germany thanother countries in this Group: 1.1% of the population,way above the Group 1 average of 0.1%. More menthan women were unemployed in general in 1999.Overall unemployment is 9.9%, which is much higherthan the Group 1 average. (This can in part beexplained by Germany’s strict labour laws.) Men’ssalaries are in line with the Group 1 average, thoughwomen’s salaries are slightly lower. Women earn about49% of men’s income.

55

Overview

Ireland is a small, modern, trade-dependent economywith growth averaging a robust 9% in 1995-2000.Agriculture, once the most important sector, is nowdwarfed by industry, which accounts for 38% of GDPand about 80% of exports and employs 28% of thelabour force. Ireland joined in launching the EUROcurrency system in January 1999 along with 10 otherEU nations.

Demographics

With a total population of 3.8 million, Ireland is one ofthe smaller Group 1 countries. Its growth rate of 1 isabove the average for Group 1. 41% of thepopulation live in rural areas – the highest percentagein any Group 1 country. Life expectancy, at 76.1years, is just below Group 1’s average. Infantmortality, at 6 deaths per 1000, is higher than theGroup 1 average. The proportion of people livingwith HIV is 0.10%, lower than other Group 1countries, as is the proportion of women and childrenwith HIV. Ireland has the highest number ofphysicians of this Group (170.8%, of the average

Group 1 country). Ireland spends 4.7% of GDP onhealth care, 1.5% below the Group 1 average andtying it with Greece for the lowest % of GDP spent onhealth.


With a ratio of 93 for females and 89 for males, morewomen have access to education than men. Theenrolment ratio for both groups is lower than theGroup 1 Average of 94.7 for females and 89 for men.Public expenditure on education, at 6.0% of GNP isjust above the Group 1 average, though this numberis not reflected in the number of scientists andengineers per 1000. At 2.3 per 1000 this number isslightly lower than the Group 1 average of 2.5 per1000. The number of computers at 404.9 per 1000people is much higher than the average Group 1country but the number of internet users, at 17.87%(below the Group 1 average of about 20%). Thissuggests a lower level of IT sophistication than thenumber of computer users would indicate. Refugeesbarely register: they are only 0.002% of thepopulation, well below the Group 1 average of 0.1%.Unemployment fell significantly from 1998-1999 -

■ Ireland

Acute poverty is closely associated with old age,residence in rural areas, low educational qualificationsand, to a lesser extent, with lack of employment oremployment in the agricultural sector. Moreover,given the fact that Greece has poor soil for farmingcoupled with a very low variety of cultures forplanting, the rural population is deeply affected bysocial exclusion. In 1993, according to a research of

the Budget Familial (E.S.Y.E.), 34% of Greek familieswhich included one man of over 65 years old wereunder the threshold of poverty. The elderly, thosefamilies with more than three children, and migrantsare the categories most directly affected by poverty.Indeed, those migrants without official nationalpapers do not have access to public medical care.

The Caritas Greece Perspective

is well below the Group 1 average and is on a par withthat of Belgium. The number of computers, at 60.2per 1000, is much lower than the average Group 1country – which has 297.3 per 1000 people. Theinternet is not as widely used as in most Group 1countries: only 7.1% of the population use theinternet. The proportion of refugees is only 0.01% ofthe population, much lower than the Group 1 average

of 0.1%. Unlike many of the countries in this group,unemployment for women is much higher than that formen. Unemployment, at 11.3% is significantly higherthan the Group 1 average. Incomes, especially forwomen are way below Group 1 as a whole; income formen at 21.6 is much lower than the Group 1 average,but women are even worse off. They earn on average43.5% of men’s income.

56

The Caritas organisation in Ireland is called Trocaire.

There is widespread acceptance in Ireland that povertyshould be defined in relative terms. The National Anti-Poverty Strategy, agreed by the Government in 1997,adopted the following definition of poverty:

"People are living in poverty if their income andresources (material, cultural and social) are soinadequate as to preclude them from having astandard of living which is regarded as acceptable byIrish society generally. As a result of inadequateincome and resources people may be excluded andmarginalized from participating in activities which areconsidered the norm for other people in society."

The incidence and risk of poverty have been measuredin two principal ways in Ireland. One focuses oncurrent income and uses ‘relative income lines’ (basedon disposable income, i.e. gross income minus incometax and social security contributions) to estimate thepercentage of households and individuals currentlyliving on low incomes. The second uses relative incomelines combined with ‘deprivation indicators’- such aslack of basic household or personal items, debt orarrears in payments in relation to ordinary livingexpenses - to estimate the percentage of householdsand individuals living in what is termed ‘consistentpoverty’.

In relation to poverty measured as current incomedeprivation, the most up-to-date data available showthat in 1998 around 20% of the population were livingbelow a poverty line established at 50% of averageincome and around 29% lived below a poverty lineestablished at 60% of average income. Thepercentage of persons living below the 50% line hadincreased since the previous survey in 1994, reflectingthe fact that average incomes had risen rapidly.

With regard to ‘consistent poverty’, the 1998 datashowed that households falling below 60% of averageincome and experiencing basic deprivationrepresented 8% of total households. This constituted a

significant decline on the 1994 figure when 15% of allhouseholds were living in ‘consistent poverty’. The1998 survey also showed that the gap betweenhouseholds that were ‘consistently poor’ and otherhouseholds had considerably widened since 1994.

Those most likely to be affected by poverty in Irelandare the unemployed; the disabled or ill; lone parents;those employed in a low-paid job; retired people,especially those living alone. The unemployed anddisabled have a particularly high risk of experiencing‘consistent poverty’. Households with children,especially with three or more children, are particularlyat risk of poverty. Specific minority groups, inparticular, The Travelling People (Ireland’s nomadicpeople) and asylum-seekers face a high risk of incomepoverty combined with very poor housing conditions.In addition, they face discrimination and marginalisation.

The principal causes of poverty can be summarised asfollows:

■ First and foremost, unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. This particularly affects those job seekers with low levels of education and/or skills, those out of work for a long time, and older people.

■ Low pay is an important factor, despite the introduction of a minimum wage, and particularly for parents needing childcare services.

■ Social security benefits are insufficient to prevent poverty for those wholly reliant on them. It is important to note that increases in social security benefits are linked to rises in prices rather than incomes. As a consequence the gap between those dependent on social security and those on average earnings has grown considerably.

■ Poor educational and skills levels limit job options and confine segments of the population to low paid employment.

■ The underdevelopment and inadequacy of personalsocial services, including support services for families with dependent children. Childcare provision is seriously under-resourced.

The Caritas Ireland Perspective

though many more men than women were registeredas unemployed in general. Unemployment at 4.8% isconsiderably lower than the Group 1 average of6.6%. Incomes for women are much lower than theGroup 1 average, while men’s salaries are much

higher: 37.6 against the 31.9 for Group 1 on average.The gap is very wide between men and women:women report earning only 38 % of men’s income:this is one of the lowest ratios for Group 1 overall.

57

Overview

Italy was a charter member of NATO and the EuropeanEconomic Community (EEC). It has been at theforefront of European economic and politicalunification, joining the European Monetary Union in1999. Persistent problems include illegal immigration,the ravages of organised crime, corruption, highunemployment, and the low incomes and technicalstandards of southern Italy compared with the moreprosperous north. Italy's economic performance,however, has lagged behind that of its EU partners andit must work to stimulate employment, promote labourflexibility and reform its expensive pension system.

Demographics

With a total population of 57.5 million, Italy is one ofthe larger Group 1 countries. Its annual growth rate of–0.3 is below the average for Group 1. 33% of thepopulation live in rural areas, more than the 22%registered in the average Group 1 country. Lifeexpectancy, at 78.2 years is above Group 1’s average,but infant mortality, at 6 deaths per 1000, is higherthan the Group 1 average. The proportion of peopleliving with HIV is 0.35%, relatively high for a Group 1country, as is the proportion of women and childrenwith HIV. Italy has a lower proportion of physicians(67.5%, of the average Group 1 country), than otherGroup 1 countries and spends 5.6% of GDP on healthcare, 0.6% below the Group 1 average.


With enrolment ratios of 87 for females and 81 formales, more women have access to education thanmen. The ratios for both sexes are lower than theGroup 1 average of 94.7 for females and 89 for men.Public expenditure on education, at 4.9% of GNP is0.7% below the Group 1 average; the number ofscientists and engineers per 1000 is correspondinglylow at 1.3 compared with the Group 1 average of 2.5.As in other countries with a low number, this tends tosuggest a continuing dependence on agriculturerather than a sophisticated service economy. Thenumber of computers at 191.8 per 1000 people ismuch lower than the average Group 1 country andthis is borne out in the relatively low number ofinternet users, which at 12.2% is way below theGroup 1 average of about 20%. Italy has a lowerproportion of refugees: they are 0.03% of thepopulation, well below the Group 1 average of 0.1%.Unemployment for both groups fell slightly from1998-1999 though many more women than men wereregistered as unemployed in general.Unemployment at 10.4% is much higher than theGroup 1 average. Incomes for women are muchlower than the Group 1 average, 13.6 against the16.3, while men’s salaries are in line: 31.2 against the31.9 for Group 1 on average. The gap is widebetween men and women: women report earningonly 43% of men’s income: this is way below theGroup 1 average of 51.8.

■ Italy

The continuous economic crisis together with therestructuring of the labour market has resulted in agrowth in long-term unemployment, particularlyamong young and middle-aged people. Thiseventually led to the inability of the state to providesufficient social welfare cover to the most vulnerablegroups of the population such as the old, the sick,and the homeless. ISTAT (Instituto Nazionale diStatistica), the national statistical bureau, sets specificstandards in order to measure absolute poverty - i.e.when a person lacks sufficient basic goods such asfood, housing, clothing, health. In 1999, 1,038,000families were considered as living in “absolutepoverty”.

Poverty varies much according to geographicallocation and family typology. Indeed, poverty isprincipally concentrated in the agricultural-basedSouth of Italy, where 71.4% of the families areconsidered as being in absolute poverty. In theCentre and in the North of the peninsula, the familytypology at absolute poverty risk is that with twopeople over 65 years old. The situation changesdramatically in the South where the family at risk isthat with three or more children below the age ofmajority. From the point of view of the socialinterpretation of the phenomenon, it is important tounderline that the old represent nowadays a categoryat risk of poverty and this phenomenon is present in

The Caritas Italy Perspective

58

those regions (the North) where once the socialstructure provided a high degree of social protection.The most vulnerable categories are lone-parentfamilies, particularly where a woman is the head of

the household; immigrants who lack a socio-relationalnetwork; old people living by themselves; drugaddicts and former prisoners.

Overview

Founded in 963, Luxembourg became a Grand Duchyin 1815 and an independent state under theNetherlands. It lost more than half of its territory toBelgium in 1839, but gained a larger measure ofautonomy. Full independence was attained in 1867. In1957, Luxembourg became one of the six foundingcountries of the European Economic Community andin 1999 it joined the EURO currency area. The stable,high-income economy features solid growth, lowinflation and low unemployment.

Demographics

With a total population of 0.4 million, Luxembourg isone of the smallest Group 1 countries. Its annualgrowth rate of 1.1 is the highest for Group 1. 91% ofthe population live in urban areas, one of the highestin Group 1 and much higher than the Group 1 averageof 78% (though this is doubtless because the countryis tiny and has largely a service economy). Lifeexpectancy, at 77 years is above Group 1’s average,and infant mortality, at 5 deaths per 1000, is just above

the Group 1 average. The proportion of people livingwith HIV is 0.16%, lower than the Group 1 average of0.23. Luxembourg has a lower proportion ofphysicians (83.9%, of the average Group 1 country),than other Group 1 countries and spends 5.4% of GDPon health care, 0.8% below the Group 1 average.


Surprisingly, the enrolment ratios are much lower thanaverage: 74 for females and 71 for males. Publicexpenditure on education, at 4.0% of GNP, is 1.6% belowthe Group 1 average, and is one of the lower ratios inGroup 1. Luxembourg has a low proportion of refugees:at 0.001% of the population, their number is well belowthe Group 1 average of 0.1%. Unemployment for bothsexes fell slightly from 1998-1999 though overallunemployment at 2.7% is much lower than the Group 1average. Incomes for women are much higher than theGroup 1 average, 22.7 against the 16.3, while men’ssalaries are much higher: 63.5 against the 31.9 for Group1 on average. The gap is wide between men andwomen: women report earning only 35 % of men’sincome: the second lowest in Group 1.

■ Luxembourg

A 1996 study done by the CEPS/INSTEAD31 shows that12% of the people living in Luxembourg are below thenational poverty line i.e. when the individual income islower than 60% of the average yearly income. Thepeople with such a low income are mostly the young -under 25 years old - in search of a job. Lone-parentfamilies, together with the elderly, have to face seriousdifficulties related to economic and social exclusion.

Especially for lone-parent families, there is theproblem of the costs of private child care. Indeed thecountry lacks a sufficient number of affordable publicinfrastructure providing childcare. Another generalproblem is the high price of housing, particularly sincethe development of the housing sector is hampered byfinancial speculation.

The Caritas Luxembourg Perspective

31 Centre d’Etudes de Populations, de Pauvreté et de Politiques Socio-économiques/International-Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives, Development.

59

Overview

The country was a founding member of NATO and theEC, and participated in the introduction of the EURO in1999. The Netherlands is a prosperous and openeconomy depending heavily on foreign trade. Theeconomy is noted for stable industrial relations,moderate inflation, a sizeable current account surplus,and an important role as a European transportation hub.

Demographics

With a total population of 15.2 million, theNetherlands is just above the median for Group 1countries. Its 0.2 growth rate is in line with the averagefor Group 1. 89% of the population lives in urbanareas, which is higher than the Group 1 average.Infant mortality, at 5 deaths per 1000, is slightly higherthan the Group 1 average. At 0.19% the proportion ofpeople living with HIV is lower than other Group 1countries, as is the proportion of women and childrenwith HIV. The number of physicians per 1000 is 77% ofthe Group 1 average and public health expenditure, at6.0% of GDP, is close to the Group 1 average.


With an enrolment ratio of 100 and 104 for men andwomen respectively, the Netherlands’ men and womenare educated far above the Group 1 average, thoughpublic expenditure on education, at 5.1% of GNP isbelow the Group 1 average. This higher overall level ofeducation is not reflected in the number of scientists andengineers per 1000 which, at 2.2 per 1000, is slightlylower than the Group 1 average of 2.5 per 1000. Thenumber of computers, at 359.9 per 1000 is much higherthan the Group 1 average. Despite this statistic, theinternet is not as widely used as this number wouldsuggest: 19% of the population use the internet. Theproportion of refugees is 0.16% of the population, one ofthe highest in Group 1. As a whole women are morelikely to be unemployed than men, althoughunemployment, at 2.6%, is significantly lower than theGroup 1 average. Incomes in general are in line withGroup 1 as a whole; income for both sexes is slightlyhigher than Group 1 average. Women earn about 51%of men’s income: this is close to the Group 1 average.

■ The Netherlands

Overview

Portugal entered the EC in 1985, and is an upcomingcapitalist economy with a per capita GDP two-thirdsthat of the four big West European economies. Thecountry qualified for the European Monetary Union(EMU) in 1998 and joined with 10 other Europeancountries in launching the EURO on 1 January 1999.

Demographics

With a total population of 10.4 million, Portugal’spopulation is about median for Group 1 countries. Itspopulation growth rate is flat and thus just below the0.2 reported across Group 1. 63% of the populationlives in urban areas, which is lower than the Group 1average. Life expectancy, at 75.2 years, is below

■ Portugal

The country is characterised by a high level of long-term unemployment, combined with a low level ofeducation and training for young people. Thecategories most directly affected are: single motherswith children under 18 without a job; women olderthan 65 without a pension; older migrant couples;families with more than three children, physically or

mentally handicapped people. Indeed even thoughthe government has taken certain measures todecrease poverty, the ways to obtain subsidies ordeductions on taxes and on rent for housing are socomplicated and sometimes so humiliating, thatpeople in need often do not make the effort.

The NetherlandsCaritas Perspective

60

The county experiences the phenomenon of ruralpoverty: those people living in the countryside with loweducation find it difficult to pursue any other activity thanthat related to agriculture. The living standard is usuallyvery low and most people live below the poverty line.The towns are characterized by very poor suburbs where

many homeless people live in extremely poor conditions.Moreover, technological innovations together with therestructured economy have been achieved through a lowlevel of social benefits for a numerous population.Migrants and refugees are the people most directlyaffected by the lack of social security.

Overview

In the second half of the 20th century, Spain hasplayed a catch-up role in the western internationalcommunity. Continuing concerns are large-scaleunemployment and the Basque separatist movement.Spain's mixed capitalist economy supports a GDPthat on a per capita basis is 80% that of the fourleading West European economies.

Demographics

With a total population of 39.9 million, Spain is one ofthe larger Group 1 countries – just after France,Germany, Italy and the UK. Its growth rate of –0.1 isbelow the average for Group 1. 77% of thepopulation lives in urban areas, in line with otherGroup 1 countries. Life expectancy, at 78.1 years isjust below Group 1’s average. Infant mortality, which

at 6 deaths per 1000, is higher than the Group 1average, but in line with its neighbour - Portugal.Also like Portugal, the incidence of HIV is higher:0.58% of the population live with HIV and the numberof women with HIV is the highest (proportionally) inGroup 1. Though Spain has a higher proportion ofphysicians (130.8%, of the average Group 1 country),it only spends 5.4% of GDP on health care, 0.8%below the Group 1 average.


With an enrolment ratio of 99 for females and 91 formales, more women have access to education thanmen. Whilst the enrolment ratio for women is higherthan the Group 1 average, the enrolment ratio for menis lower. Public expenditure on education at 5.0% ofGNP is below the Group 1 average; and this number isreflected in the number of scientists and engineers per

■ Spain

The Caritas Portugal Perspective

average for this Group. Portugal’s infant mortality rateof 5 deaths per 1000 is above the Group average. At0.74% the proportion of people living with HIV is higherthan other Group 1 countries, as is the proportion ofwomen and children with HIV. Portugal has a slightlylower number of physicians (96.2% of Group 1 onaverage) and spends less on public health: 5.2% of GDP,which is 1% below the Group 1 average.


With enrolment ratios of 99 and 94 respectively,Portugal’s men and women attend school above theGroup 1 average, and, at 5.8% of GNP, publicexpenditure on education is slightly more than theGroup 1 average. This higher overall level of educationis not, however, reflected in the number of scientists

and engineers: at 1.2 per 1000 this number is muchlower than the Group 1 average of 2.5 per 1000. Thenumber of computers, at 93 per 1000, is one of thelowest (only Greece has fewer) in Group 1 – whichaverages 297.3 per 1000 people. The internet is notvery widely used: only 7% of the population use theinternet. Unemployment decreased significantly forwomen and slightly for men from 1998-1999, thoughwomen are still much more likely to be unemployedthan men are. Unemployment, at 4.3%, is significantlylower than that of other Group 1 countries. Incomes ingeneral are lower than other Group 1 countries: womenearn 11.2 against the 16.3 average and men earn 21.4against the 31.9 average. The gap between men andwomen is wide, but no more so than for other Group 1countries: women make about 52.3% of men’s income.

61

Overview

Sweden's long-successful economic formula of acapitalist system combined with substantial welfareelements has recently been undermined by highunemployment, rising maintenance costs, and adeclining position in world markets. Sweden joined theEU in 1995, and did not introduce the EURO in 1999.

Demographics

With a total population of 8.9 million, Sweden’spopulation is the largest Scandinavian country. Itsgrowth rate is slightly negative and thus lower thanthe 0.2 reported across Group 1. 83% of thepopulation lives in urban areas, which is higher than

■ Sweden

In Spain, high levels of poverty still persist. A number ofestimates, which may vary depending on themethodology used, indicate that between 15% and20% of the Spanish population is poor. Thesepercentages are much higher than the average in theother European Union Member States. The figure isaround 14% in the countries included in the ECHP(European Community Household Panel, in SpanishPHOGUE - plan de hogares de la Union Europea),excluding Austria, Finland and Sweden, which haverates lower than the average. The poor are found inparticular in the following population groups: youngpeople aged 16 to 24, single people, individuals withlittle or no schooling, those living in large households of5 or more people, lone parent households, theunemployed and economically inactive and, amongstthe economically active population, are those who worka few hours but are not paid a wage. Some of the trendsthat began to appear at the start of the 1990s haveworsened over the decade and have altered significantaspects of poverty.

It is now of particular concern to see that young peopleare increasingly vulnerable and, allowing for the limits ofstatistics, have become the leading risk group. Onearea where changes have been more likely to occur, andwhich is inadequately covered by public intervention

against poverty, is the structure of households. Loneparent households are no longer statisticallyinsignificant. The subject of employment, i.e. the twinissues of work and unemployment, is one where thepoorest of the poor (the extreme poor) are seriouslydisadvantaged, and where those in precarioussituations are somewhat less disadvantaged.

The percentage of the extremely poor suffering fromunemployment and under-employment, compared tothe percentage of the economically active population, isa staggering 93.6%, almost the entire group of extremepoor. This problem, together with their young age whichprevents them from gaining access to social protection,goes a long way in explaining their situation. Looking atthe level of education, one must remember that illiteracyis very prevalent amongst the extremely poor, inparticular amongst youth. This situation is reflected inthe problems of truancy and school drop-outs. Of the75,000 children of school age who do not attend school,52.1% are living in extreme poverty. Apart from the factthat they will be facing unemployment, a lack of socialprotection and many material deficiencies, a cycle ofimpoverishment arising from the chronic nature of theseproblems has been observed, two examples of which arelong-term unemployment and the appearance of"hidden" unemployment.

The Caritas Spain Perspective

1000, which at 1.3 per 1000 is lower than the Group 1average of 2.5 per 1000. The number of computers at119.4 per 1000 people is lower than the average Group1 country and the number of internet users, at 11.66%(below the Group 1 average of about 20%) furtherreinforces the idea that Spain’s does not have a highlevel of IT sophistication. The proportion of refugees isonly 0.01% of the population, well below the Group 1average of 0.1%. Unemployment for both sexes fell

significantly from 1998-1999, although many morewomen than men were registered as unemployed ingeneral. Unemployment at 14.0%, is the highest of allGroup 1 countries. Incomes are lower than other Group1 countries: women earn 10.7 against the 16.3 averageand men earn 25.7 against the 31.9 average.Interestingly, the women’s salaries are lower thanPortugal and thus the gap between men and women isalso wider: women make about 41.7% of men’s income.

62

the Group 1 average. Life expectancy, at 79.3 years,is above average for this Group; Sweden’s infantmortality rate at 3 deaths per 1000 is significantlylower than the average. At 0.08% the proportion ofpeople living with HIV is lower than other Group 1countries, as is the proportion of women and childrenwith HIV. Sweden’s socialised health system isreflected in both the number of physicians (which at311/1000 is just below the average of Group 1) butalso in public health expenditure, which, at 6.7% ofGDP is 0.5% above the Group 1 average.


With enrolment ratios of 107 and 95 respectively,Sweden’s men and women are educated well abovethe Group 1 average, and public expenditure oneducation, at 8.3% of GNP is well above the Group 1average. This higher overall level of education is

reflected in the 3.8 scientists and engineers per 1000which is much higher than the Group 1 average of 2.5per 1000. The number of computers, at 451 per 1000is higher than the Group 1 average. As in otherScandinavian countries the internet is very widelyused: 42% of the population use the internet. Theproportion of refugees is 0.19% of the population, onthe high end for Group 1 countries. Unemploymentdecreased for women and not for men from 1998-1999, and on the whole men are more likely to beunemployed than women. Unemployment, at 6%, isin line with other Group 1 countries. Incomes forwomen are higher than Group 1 as a whole; womenearn 18.0 against the 16.3 average though men make27.07 against the 31.9 average. As in otherScandinavian countries, the income gap betweenmen and women is narrower in Sweden than in mostother Group 1 countries: women make about 67% ofmen’s income.

Overview

A member of the EU, the UK has chosen to remainoutside of the European Monetary Union for the timebeing. A leading trading power and financial centre,it has an essentially capitalistic economy, one of thequartet of trillion dollar economies of WesternEurope. Over the past two decades the governmenthas greatly reduced public ownership and containedthe growth of social welfare programmes.

Demographics

With a total population of 59.3 million, the UK is thesecond largest country in Group 1, after Germany. Itsgrowth rate is slightly positive and just below the 0.2reported across Group 1. 89% of the population livesin urban areas, which is much higher than the Group1 average. Life expectancy, at 77.2 years, is belowaverage for this Group and the UK’s infant mortalityrate at 6 deaths per 1000 is among the highest inGroup 1. At 0.11% the proportion of people livingwith HIV is lower than most Group 1 countries, as isthe number of women and children with HIV. TheUK’s bad reputation for health care is borne out bythe numbers: there are only 164 physicians/1000 (way

■ United Kingdom

The Caritas Sweden Perspective

During the 1990s the social and economic situationhas deteriorated significantly for the most vulnerablegroups in Sweden. Two ways of defining poverty are:those with an income below 50% of the medianincome and those who live through the help of socialassistance. The number of people below this povertyline increased from 5% to 7% during the 1990s.

Indeed from 1990 to 1997 the group of people whoreceived social assistance increased from 6% to 8.5%.Unemployment is the main cause of such poverty. Thecategories of people most directly affected are theyoung, immigrants, lone parent families and peoplesuffering from problems related to mental illness ordrug addiction.

63

below the 324.3 physicians/1000 which is average ofGroup 1) and public health expenditure, at 5.6% ofGDP, is 0.6% below the Group 1 average.


With enrolment ratios of 112 and 100 respectively,the UK’s men and women are educated well abovethe Group 1 average, though public expenditure oneducation, at 5.3% of GNP is below the Group 1average. Despite this lack of expenditure, there are2.4 scientists and engineers per 1000, just below theGroup 1 average of 2.5 per 1000. The number ofcomputers, at 302 per 1000 is higher than the Group

1 average. Despite these numbers, only 2.5% of thepopulation uses the internet; this is the lowest inGroup 1. The proportion of refugees is 0.15% of thepopulation, which is on the high side for Group 1countries. Unemployment decreased for women andfor men from 1998-1999, and on the whole men aremore likely to be unemployed than women are.Unemployment, at 5.5%, is lower than other Group 1countries. Incomes for women are higher than Group1 as a whole; women make 19.7 against the Group 1average of 16.3, whereas men make 27.6 against theGroup 1 average of 31.9. This is the narrowest gapbetween men and women’s earnings in Group 1: UKwomen earn some 72% of men’s income, comparedto 52% across Group 1 as a whole.

The Caritas of England and Wales Perspective

Caritas Europa has two member organisations inEngland and Wales: Catholic Fund for OverseasDevelopment (CAFOD) and the Catholic Agency forSocial Concern (CASC).

During the 1980s incomes substantially diverged and inthe late 1990s there are signs that the income gap isagain widening. Problems of dislocation, insecurity,multiple deprivation, conflict, divided loyalties anddivided activities all result. Major questions are beingposed for the future of social cohesion. A recent studyby the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) found thatroughly 9.5 million people in Britain today cannot affordadequate housing conditions. About 8 million cannotafford one or more essential household goods. This ispartly due to the lack of paid work and to theinadequate income that a high percentage of adults

experience. Indeed, over one in three of the populationlives in a household without paid work: in which alladults are either pensioners or jobless non-pensioners.

Labour market exclusion remains an important risk factorfor both service exclusion and exclusion from socialrelations. The proportion of people in poverty is higheramongst: lone-parent households, separated/ divorcedhouseholds; those who left school at 16 or under; childrenof non-white ethnicity. There is a lack of a concertednational strategy in order to address the problem. Theconstruction of a scientific consensus - to improvemeasurement, explain the severity and cause of povertyso that the right policies are selected, and show how therole of public and private services can be extended tounderpin national life – would be a key step in achievingthe objectives set by the English Government.

The Caritas Scotland Perspective

The Caritas member organisation in Scotland is theScottish International Aid Fund (SCIAF).

The pattern of housing tenure has been transformed inrecent years with a steady increase in the proportion ofdwellings that are owner-occupied and a decrease inrenting from local authorities or other public sectorbodies. At the same time there has been an increase inthe proportion of dwellings rented from housing

associations and a small decrease in private renting. Thechange in tenure patterns is important when coupledwith the evidence that local authority housing hasbecome a residual sector for people with low incomes.Lone parents, in particular, are under-representedamong owner-occupiers. Moreover the reforms of thewelfare system in the past years have placed a greatdeal of emphasis on ‘individual self-help’ and the safetynet of social security has been much reduced.

64

Sandwiched between France and Spain, in thePyrenees mountain region, is the tiny principality ofAndorra. The CIA 2001 Factbook estimates itspopulation, at July 2001, as just over 67,000 people.Previously isolated and impoverished, Andorra has,since World War II, become a booming tourist resort,especially for skiing enthusiasts. Approximately 9million tourists visit Andorra annually. It has anestimated labour force (1998 figures) of almost31,000 people. 78% of the labour force is employedin the service industry and tourism accounts for 80%of Andorra's GDP. (Of the remainder of theworkforce, 1% is employed in agriculture and 21% in

industry). Apart from tourism, Andorra is involved incattle raising, timber, tobacco production and, givenits duty free and tax haven status, banking. It importsmost of its food, primarily from its two major tradingpartners, France and Spain. Indeed France and Spainprovide the two Heads of State - the President ofFrance and the Bishop of Seo de Urgal in Spain - forthis tiny parliamentary democracy. Andorra is amember o the EU Customs Union and is treated as anEU member for trade in manufactured goods (mainlycigars, cigarettes and furniture) i.e. there are no tariffbarriers and as a non-EU member for agriculturalproducts.

■ Andorra

Overview

Limited home rule from Denmark was granted in1874 and complete independence attained in 1944.Literacy, longevity, income, and social cohesion are

first-rate by world standards. Iceland's Scandinavian-type economy is basically capitalist, yet with anextensive welfare system, low unemployment, and aremarkably even distribution of income. In theabsence of other natural resources (except for

■ Iceland

Andorra is a country characterised by a high level ofGNP per capita, high economic growth, and highemployment. Nevertheless this apparent well being isachieved through a special policy from the part of thestate directed to cut the costs in the labour marketand in the field of social protection. Indeed, theoverall growth of the country is mainly attainedthrough the maintenance of low costs in the labourmarket. This policy of low-costs results in the lack oflegislation for trade unions; in the high rotation ofemployees working in firms; in the difficulty in havingaccess to social protection and unemploymentbenefits and in the lack of adequate training andspecialisation for workers. This does not help in theformation of a highly diversified labour force andcontributes to making Andorra a fiscal paradise.

Taking into account the weak social protection, thelack of support given to training and, as aconsequence, the difficulty in finding a better job, thesituation of workers is highly vulnerable and

employees have to choose either to remain in thecountry and be highly exposed to social risks or toemigrate. This situation is even worse for thoseimmigrants that are not in order with their officialdocuments or that are not registered as residents inthe country for at least three years. In both cases, theimmigrant does not have the right either to social andunemployment benefits or to social protection. Thesame applies for those workers, nationals of Andorra,whose contribution fee does not reach the minimumthreshold fixed by the Caja Andorrana de SeguridadSocial (CASS) which is the national social securitybureau: they too do not have the right to socialprotection. In this respect, the lone parent families,generally with the woman as head of household, area particular cause for concern especially in thosecases where the lone parent is in a situation (e.g.unemployment, immigration) which does not provideany social safety net. Such a person immediately fallsinto serious poverty.

The Caritas Andorra Perspective

65

abundant hydrothermal and geothermal power), theeconomy depends heavily on the fishing industry,which provides 70% of export earnings and employs12% of the work force.

Demographics

With a total population of 0.3 million, Iceland is oneof the smallest Group 1 countries. Though low, itsgrowth rate at 0.6% is above average for Group 1.92% of the population lives in urban areas, which ismuch higher than the Group 1 average. Though lifeexpectancy, at 78.9 years, is slightly above averagefor this Group, infant mortality, at 5 deaths per 1000,is slightly higher than the Group 1 average. At 0.14%the proportion of people living with HIV is lower thanother Group 1 countries, as is the proportion ofwomen and children with HIV. Iceland has just abovethe average number of physicians per 100,000:326/1000 as opposed to 324/1000.


With an enrolment ratio of 91 for females and 86 formales, more women have access to education thanmen do – though the enrolment ratios are below theGroup 1 averages. Public expenditure on education,at 8.1% of GNP is well above the Group 1 averageand this number is reflected in the number ofscientists and engineers per 1000 which at 3.2 per1000 is higher than the Group 1 average of 2.5 per1000. The number of computers at 414 per 1000people is higher than the Group 1 average. Theinternet has high penetration: 28.3% of thepopulation use the internet. The proportion ofrefugees is only 0.08% of the population, slightlylower than the Group 1 average of 0.1%. Morewomen than men were unemployed in general in1998-1999, though unemployment, at 5.3%, isslightly lower than the Group 1 average. Whileincomes in general are in line with Group 1 as awhole, the earnings gap is relatively narrow betweenmen and women, who earn about 70% of men’sincome.

Overview

Britain formally acquired possession of Malta in 1814.The island staunchly supported the UK through bothWorld Wars and remained in the Commonwealthwhen it became independent in 1964. A decade laterMalta became a republic. Over the last 15 years, theisland has become a major freight transit point,financial centre, and tourist destination. It is anofficial candidate for EU membership.

Demographics

With a total population of 0.4 million, Malta is one ofthe smallest Group 1 countries. With a growth rate of0.4, it is above average for Group 1. 90% of thepeople live in urban areas as opposed to a Group 1average of 77.8%. Life expectancy, at 77.6 years is inline with Group 1’s average, and infant mortality, at 6deaths per 1000, is higher than the Group 1 average.The proportion of people living with HIV is 0.12%,

lower than Group 1 on average. Malta has fewerphysicians than other Group 1 countries - only 80.5%of the average Group 1 country.


With a ratio of 79 for females and 82 for males, Maltais atypical of the trend of more women having accessto education than men. In general the enrolmentratios are far below the Group 1 average of 94.7 forfemales and 91 for males. Public expenditure oneducation, at 5.1% of GNP, is below the Group 1average. Many more men than women wereunemployed in general in both 1998 and 1999, andunemployment, at 4.5%, is lower than the Group 1average. Incomes for both groups are much lowerthan Group 1 as a whole, and the gap is the widest inGroup 1 between men and women, who reportearning about 27% of a man’s income: this issubstantially lower than the Group 1 average of 52%.

■ Malta

66

Monaco, like Andorra, is also a principality. It is thesecond smallest independent state in the world, afterthe Holy See, and occupies a land area of just 1.95square kilometers on the French Mediterraneancoast. Monaco is a constitutional monarchy and hasbeen governed, since the 15th century, by theGrimaldi family. It does not hold elections nor does itpublish figures on revenue etc. It has no naturalresources and there is no agricultural activity. Itspopulation - an estimated 32,000 are almost entirely

urban. Again like Andorra, it is a popular tourist resortof stunning scenery, pleasant climate and, of course,its world famous casino. Similarly, Monaco has noincome tax, low business taxes and operates as a taxhaven both for individuals who have establishedresidency and for foreign companies which have setup businesses and offices. Living standards are high- comparable to those in prosperous metropolitanareas of France.

■ Monaco

Overview

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion ofwelfare capitalism, featuring a combination of freemarket activity and government intervention. Thegovernment controls key areas, such as the vitalpetroleum sector. Norway is not a member of the EU.

Demographics

With a total population of 4.4 million, Norway’spopulation is smaller than most Group 1 countries. Itsgrowth rate is slightly positive and just above the 0.2reported across Group 1. 75% of the population livesin urban areas, which is close to the Group 1 average.Life expectancy, at 78 years, is above average for thisGroup as is Norway’s infant mortality rate of 4 deathsper 1000. At 0.07% the proportion of people living

with HIV is lower than other Group 1 countries, as isthe proportion of women and children with HIV.Norway’s strong health system is reflected in both thenumber of physicians (which is 127% of Group 1 onaverage) and in public health expenditure, which, at7.4% of GDP, is 1.2% above the Group 1 average.


With enrolment ratios of 99 and 95 respectively,Norway’s men and women are educated above theGroup 1 average, and public expenditure oneducation, at 7.7% of GNP, is well above the Group 1average. This higher overall level of education isreflected in the 3.7 scientists and engineers per 1000which is much higher than the Group 1 average of 2.5per 1000. This figure may well be influenced byNorway’s dependence on oil and, therefore, on the

■ Norway

The slow down of the rate of growth of the economyis the cause of poverty. A percentage increase ineconomic growth has less employment promotionand poverty alleviating effects than it did in earlierperiods. According to the survey pursued by thePoverty Watch, between 80% and 90% of Malta

national territory, poverty manifested itself asdisability, family stress and depression. In between50% and 80% of the same territory, poverty wasevident through, in descending order of frequency, asdependency, housing, illness, schooling, immigration,imprisonment, family violence and drug addiction.

The Caritas Malta Perspective

67

necessary skilled workforce. The number ofcomputers, at 446 per 1000, is higher than the Group1 average. As in other Scandinavian countries, theinternet is very widely used: 45% of the populationuse the internet. The proportion of refugees is 0.06%of the population, lower than the Group 1 average of0.1%. Unemployment decreased for women but notfor men from 1998-1999, and on the whole men aremore likely to be unemployed than women.

Unemployment, at 3%, is, however, significantly lowerthan that of other Group 1 countries. Incomes ingeneral are higher than Group 1 as a whole; womenearn 22.0 against the 16.3 Group average and menearn 34.96 against the 31.9 average. As in otherScandinavian countries, the gap between men andwomen is relatively narrow: women make about 63%of men’s income.

Overview

Switzerland, a prosperous and stable modern marketeconomy, with a per capita GDP 20% above that ofthe big western European economies, experiencedsolid growth of 3% in 2000, but growth is expected tofall back to about 2% in 2001. The Swiss in recentyears have brought their economic practices largelyinto conformity with the EU's to enhance theirinternational competitiveness.

Demographics

With a total population of 7.2 million, Switzerland’spopulation is below the median for Group 1countries. Its growth rate is slightly negative and thuslower than the 0.2 reported across Group 1. 68% ofthe population lives in urban areas, which is lowerthan the Group 1 average. Life expectancy, at 78.6years, is just above the average for Group 1 andSwitzerland’s infant mortality rate at 3 deaths per1000 is significantly lower. The total proportion ofpeople living with HIV is the second highest (behindSpain) in Group 1 as is the HIV-infected proportion ofwomen, though children seem largely uninfected.The number of physicians is in line with Group 1, at323/1000, but public health expenditure, at 7.6% ofGDP is 1.4% above the Group 1 average.

■ Switzerland

The general standard of living in Norway is very high. Inthis respect, as far as social security is concerned, it isimportant to note that all Norwegian citizens areprovided with basic health services free of charge, aswell as a compulsory public school free of charge.Because of the scope of the main general socialinsurance schemes in Norway, in which all residents arecompulsorily insured under the National InsuranceScheme, people do not find huge problems in relationto the cover offered by social security. Persons insuredunder the National Insurance Scheme are entitled to thefollowing pensions and benefits: old age, survivors anddisability pension; basic benefit and attendance benefitin case of disablement, occupational injury benefit;benefits to lone parents; cash benefits in case ofsickness, maternity, adoption and unemployment and

medical benefits in case of sickness and maternity.

Nevertheless the country experiences a certain level ofpoverty mostly due to the lack of access to paidemployment (for example because of illness, drugaddiction). Since many rights and benefits within thenational insurance scheme and the social securityscheme are derived from paid employment, the lack ofaccess to employment implies not only a lack of cash inhand today, but also a lack of benefits in the future. Ingeneral terms, the categories most affected by a lack ofaccess to resources are people that for various reasonsare unable to benefit fully from the National InsuranceSystem, or that are subject to direct or indirectdiscrimination regarding access to resources, such aspaid employment.

The Caritas Norway Perspective

68


With enrolment ratios of 107 and 95 respectively,Switzerland’s men and women are educated wellabove the Group 1 average, and public expenditureon education, at 8.3% of GNP is well above the Group1 average. This higher overall level of education isreflected in the 3.8 scientists and engineers per 1000which is much higher than the Group 1 average of 2.5per 1000. The number of computers, at 451 per 1000is higher than the Group 1 average. The internet isvery widely used: 42% of the population use the

internet. The proportion of refugees is 0.19% of thepopulation, on the high end for Group 1 countries.Unemployment decreased for women but not for menfrom 1998-1999, and, on the whole, men are morelikely to be unemployed than women. Unemployment,at 6%, is in line with other Group 1 countries. Incomesfor women are higher than Group 1 as a whole; womenearn 18.0 against the 16.3 average although men earn27.07 against the 31.9 average. The income gapbetween men and women is narrower in Switzerlandthan in most other Group 1 countries: women earnabout 67% of men’s income.%.

The reasons for poverty in Switzerland are of aneconomic, political and social nature. The Swisseconomy offers a large number of jobs requiring littleeducation and qualification. Wages are therefore alsolow. During the recession of the ‘80s-‘90s, there hasbeen a ten-year period without wage increases. Theselow-paid, low skill jobs were mostly occupied byworkers from abroad, and women. During the sameperiod there has been a structural change in industry,which has made labour relations even more precarious.To date, the trade unions have not succeeded in theirattempts to fight the negative aspects of flexibility andto establish contractually agreed limits. In spite of thelow and stagnating wages, many poor people areconfronted with increasing expenditures for productsand services provided by the state (e.g. postalservices, telecommunications, and railroad transport)and for health services (e.g. health insurancecontributions). This has further exacerbated thesituation of poor people and people threatened bypoverty in Switzerland.

The number of people living in households of theworking poor rose form 250,000 (1992) to 414,000(1999)32. Another serious reason for the upsurge ofpoverty in the country is due to the lack of a modernfamily policy on the part of the state. The welfare statecontinues focusing on small families where the fathergoes to work and earns enough money to provide forhis family while the mother is in charge of the family asa housewife. This picture has not been in line withreality for a long time now. The percentage of womenworking in gainful employment has clearly risen. Theconcept women have of themselves and their roleshave also changed dramatically. In the meantime, abroad debate on a new family policy has started;covering topics such as assistance for childcare, taxrelief for children and large families, day schools andenhanced supplementary welfare assistance for poorerfamilies. Poverty in Switzerland is, more than anything,an expression of an unequal distribution policy.

The Caritas Switzerland Perspective

32 Federal Statistics Agency: Working Poor in der Schweiz. In Info social, No. 5. Bern 2001

69

Group 2: EU Accession Countries

70

Overview

Bulgaria, a former communist country struggling toenter the European market economy, suffered a majoreconomic downturn in 1996 and 1997, with triple digitinflation and GDP contraction of 10.6% and 6.9%respectively. The current government - which tookoffice in May 1997 after pre-term parliamentaryelections - stabilised the economy and promotedgrowth by implementing a currency board, practisingsound financial policies, invigorating privatisation, andpursuing structural reforms.

Demographics

With a total population of 8 million, Bulgaria’spopulation is median for Group 2 countries. Its annualgrowth rate of -1 is slightly below average for Group 2,and life expectancy, at 70.8 years, is below average(71.5) for this Group. In Bulgaria, more people (69%)live in urban areas than is usual for Group 2 (65.1%) onaverage. Infant mortality, at 14 deaths per 1000, is inline with the 14.9 deaths per 1000 registered acrossGroup 2. The incidence of HIV in the population as awhole, at 0.01% is slightly lower than other Group 2countries (0.04).There are 345 physicians per 100,000people, slightly higher lower than Group 2 on average(122% of the average). Public health expenditure is1.2% below the Group I average of 5.0% of GDP.


Bulgaria’s women have a higher enrolment ratio thanmen, but their ratio of 76 is slightly below the Group2 average of 78 for women and 75.5 for men. Thisslightly lower overall level of education is notreflected in the number of engineers per 1000 whichat 1.7 per 1000 is slightly higher than the Group 2average of 1.6 per 1000. Public expenditure oneducation, however, at 3.2% of GNP, is much lowerthan the Group 2 average of 5.1% of GNP. Thenumber of computers per 1000 is much lower thanthe average Group 2 country, and the internet is notwidely used: - less than 2.9% of the population usethe internet as compared to a Group 2 average ofabout 6.5%. At 0.0014%, refugees barely register – atrend that continues through Group 2 countries – theaverage is 0.002%. From 1998 – 1999, unemploymentincreased for both men and women, though womenwere slightly less likely than men to be unemployed.As a whole, unemployment, at 17.7%, is higher thanthe Group 2 average of 11.2%. Incomes in general arelow: women make 3.95K compared with the 6.2Kaverage and men make 6.3K compared with a Group2 average of 10.2K. Women make about 63% ofmen’s income: this is compared to about 61% acrossGroup 2.

■ Bulgaria

The country is characterised by low productivity anddifficult social situation. Indeed the 1999 Kosovo wardiverted foreign investment and adversely affected thesituation of Bulgarian exports. As a consequence oflow economic growth, living standards areunsatisfactory, mainly because of the increase inunemployment and the decline of income. Theaverage wage in 2000 was just 127 Euro whereas theminimum wage was 40 Euro. Many young peoplewould rather leave the country than stay with limitedperspectives for the future so that the emigration rateis quite high. Moreover, purchasing power hasdeclined sharply, thus bringing families in constantdifficulty with the household incomes: families spendan average of 50% of their income on food. With 16%of the population over 65 years old, the socio-

economic landscape is reflected in the demographicsituation insofar as the birth rate is noticeablydecreasing whereas the death rate is increasing.

The groups most directly affected by the unstablesocial and economic situation of the country are thepensioners suffering from the minimal pensionscheme; the disabled people suffering from the lack ofa sufficient health insurance system; the unqualifiedand the unemployed. Moreover, in 2000, the averagesocial pension was 40 Euro and the minimum pensionwas just 23 Euro. In this respect, the Roma people fallin the category that registers the highestunemployment. This is due to illiteracy or lowqualifications, compounded by the high drop-out ratefrom school by Roma children.

The Caritas Bulgaria Perspective

71

Overview

Now a member of NATO, the Czech Republic hasmoved towards integration into the world market.Basically one of the most stable and prosperous of thepost-Communist states, the Czech Republic has beenrecovering from recession since mid-1999. The EU putthe Czech Republic just behind Poland and Hungary inpreparations for accession, which will give furtherimpetus and direction to structural reform.

Demographics

With a total population of 10.3 million, the CzechRepublic’s population is slightly above median forGroup 2 countries. Its annual growth rate of –0.2 isroughly average for Group 2, and life expectancy, at74.3 years, is above the 71.5 recorded across Group 2.The Czech Republic has the highest urban population(75%) in Group 2. Infant mortality, at 5 deaths per1000, is much lower than the 14.9 deaths per 1000registered across Group 2 and is more in line withGroup I. The incidence of HIV in the population as awhole, at 0.04% is average for Group 2, though thenumber of women is slightly higher. There are 303physicians per 100,000 people, slightly higher thanGroup 2 on average (108% of the average). Publichealth expenditure of 6.7% of GDP is significantlyhigher than the Group I average of 5.0% of GDP.


The Republic’s women have a slightly higherenrolment ratio than men, but the ratio of 70 isslightly below the Group 2 average of 78 for womenand 75.5 for men. This slightly lower overall level ofeducation is reflected in the number of engineers per1000 which at 1.2 per 1000 is lower than the Group 2average of 1.6 per 1000. Public expenditure oneducation, at 5.1% of GNP, is in line with the Group 2average of 5.1% of GNP. The number of computersper 1000 is much higher (107.2/1000) than theaverage Group 2 country, but the percentage ofinternet users is just above average: about 6.8% ofthe population use the internet as compared to aGroup 2 average of about 6.5%. At 0.00133%,refugees barely register – a trend that continuesthrough Group 2 countries – the average is 0.002%.From 1998 – 1999, unemployment increased for bothmen and women, women were more likely than mento be unemployed, though the gap narrowed in 1999.Unemployment, at 8.7%, is lower than that of Group2 which averages 11.2%. Incomes in general arehigher than Group 2 on average: women earn 10.2Kcompared with 6.2K - the second highest afterSlovenia in Group 2, and men earn 15.98K - alsosecond highest compared with a Group 2 average of10.2K. Women make about 64% of men’s income: thisis compared to about 61% across Group 2.

■ Czech Republic

Overview

Estonia joined the World Trade Organisation inNovember 1999 - the second Baltic state to join - andcontinues its EU accession talks.

Demographics

With a total population of 1.4 million, Estonia is thesmallest Group 2 country and also has the lowestgrowth rate of –1.1. Life expectancy, at 70 years, is

■ Estonia

The country's economy has been developing at highspeed in the recent years. Nevertheless, theunemployment rate remains at a rather high level.Poverty is not considered to be systematic in the

country. There are instead a number of specificindividuals or groups of people who temporarily findthemselves in social need.

The Caritas Czech Perspective

72

The economy of the country is characterised bynoticeably low production accompanied by an overallincrease of general costs and unemployment. Thesedifficulties, together with the low income per capita,have created a scant and tight national budget unableto provide sufficient cover to the social welfare needsof the population. The social gap is particularly seriousfor Estonia given the fact that the country ischaracterised by a young population with anunfavourable proportion between the wage earnersand their dependants. A large increase in poor

households in the total population begins with thethird child, since the child support benefit is notsufficient to compensate the necessary expense: thebenefit provided is inferior to the reduction in incomefor the additional child. Because of the highaccommodation costs, pensioners represent anothercategory at risk. Indeed, the cost of housing oftenrepresents more than half of the pensioners’ income sothat the person is compelled to restrict his/herexpenditures on food, health and medicines and othersocial expenditures.

The Caritas Estonia Perspective

just below the 71.5 recorded across Group 2. Estoniahas a slightly higher than average urban population:69% compared with 65% on average in Group 2.Infant mortality, at 17 deaths per 1000, is sharplyhigher than the 14.9 deaths per 1000 registeredacross Group 2 The incidence of HIV in thepopulation as a whole, at 0.04% is average for Group2, as is the number of women who report having HIV.There are 297 physicians per 100,000 people, slightlyhigher than Group 2 on average (105% of theaverage). Public health expenditure of 5.5% of GDP is0.5% above the Group 2 average of 5.0% of GDP.


Estonia’s people have the highest enrolment ratio inGroup 2: 89 for women and 84 for men. This highenrolment ratio is reflected in the number ofengineers per 1000 which at 2 per 1000 is muchhigher than the Group 2 average of 1.6 per 1000.Public expenditure continues this focus on education:at 7.2% of GNP it is 2.1% above the Group 2 averageof 5.1% of GNP. The number of computers per 1000is much higher (135/1000) than the average Group 2country, as are the internet users who are 14.3% ofthe population as compared to a Group 2 average ofabout 6.5%. From 1998 – 1999, unemploymentincreased for both men and women, though menwere more likely than women to be unemployed.Unemployment, at 11.7% is slightly higher thanGroup 2 which averages 11.2%.

Overview

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,Hungary developed close political and economic tiesto western Europe. It joined NATO in 1999 and is afrontrunner in a future expansion of the EU. Theprivate sector accounts for over 80% of GDP. Foreignownership of and investment in Hungarian firms iswidespread, with cumulative foreign direct investmenttotalling $23 billion by 2000.

Demographics

With a total population of 10 million, Hungary isslightly above median for Group 2 countries. Its annualgrowth rate of –0.5 is just below average for Group 2,and life expectancy, at 71.1 years, is in line with the71.5 recorded across Group 2. The urban populationof 64% is roughly average for Group 2. Infant mortality,at 9 deaths per 1000, is much lower than the 14.9deaths per 1000 registered across Group 2 but stillhigher than the 4.1/1000 registered in Group 1. Theincidence of HIV in the population as a whole, at

■ Hungary

73

0.05%, is just above average for Group 2, although thenumber of women with HIV is slightly lower. There are357 physicians per 100,000 people, higher than Group2 on average (127% of the average). Public healthexpenditure of 5.2% of GDP is 0.2% higher than theGroup 2 average of 5.0% of GDP.


Hungary’s women have a slightly higher enrolmentratio than men, but the enrolment ratio of 83 forwomen and 79 for men is higher than the Group 2average of 78 for women and 75.5 for men. Thishigher enrolment ratio is not reflected in the numberof engineers per 1000 which at 1.1 per 1000 is lowerthan the Group 2 average of 1.6 per 1000. Publicexpenditure on education is also lower, and at 4.6%

of GNP is 0.5% lower than the Group 2 average of5.1% of GNP. The number of computers per 1000 ishigher (74.7/1000) than the average Group 2 country,but the number of internet users average 6.0% of thepopulation, slightly lower than the 6.5% average ofGroup 2. At 0.00781%, refugees barely register – atrend that continues through Group 2 countries – butis higher than the average of 0.002% and secondhighest overall in Group 2. From 1998 – 1999,unemployment decreased for both men and women,and men were more likely than women to beunemployed. Unemployment, at 9.4% is lower thanthat of Group 2 which averages 11.2%. Incomes ingeneral are higher than Group 2 on average: womenearn 8.3K compared with 14.7K and men earn 14.8Kcompared with a Group 2 average of 10.2K. Womenearn about 57% of men’s income: this is compared toabout 61% across Group 2.

Overview

Latvia continues to revamp its economy for eventualintegration into various Western European politicaland economic institutions. Latvia officially joined theWorld Trade Organisation in February 1999 - the firstBaltic state to join - and was invited at the Helsinki EUSummit in December 1999 to begin accession talks inearly 2000.

Demographics

With a total population of 2.4 million, Latvia is one ofthe smaller Group 2 countries. Its annual growth rate of–0.6 is slightly below average for Group 2, and lifeexpectancy, at 69.6 years, is below the 71.5 recordedacross Group 2. 69% of Latvia’s population is urbancompared with an average of 75% for Group 2. Infantmortality, at 17 deaths per 1000, is higher than the 14.9deaths per 1000 registered across Group 2. Theincidence of HIV in the population as a whole, at 0.11%,

■ Latvia

The “new poverty” appeared in the country from thebeginning of the change of the regime and thetransition to the new economy. Those unemployedpeople who could not adapt themselves to thechanging conditions, to the new environment, to thereallocation of manpower and to the changing labourmarkets are the people most directly affected. Workerswho lack proper qualification (e.g. the agriculturalworkers) are the likely victims of poverty, together withthose people living in small villages far from thedeveloped regions. The lack of proper communicationand infrastructure facilities exacerbate social exclusionand widen the gap between rural and urban areas.

Regional poverty is caused mainly by the downturn ofthe production of the most active industry inNortheast Hungary. A solution to poverty wasexpected from economic growth and the socialsecurity system. However, the social welfare systemdid not provide sufficient cover for the people inneed. In the last decade Roma people group driftedtoward the periphery, but in the last few years greatefforts were made (from the side of the state andfrom the third sector) to improve the Roma people’ssituation, particularly with regard to education.

The Caritas Hungary Perspective

74

In the country, poverty is characterised byunemployment, low salaries, high cost of publicutilities, inadequate child benefits, low market pricesfor agricultural production, high cost of technologyand inputs. Apart from these economic difficulties, thecountry also experiences other serious social problemssuch as the difficult access to education, to medicaland housing costs, to information. Within thisframework, large families with three or more children,lone parent families, rural households and disabledpeople bear the brunt of poverty. Indeed most of

these people cannot afford to spend money for rentand municipal service charges, for the doctor in case ofillness, for children’s education. This latter isparticularly problematic for those rural householdsthat often live 20-30 km from the nearest schoolcentre. Unemployment, low salaries, the high costs ofpublic utilities, the low market price for agriculturalproduction together with the high cost of technologyinputs plunge the low-income population in a unstablesocial and economic milieu.

The Caritas Latvia Perspective

is the highest in Group 2, as is the number of womenwith HIV. There are 282 physicians per 100,000 people,in line with the Group 2 average. Public healthexpenditure at 4.2% of GDP is considerably lower -0.8% than the Group 2 average of 5.0% of GDP.


Latvia’s women have a slightly higher enrolment ratiothan men: the enrolment ratios for women and men at83 and 80 respectively are above the Group 2 averageof 78 for women and 75.5 for men. This slightly higheroverall level of education is not reflected in the numberof engineers per 1000 which at 1.0 per 1000 is lowerthan the Group 2 average of 1.6 per 1000. Public

expenditure on education, however, at 6.5% of GNP, is1.4% above the Group 2 average of 5.1% of GNP. Thenumber of computers per 1000 is just below theaverage (82/1000) of the average Group 2 country, andthe number of internet users is also lower: 4.4% of thepopulation use the internet as compared to a Group 2average of about 6.5%. From 1998 – 1999,unemployment increased for both men and women;men were more likely than women to be unemployed.Unemployment, at 7.8% is lower than that of Group 2which averages 11.2%. Incomes are lower than Group 2on average: women earn 5.0K compared with the 6.2Kaverage, and men make 7.7K compared with 10.2K. Thegap between men and women for Group 2 countries issecond narrowest in Latvia: women make about 65% ofmen’s income: this is compared to 61% across Group 2.

Overview

Lithuania, the Baltic State that has conducted themost trade with Russia, has been slowly reboundingfrom the 1998 Russian financial crisis. Highunemployment and weak consumption have heldback recovery. Lithuania was invited to the Helsinkisummit in December 1999 and began EU accessiontalks in early 2000. Privatisation of the large, state-owned utilities, particularly in the energy sector,remains a key challenge for 2001.

Demographics

With a total population of 3.7 million, Lithuania is one ofthe smaller Group 2 countries. Its annual growth rate of–0.3 is average for Group 2, as is life expectancy, at 71.4years. 69% of Latvia’s people live in urban areas, slightlyabove the average of 68.1%. Infant mortality, at 18deaths per 1000, is higher than the 14.9 deaths per1000 registered across Group 2. The incidence of HIV inthe population as a whole, at 0.02% is below averagefor Group 2, as is the number of women with HIV. Thereare 395 physicians per 100,000 people, at 140% of theaverage Group 2, this is the highest number ofphysicians per capita in Group 2. Public healthexpenditure of 4.8% of GDP, however is 0.2% lowerthan the Group 1 average of 5.0% of GDP.

■ Lithuania

75


Lithuania’s women have a higher enrolment ratio thanmen, 83 to 77 which is slightly above the Group 2average of 78 for women and 75.5 for men. Thishigher overall level of education is not reflected in thenumber of engineers per 1000 which at 1.2 per 1000is lower than the Group 2 average of 1.6 per 1000.Public expenditure on education, however, at 5.9% ofGNP is 0.8% above the Group 2 average of 5.1% ofGNP. The number of computers per 1000 is muchlower (59.5/1000) than the average Group 2 country,and the internet users are commensurately low: 2.8%

of the population use the internet as compared to aGroup 2 average of about 6.5%. From 1998 – 1999,unemployment increased for both men and women,but men were more likely than women to beunemployed. Unemployment, at 10.8% is lower thanthat of Group 2 which averages 11.2%. Incomes ingeneral are lower than Group 2 on average: womenearn 5.4 compared with the 6.2 average and menmake 8.1 compared with a Group 2 average of 10.2.The gap between men and women in Group 2countries is narrowest in Lithuania: women earn about67% of men’s income: this is compared to about 61%across Group 2

Overview

Poland has steadfastly pursued a policy of liberalisingthe economy and is today regarded as one of themost successful and open transition economies. Thegovernment's determination to enter the EU as soonas possible affects most aspects of its economicpolicies.

Demographics

With a total population of 38.6 million, Poland’spopulation is second largest in Group 2 after Turkey.Its annual growth rate of –0.1 is slightly aboveaverage for Group 2, and life expectancy, at 72.8years, is above the 71.5 recorded across Group 2.65% of Poland’s population live in urban areas, in linewith the average of 65.1%. Infant mortality, at 9deaths per 1000, is much lower than the 14.9 deaths

per 1000 registered across Group 2 and is more inline with the less progressive countries of Group 1.The incidence of HIV in the population as a whole, at0.07% is above average for Group 2. There are 236physicians per 100,000 people, lower than Group 2on average (83% of the average). Public healthexpenditure of 4.7% of GDP is 0.3% lower than theGroup 2 average of 5.0% of GDP.


Poland’s women have a slightly higher enrolmentratio than men, but the ratio of 86 and 83 respectivelyare way above the Group 2 average of 78 for womenand 75.5 for men and are the second highest inGroup 2 after Estonia. This higher overall level ofeducation is not reflected in the number of engineersper 1000 which at 1.4 per 1000 is lower than theGroup 2 average of 1.6 per 1000. Public expenditure

■ Poland

The country has suffered deeply in the transition fromthe Soviet to the Western economy following thecollapse of Soviet communism in Eastern Europe. Themain consequences of this change are manifest in thelack of a clear and stable social policy defending theinterests of impoverished people; a decline of moralvalues and social ethics, seen as a heritage of imposedSoviet atheism; lack of shelter; unemployment, lack ofeducation and drug abuse. The most vulnerable

categories of people are the families where one of theparents is a drug addict, the homeless, theunemployed, one-parent families, the elderly,particularly those with health problems. The non-governmental sector is largely disregarded and theefforts of various associations to influence publicinstitutions to pass new - or replace existing ineffective- social laws is not duly taken into account.

The Caritas Lithuania Perspective

76

Antiquated agricultural production remains the mainhindrance to faster economic growth. About 60% of thecountry’s land is used in agriculture and almost 25% ofthe population still lives on small, inefficient farms. Thelow development of the agricultural sector together thehigh levels of unemployment do not favour the overalldevelopment of the economy: women and youngpeople are the most affected by this problem. In June2001, there were almost 3 million unemployed peoplei.e. 15.8% of the total economically active population

and significantly higher than the official statistics. In thenorthwestern regions, unemployment is a particularlyserious problem - affecting between 20.3% and 25.7%of the total economically active population. Therestructuring of heavy industry, the high rate ofalcoholism (which affects almost one million people)and the fiscal policy of the State contribute toexacerbate poverty. The lack of proper jobs isparticularly serious for migrants and the refugees,families with many children and the homeless.

The Caritas Poland Perspective

on education, though, at 7.5% of GNP is 2.4% higherthan the Group 2 average of 5.1% of GNP and is thehighest in Group 2. The number of computers per1000 is lower (62.2/1000) than the average Group 2country, and the internet users are also lower, 5.4% ofthe population use the internet as compared to aGroup 2 average of about 6.5%. At 0.00154%,refugees barely register – a trend that continuesthrough Group 2 countries – the average is 0.002%. In

1998 women were more likely than men to beunemployed. Unemployment, at 12% is higher thanthat of Group 2 which averages 11.2%. Incomes ingeneral are higher than Group 2 on average: womenearn 6.4K compared to the 6.2K average and menmake 10.6K compared with a Group 2 average of10.2K. Women make about 61% of men’s income: thisis in line with the average of 61% across Group 2.

Overview

Romania, one of the poorest countries in Central andEastern Europe, began the transition fromcommunism in 1989 with a largely obsolete industrialbase and a pattern of output unsuited to thecountry's needs. Consequently, living standards havecontinued to fall - real wages are down over 40%.Corruption too has worsened. The EU ranks Romanialast among enlargement candidates, and theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and Development(EBRD) rates Romania's transition progress as theregion's worst.

Demographics

With a total population of 22.5 million, Romania is oneof the larger Group 2 countries. Its annual growth rateof –0.3 is roughly average for Group 2, and lifeexpectancy, at 69.8 years, is below the 71.5 recordedacross Group 2. Romania has one of the higher rural

populations in Group 2: 56% live in urban areas asopposed to an average of 65.1% in Group 2. Infantmortality, at 21 deaths per 1000, is second highestbehind Turkey and well above the 14.9 deaths per1000 registered across Group 2. The incidence of HIVin the population as a whole, at 0.02% is belowaverage for Group 2, as is the number of women withHIV. There are 184 physicians per 100,000 people,much lower than Group 2 on average (65.3% of theaverage). Public health expenditure of 5.6% of GDP ishigher by 0.6% than the Group 2 average of 5.0% ofGDP.


Romania’s women have a slightly higher enrolmentratio than men, (70 compared with 68) but this ismuch lower than the Group 2 average of 78 forwomen and 75.5 for men. Moreover the maleenrolment ratio is among the lowest in Group 2.Despite these low enrolment ratios, the number of

■ Romania

77

engineers per 1000 at 1.4 per 1000 is only slightlylower than the average of 1.6 per 1000. Publicexpenditure on education, at 3.6% of GNP is amongthe lowest in Group 2 and 1.5% below the Group 2average of 5.1% of GNP. The number of computersper 1000 is second lowest (26.8/1000) among Group2 countries and only 2.7% of the population claim tobe internet users as compared to a Group 2 averageof about 6.5%. At 0.00179%, refugees barely register– a trend that continues through Group 2 countries –

the average is 0.002%. From 1998 – 1999,unemployment increased for both men and women,men were more likely than women to beunemployed. Unemployment, at 11.5%, is slightlyhigher than that of Group 2 which averages 11.2%.Incomes are lower than Group 2 on average: womenearn 4.4K compared with the 6.2K average and menearn 7.7K compared with a Group 2 average of 10.2K.Women make about 58% of men’s income: this iscompared to about 61% across Group 2

Overview

In 1918 the Slovaks joined the closely related Czechsto form Czechoslovakia. Following the chaos of WorldWar II, Czechoslovakia became a communist nationwithin Soviet-ruled Eastern Europe. The Slovaks andthe Czechs agreed to separate peacefully on 1 January1993. Historical, political and geographical factorshave caused Slovakia to experience more difficulty indeveloping a modern market economy than some ofits Central European neighbours.

Demographics

With a total population of 5.4 million, Slovakia’spopulation is below the average for Group 2 countries.Its flat growth rate is slightly above that of Group 2 onaverage, and life expectancy, at 72.8 years, is abovethe 71.5 recorded across Group 2. Slovakia has one ofthe lower urban populations (57%) in Group 2. Infantmortality, at 9 deaths per 1000, is lower than the 14.9deaths per 1000 registered across Group 2. There are353 physicians per 100,000 people, second highest inGroup 2 and is 125.2 % of Group 2’s average . Public

■ Slovakia

In Romania poverty increased over the transition to amarket economy, the main reason being the sharpdecline in economic output. The country has anunusually large farm sector co-existing with an almostequally large - but obsolete - industrial sector and anunderdeveloped service sector. The economy ofRomania is seriously hampered by the lack ofproductive resources, unsustainable financial andenvironmental conditions together with the lack ofdevelopment programmes. Among economicsectors, agriculture and extractive industries showedthe highest poverty. Independent researchersestimated that in 1999 around 41 % of the populationlived below the poverty line. The most affected bypoverty is the Northeast region of the country. Nearlytwo thirds of the poor live in rural areas. The povertyrelating to the transition to a market economy isconcentrated among salaried workers and theunemployed.

Long-term poverty is most evident among farmers andpensioners. The most vulnerable categories of peoplethat are mostly affected by economic deprivation areelderly rural women, lone parent families, Roma people,young people who are the product of child-careinstitutions, people affected by AIDS and otherdiseases. Poor people have major social difficultiessuch as reaching public services, entering the schoolsystem, having access to healthcare and finding a job. Inurban areas poor people are living in crumblinghouseholds and the heating and electricity expensesare often too high to be paid. In rural areas poorhouseholds are usually not equipped with inside pipeand sewage systems. Local authorities have theresponsibility for social services and means-testedbenefits but sufficient funds are not available. The mostserious problem in the country is still the lack of socialcapital that exacerbates the overall difficult economicsituation.

The Caritas Romania Perspective

78

Because of wide-ranging structural reforms,unemployment seriously hampers the economicdevelopment of the country. The unemploymentnational rate is higher than 20% and in some regionssurpasses 30%. Thus the most endangered groups arelong-term unemployed people. Roma people, loneparent families, children and large families are othervulnerable33 categories at risk of poverty34. The low levelof social and healthcare situation resulted in the factthat the Roma people's average life span is 15 yearsshorter than the rest of the Slovak population. Theeducation system represents a further weakness of thecountry because of the low level of development.

Indeed, schools at all levels receive insufficient fundsand the education system remains obsolete and unableto react to the exigencies of the new economic trendsand the global economy. Education is inadequate torespond to the rapid changes of the industrial andinformation society. The obsolete educational systemhas in turn exacerbated the unemployment situation.The high level of unemployment is mainly the result ofthe increased pressures for enterprise restructuring.Many young people who do not have a job and did nothave a proper education end up as drug addicts oralcoholics and this contributes to the increase in crimein the country.35

The Caritas Slovakia Perspective

health expenditure of 5.7% of GDP is 0.7% than theGroup 2 average of 5.0% of GDP.


As is true for all Group 2 countries, the Republic’swomen have a slightly higher enrolment ratio thanmen and are in line with the Group 2 average of 78for women and 75.5 for men. There are 1.9scientist/engineers per 1000, which is higher than theGroup 2 average of 1.6 per 1000. Public expenditureon education, at 4.7% of GNP is 0.4% below theGroup 2 average of 5.1% of GNP. The number of

computers per 1000 is much higher (109/1000) thanthe average Group 2 country, and the internet usersare also higher; 11.1% of the population use theinternet as compared to a Group 2 average of about6.5%. From 1998 – 1999, unemployment increasedfor both men and women, women were more likelythan men to be unemployed, although the gapnarrowed in 1999. Unemployment, at 17%, is thesecond highest in Group 2 after Bulgaria. Incomes ingeneral are higher than Group 2’s average: womenearn 8.4K compared with the 6.2K average and menearn 12.9K compared with a Group 2 average of10.2K. Women earn some 65% of men’s income: thisis compared to about 61% across Group 2

Overview

In 1918 the Slovenes joined the Serbs and Croats informing a new nation, renamed Yugoslavia in 1929. AfterWorld War II, Slovenia became a republic of the renewedYugoslavia, which though communist, distanced itselffrom Moscow's rule. Dissatisfied with the exercise ofpower of the majority Serbs, the Slovenes succeeded inestablishing their independence in 1991. Historical ties

to Western Europe, a strong economy, and a stabledemocracy make Slovenia a leading candidate for futuremembership in the EU and NATO.

Demographics

With a total population of 2 million, Slovenia has thesmallest population in Group 2. Its annual growth rate

■ Slovenia

33 Paradoxically, pensioners are statistically not among the most affected by poverty as their households are equipped and the average pension is nearly as high as the average income.

34 The word “poverty” is not mentioned as a term in the official documents. It is replaced by the words “material need” or “material shortage”. People who are included in this group are those who receive social benefits because their income falls below the living wag, which is currently estimated at US$71 per month

35 According to a survey carried out by the Statistical office in 2000, 63.9% poor households do not own a car and 58.8% are without telephone.

79

of –0.2 is roughly average for Group 2, and lifeexpectancy, at 75 years, is the longest in Group 2.Slovenia has the highest rural population (50%) inGroup 2. Infant mortality, at 5 deaths per 1000, is muchlower than the 14.9 deaths per 1000 registered acrossGroup 2 and is more in line with Group 1. Theincidence of HIV in the population as a whole, at 0.02%is lower than the average of Group 2, as is the numberof women with HIV. There are 228 physicians per100,000 people, lower than Group 2 on average (81%of the average). Public health expenditure, however of6.6% of GDP is considerably higher, (1.6%), than theGroup 2 average of 5.0% of GDP.


Slovenia’s women (at 85) have a higher enrolment ratiothan men (at 80), but the ratios are above the Group 2average of 78 for women and 75.5 for men. This higher

lower overall level of education is reflected in thenumber of engineers per 1000 which at 2.2 per 1000 ismuch higher than the Group 2 average of 1.6 per 1000and is the highest in Group 2. Public expenditure oneducation is also significantly higher, at 5.7% of GNP,than the Group 2 average of 5.1% of GNP. The numberof computers per 1000 is also highest in Group 2(251.4/1000) and the internet users are also quite high:12.5% of the population use the internet as comparedto a Group 2 average of about 6.5%. At 0.008%, thepercent of refugees, although low, is the highest inGroup 2 countries. From 1998 – 1999, unemploymentdecreased slightly for both men and women, thoughmen were more likely than women to be unemployed.Unemployment, at 7.1%, is lowest for Group 2countries which averages 11.2%. Incomes in generalare highest in Group 2: women earn 12.2K comparedwith the 6.2K Group average and men earn 19.9Kcompared with a Group 2 average of 10.2K. Womenearnings are some 61% of men’s income.

Overview

Turkey was created in 1923 from the Turkish remnantsof the Ottoman Empire. Soon thereafter the countryinstituted secular laws to replace traditional religiousfiats. In 1945 Turkey joined the UN and in 1952 itbecame a member of NATO. Turkey's dynamiceconomy is a complex mix of modern industry andcommerce along with traditional agriculture that stillaccounts for nearly 40% of employment. The countryhas been hampered by financial crises in late 2000 andmid 2001 which included sharp falls in the stockmarket and foreign exchange reserves.

Demographics

With a total population of 65.7 million, Turkey is themost populous country in Group 2. Its annual growthrate of 1.2 is highest in Group 2, and life expectancy,at 69 years, is the lowest in Group 2. 74% of Turkey’spopulation lives in urban areas, the second highest,after the Czech Republic in Group 2. Infant mortality,at 40 deaths per 1000, is by far the highest in Group 2.The incidence of HIV in the population as a whole, at0.01% is the lowest for Group 2. There are 121physicians per 100,000 people, the lowest in Group 2

■ Turkey

The major causes of poverty in the country are: highlevel of unemployment (especially in the North-Eastregion); a high level of bankruptcy of enterprises andcompanies; insufficient professional training.Unemployed people above the age of 45 years are ina particularly precarious situation because they lackthe opportunity to be professionally retrained. Themost vulnerable people live either in households withno economically active members or in households

where the main source of income is represented bysocial benefits. This results in a low standard of livingwhere the income per capita is often insufficient tomeet daily necessities and often leads to highindebtedness. The most serious consequences arethe difficulty in ensuring an education, housing andhealth problems, the inability to pay electricity andwater supply costs and, more rarely, the lack of food.

The Caritas Slovenia Perspective

80

(42.9% of the average). Public health expenditure of2.2% of GDP is also the lowest in Group 2: 2.8% lowerthan the Group 2 average.


In a trend that is the reverse of other Group 2countries, Turkey’s women have a much lowerenrolment ratio than men and at 55 is lowest in Group2. At 68, the men’s enrolment ratio is also lowest inGroup 2 but clearly much higher than that of theirfemale counterparts. Public expenditure oneducation, at 2.2% of GNP, is also the lowest in Group2. The number of computers per 1000 is second

lowest in Group 2 behind Bulgaria (33.8/1000) whilstthe number of internet users is the lowest in theGroup, only 2.2% of the population. At 0.00405%,refugees barely register – a trend that continuesthrough Group 2 countries – the average is 0.002%.From 1998 – 1999, unemployment increased for bothmen and women, men were more likely than womento be unemployed. Unemployment, at 10%, is lowerthan the Group 2 average of 11.2%. Incomes forwomen are lowest in Group 2: women earn 3.9Kcompared with the 6.2K average, and men earn 8.8Kcompared with a Group 2 average of 10.2K. Women'sincome is a mere 44% of men’s income: this is thelowest in Group 2 and compares to an average ofabout 61% across Group 2.

The country is deeply affected by a high level ofinflation. The substantial lack of investment inproductive sectors further hampers the overalleconomic development of the country. The recenteconomic crisis further worsened the economicscenario because many small businesses, such as theshops of artisans and manufacturers, went bankrupt.The access to healthcare, housing and daily food isdifficult because of excessively high prices. Thepeople mostly affected by these poverty conditionsare migrants and the refugees, the unemployed and

the disabled. Given the fact that the minimum wageis lower than the average standard of living (102 Europer month), poor people become even poorer overtime, whereas the rich people grow wealthierbecause of speculation. The low wages worsen thesocial conditions of the poor living in the big cities:according to a survey conducted in March 2001, morethan a million people in Istanbul are affected bymalnutrition. According to the regularly conductedstatistics, there is an increase of 19.81 Euro in thepoverty and hunger rates due to inflation.

The Caritas Turkey Perspective

81

Group 3: Non-accession Countries

82

Overview

In 1990 Albania ended 44 years of xenophobiccommunist rule and established a multipartydemocracy. The transition has proven difficult ascorrupt governments have tried to deal with highunemployment, a dilapidated infrastructure,widespread gangsterism, and disruptive politicalopponents Poor by European standards, Albania ismaking the difficult transition to a more open-marketeconomy.

Demographics

With a total population of 3.1 million, Albania is one ofthe smaller Group 3 countries. Its annual growth rateof 0.6% is the highest in Group 3 which has an averageof –0.2%. Life expectancy, at 72.8 years, is well abovethe average (70.4) for this Group. Albania has thehighest rural population in Group 3; 59% of thepopulation live in rural areas compared with theaverage of 38.6% across Group 3. Infant mortality, at

29 deaths per 1000, is the highest in Group 3. Thereare 129 physicians per 100,000 people, the lowest inGroup 3. Public health expenditure at 3.5% of GDP is1% below the Group 3 average of 4.5% of GDP.


With an enrolment ratio of 99 and 95 respectively,Albania’s men and women have enrolment ratios farabove the average for Group 3 (77.8 for women and75.7 for men). However the number of computers per1000 is the lowest in Group 3, and only about 0.1% ofthe population use the internet as compared to aGroup 3 average of about 1.2%. At 0.01%, theproportion of refugees is average for Group 3.Unemployment is estimated at 16-25%. Incomes ingeneral are low: women earn 2.2K compared with the3.5K Group average and men make 4.1K comparedwith a Group 3 average of 5.9K. Women earned 55%of men’s income: this is compared to the Group 3average of 60%.

■ Albania

Albania is considered to be a country with low levelsof social, political and economic security. Theseaspects of poverty are the direct consequences of thesocial changes following the fall of the communistregime. Such changes created major problems inrelation to: the movement of the Albanians inside andoutside the country; the labour market; the housingsituation; the health services and educationstructures. When talking about the movement ofAlbanians, reference has to be made to twophenomena: emigration to neighbouring countriesand migration inside the country. Indeed, dueprincipally to the low level of the national economyand the related low employee’s wages and lowpension level, the majority of the economically activepart of the Albanian population emigrates toneighbouring countries.

Almost 50% of Albanian intellectuals are emigrants.The most able workforce emigrate in the search forhigher wages which go towards helping their familieswho remain in Albania, in order to attain betterworking conditions, better living standards andeducational possibilities. The migration inside thecountry is basically the movement of people from themountains and the rural areas who flood the mainurban centres. As a result of such movement, thepopulation of the cities has increased considerably. Inthis scenario, the lack of appropriate infrastructuressuch as adequate roads, communication, drainageand electricity systems together with the low level ofsocial benefits and education have noticeablyworsened the problems related to poverty. Thecategories of people that are most directly affectedare migrant’s families, families with long-termunemployed members and the elderly.

The Caritas Albania Perspective

83

Overview

An Orthodox Christian country, Armenia wasincorporated into Russia in 1828 and the Soviet Unionin 1920. Armenian leaders remain preoccupied by thelong conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh,a primarily Armenian-populated part of Azerbaijan.Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in December1991, Armenia has shifted to small-scale agriculturalproduction and away from the large agro-industrialcomplexes of the Soviet era. Armenia's severe tradeimbalance, importing three times its exports, hasbeen offset somewhat by international aid, domesticrestructuring of the economy, and foreign directinvestment.

Demographics

With a total population of 3.8 million, Armenia is oneof the smaller Group 3 countries. Its flat growth rateis above average for Group 3, and life expectancy, at72.4 years, is above average (70.4) for this Group.Surprisingly, given its dependence on agriculture,70% of Armenia’s population live in urban areas: thesecond highest percentage in this Group after theRussian Federation. Infant mortality, at 25 deaths per1000, is above the average of 20.9 deaths per 1000registered on average in Group 3. The incidence of

HIV in the population as a whole, at 0.01% is slightlylower than other Group 3 countries (0.28 on average).There are 316 physicians per 100,000 people, slightlyhigher than the Group 3 average of 314/1000. Publichealth expenditure at 3.1% of GDP is 1.4% - wellbelow the Group 3 average of 4.5% of GDP.


Unusually for Group 3, Armenia’s men have a higherenrolment ratio (82) than women (77). Publicexpenditure on education, at 2% of GNP, is muchlower than the Group 3 average of 5.4% of GNP. Thenumber of computers per 1000 is second lowest afterAlbania in Group 3 and much lower than the averageGroup 3 country. The internet is not widely used: -less than 0.8% of the population use the internet ascompared to a Group 3 average of about 1.2%. At0.4%, the percent of refugees is highest in Group 3 –probably due to the war in Nagorno-Karabakh.Unemployment, estimated at 20%, is high. Incomes ingeneral are low: women earn 1.8K compared to theGroup 3 average of 3.5K and men make 2.7Kcompared with a Group 3 average of 5.9K. Womenearn about 66% of men’s income: this is the narrowestthe gap in Group 3 and compares to an average ofabout 60% across Group 3.

■ Armenia

The change to a free market system, a governmentaleconomic policy based on mass privatisation, and anunstable legal and political framework have broughtArmenia to a critical juncture, characterised by a highlevel of unemployment, under-employment, lowproductivity, and ineffectiveness of the social welfaresystem. Studies on the socio-economic situation and theextent of poverty show that the income per capita is verylow. The basic government subsidy for a 4-personhousehold is about US $15 whereas US $ 66 is neededfor their monthly food basket. This has direct impact onthe private consumption of food and on the access tohealth and education services.

First, 80% of the population subsist beneath the foodpoverty line since their income is not sufficient even to

meet basic nutritional needs. The most directconsequence is chronic malnutrition. Secondly, thissituation is exacerbated by the privatisation of the healthcare services and the consequent escalation in costs formedical care: very often people do not consult a doctorsimply because they cannot afford it, even though theymay be in urgent need of medical assistance. Moreover,given that the average wage is half the minimumsubsistence level, citizens and employers cannot makesignificant contributions to social insurance funds.Thirdly, the high costs of education force an increasingnumber of students to abandon the school system, whileobliging the teachers to augment their low wagesthrough bribery, by receiving money for “optional”classes. Under these circumstances, it becomesincreasingly obvious that limited state financial

The Caritas Armenia Perspective

84

Overview

After seven decades as a constituent republic of theSoviet Union, Belarus attained its independence in1991. In addition to the burdens imposed by extremelyhigh inflation, businesses have been subject to pressureon the part of central and local governments, e.g.,arbitrary changes in regulations, numerous rigorousinspections, and retroactive application of new businessregulations prohibiting practices that had hitherto beenlegal. Additional economic problems are twoconsecutive bad harvests, 1998-99, and persistent tradedeficits. Close relations with Russia, possibly leading toreunion, colour the pattern of economic developments.For the time being, Belarus remains self-isolated fromthe West and its open-market economies.

Demographics

With a total population of 10.2 million, Belarus is one ofthe larger Group 3 countries. Its annual growth rate of–0.4 is below the average of –0.2 for Group 3; lifeexpectancy, at 68.5 years, is also below the average of70.4 for Group 3. 71% of the population live in urbanareas, well above the Group 3 average of 58.6%. Infantmortality, at 23 deaths per 1000, is higher than the 20.9deaths per 1000 reported across Group 3. The

incidence of HIV in the population as a whole, at 0.28%,is at the average for Group 3. There are 443 physiciansper 100,000 people, the highest in Group 3 and 141%of the average of 314.1. Public health expenditure, at4.9% of GDP, is 0.4% above the Group 3 average of4.5% of GDP.


Belarus’ women have a higher enrolment ratio (79) thanmen (75), but this is in line with Group 3 averages: of77.8 for women and 75.7. The number of scientists andengineers at 2.2 per 1000 is way above the Group 3norm and is more in line with Group 1. Publicexpenditure on education, at 5.9% of GNP, is 0.5%above the Group 3 average of 5.4% of GNP. Theinternet is not widely used: - less than 0.5% of thepopulation use the internet as compared to a Group 3average of about 1.2%. Unemployment is much higherfor women than for men, though from 1998 – 1999, itdecreased for both sexes. Official unemployment issuspiciously low at 2.1%. Incomes in general are higherthan for other countries in Group 3: women earn 5.4Kcompared with the 3.5K average and men make 8.6Kcompared with a Group 3 average of 5.9K. Women earn62% of men’s income: this is compared to about 60%across Group 3.

■ Belarus

resources, divided among education, health, andassistance to vulnerable groups of the population do notsolve any social problems and simply dilute budgetaryresources. The above-mentioned poverty trends directlyaffect pensioners, refugees, orphans, and lone parentfamilies. Indeed, on average, one third of those peopleof retirement age, with 36.5 years of work experience,continue to work because of the lack of personalfinances given by the low pensions they receive.

Inadequate housing and unemployment are the basicproblems of refugees: 14.5 out of 60 thousand familiesdo not have permanent housing and unemployment is70% among able-bodied refugees. The majority of theregistered unemployed are women. The situation is

most acute for lone parent families headed by women.Indeed, although, on the one hand, Armenian societyaccepts women’s activism and equality; on the other,traditional Armenian mentality still prioritises the care offamily and homemaking for women over paidemployment and public roles. Moreover because ofdelay in funding for institutions, the situation for childrenin orphanages is desperate. Financial support to stateorphanages and boarding schools is now reduced to thepayment of salaries and funds for food. This insecuresocial situation is made worse with the phenomenon ofthe so-called “social orphans”.36 In at least 80% of thecases, these funds arrive with significant delay. Mostemployees have not received salaries for the last 2 to 8months.

36 Social orphans are those children whose parents are still alive but are unable to provide for their maintenance. Even though the parents do not provide child support, these children are not eligible for other benefits, which can be enjoyed by those children who are officially registered as orphans. A large percentage of children in state orphanages and boarding schools fall within this category.

85

Overview

Bosnia and Herzegovina is ranked next to The FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia as the poorestrepublic in the old Yugoslav federation. Althoughagriculture is almost all in private hands (43% of thepopulation live in rural communities), farms are smalland inefficient, and the republic traditionally is a netimporter of food. The bitter interethnic warfare inBosnia caused production to plummet by 80% from1990 to 1995, unemployment to soar (estimated tobe between 35-40%), and human misery to multiply.With an uneasy peace in place, output recovered in1996-98 at high percentage rates from a low base;

but output growth slowed appreciably in 1999 and2000, and GDP remains far below the 1990 level.


Economic data are of limited use because, althoughboth entities issue figures, national-level statistics arenot available. Moreover, official data do not capturethe large share of activity that occurs on the blackmarket. The country receives substantial amounts ofreconstruction assistance and humanitarian aid fromthe international community but will have to preparefor an era of declining assistance.

■ Bosnia-Herzegovina

The country is characterized by a stagnating economy;a reduction in the number of workplaces; inflation as aconsequence of mass migration inside the country;emigration and the consequent reduction of intellectualpotential and human capital. In 2000 around 50% of thepopulation of the country had incomes below the so-called “minimum wage budget” (MWB) which is aboutUS $23. According to the estimates of independentsociological organizations, the number of poor peopleis as high as over 90% of the entire population. A largepart of the employed population working in publichealth services and/or education, culture and science or

agriculture, has an income at a rate of 1-3 MWB. Thiswage does not allow for normal healthy eating, medicalaid and education because of the high living costs in thecountry. Families with more than three children, theelderly and handicapped people, lone parent families,the unemployed and migrants are acutely affected bythe economic and social difficulties of the country.Indeed, the social welfare system does not providesufficient social cover and benefits to those people inneed. The unemployment benefit, for instance, is only30% of MWB and it is therefore not sufficient to meetbasic human needs.

The Caritas Belarus Perspective

The country still bears the heavy consequences of thewar. Currently some 625,800 refugees from Bosnia andHerzegovina are still scattered over 40 other states,while the national country accepted 40,000 refugeesfrom Kosovo. Some 100,000 young people emigratedfrom the country after the Dayton Peace Accord(initialled on November 21 1995)37 for reasons such asunemployment, national intolerance, and the inability toreturn to their own property. The transformation of thepolitical system exacerbated some serious socialproblems such as drug addiction, alcoholism, crime andcorruption. The social situation is very bad: the

unemployment rate is quite high; young peoplethemselves are paying for their education; elderlypeople have insufficient social security benefits. One ofthe most serious problems is the pressing need toreconstruct housing units, public institution buildings,as well as infrastructure all over the country. Thenumber of employed is very low and their work isunderpaid. The most vulnerable groups are refugeefamilies, the elderly, sick and handicapped people sincethey need constant care in everything – from medicalcare and supplies to food assistance.

The Caritas Bosnia-Herzegovina Perspective

37 After Dayton, 100,000 people emigrated from Bosnia and Herzegovina in other countries. Around 40,000 refugees from Yugoslavia are still in the country with the status of refugees. At the same time there are still 300,000 people living abroad who do not have any status.

86

Overview

Before the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the Republic ofCroatia, after Slovenia, was the most prosperous andindustrialised area, with a per capita output perhapsone-third above the Yugoslav average. Croatia facesconsiderable economic problems stemming from: thelegacy of long-time communist mismanagement ofthe economy; damage during the internecine fightingto bridges, factories, power lines, buildings, andhouses; the large refugee and displaced population,both Croatian and Bosnian; and the disruption ofeconomic ties. Stepped-up Western aid andinvestment, especially in the tourist and oil industries,would help bolster the economy. The economyemerged from its mild recession in 2000 with tourismthe main factor. Massive unemployment remains akey negative element.

Demographics

With a total population of 4.7 million, Croatia’spopulation though small is median for Group 3 (whichis dwarfed by Russia and the Ukraine). Its flat growthrate is slightly above average for Group 3, and lifeexpectancy, at 73.3 years, is the highest in Group 3.57% of the population live in urban areas in line withthe average of 58.6% reported across Group 3. Infantmortality, at 8 deaths per 1000, is lowest in Group 3,well below the Group average of 20.9 deaths per1000. The incidence of HIV in the population as awhole, at 0.02%, is one of the lowest in Group 3.There are 229 physicians per 100,000 people, 73% of

the Group 3 average of 314 per 1000. Public healthexpenditure at 8.1% of GDP is 3.6% above the Group3 average of 4.5% of GDP – though this probablycomes from a very low base.


With a ratio of 69 for women and 68 for men, Croatiahas the lowest enrolment ratio in Group 3, well belowthe average of 77.8 for women and 75.7 for men. Thisslightly lower overall level of education is notreflected in the number of engineers per 1000 whichat 1.9 per 1000 is slightly higher than the Group 3average of 1.8 per 1000. Public expenditure oneducation, at 5.3% of GNP, is only 0.1% lower thanthe Group 3 average of 5.4% of GNP. The number ofcomputers at 67 per 1000 is much higher than theaverage Group 3 country, and 4.3% of the populationuse the internet - the highest in Group 3 with anaverage of 1.2%. The percentage of refugees at0.05% is about average for Group 3 countries(although it is not clear whether this suspiciously lowfigure includes internally displaced people). From1998 – 1999, unemployment increased for both menand women, though men were more likely thanwomen to be unemployed. Unemployment,estimated at 22%, is high. Incomes in general arereported to be higher than the average Group 3country: women earn 5.3K compared with the 3.5Kaverage and men earn 9.6K (the highest in Group 3)compared with a Group 3 average of 5.9K. Womenearn about 55% of men’s income: this is compared toabout 60% across Group 3.

■ Croatia

An analysis of the structure and features of povertyindicates several distinctive groups amongst the poorsuch as: households where the head of the familydoes not have any education (75% of the householdsbelong to this category); 40% of the poor live in

households where the head of the family is a retiredperson; and households living the rural regions ofSlavonia (eastern Croatia). The main cause of povertyis the restructuring of the economy that brought withit an unemployment rate of 24%.

The Caritas Croatia Perspective

87

The collapse of the Soviet Union disrupted traditionaltrade and payments links between the former parts ofthe federation and led to a large terms-of-trade shockfor energy imports, as Georgia does not possesssufficient energy resources and raw materials tosupport its industry or other fields of production,including agriculture. These problems impeded thefull production cycle and created difficulties indeveloping an independent economic system so thata sharp fall in incomes, inadequate social protection,high level of unemployment and heavy external debt

burden have become the inevitable consequences.The appropriate supportive environment was notcreated prior to the liberalization of prices. That iswhy the transition dragged on for so long, causingthe drastic impoverishment of a socially unprotectedpopulation. The national official poverty line, beingintroduced in the country, is around US $ 50 permonth per person.

In recent years poverty in Georgia becamewidespread - with more than 35% of the population

The Caritas Georgia Perspective

Overview

Georgia was absorbed into the Russian Empire in the19th century. Independent for three years (1918-1921) following the Russian revolution, it was forciblyincorporated into the USSR until the Soviet Uniondissolved in 1991. Despite a badly degradedtransportation network - brought on by ethnicconflict, criminal activities, and fuel shortages - thecountry continues to move toward a market economyand greater integration with Western institutions.Georgia's economy has traditionally revolved aroundBlack Sea tourism; the cultivation of citrus fruits, tea,and grapes; mining of manganese and copper; andoutput of a small industrial sector producing wine,metals, machinery, chemicals, and textiles. Despitethe severe damage the economy has suffered due tocivil strife, Georgia, with the help of the IMF andWorld Bank, has made substantial economic gainssince 1995, increasing GDP growth and slashinginflation. The Georgian economy continues toexperience large budget deficits due to a failure tocollect tax revenues. Georgia also still suffers fromenergy shortages; it privatised the distributionnetwork in 1998, and deliveries are steadilyimproving. The country is pinning its hopes for long-term recovery on the development of an internationaltransportation corridor through the key Black Seaports of P'ot'i and Bat'umi. The growing trade deficit,continuing problems with tax evasion and corruption,and political uncertainties cloud the short-termeconomic picture.

Demographics

With a total population of 5.3 million, Georgia’spopulation is about median for Group 3 countries –which is skewed upward by Russia (146.2 million) andthe Ukraine (50 million). Its annual growth rate of –0.6 isbelow average for Group 3, though life expectancy, at72.7 years, is above the Group 3 average of 70.4. Thepopulation is split 60% in urban areas, 40% in rural, inline with the Group 3 average. Infant mortality, at 19deaths per 1000, is just below the 20.9 deaths per 1000registered across Group 3. There are 436 physicians per100,000 people, the second highest in Group 3 afterBelarus and 139% of the Group 3 average. Public healthexpenditure is a mere 0.5% of GDP, the lowest in Group3 and 4% below the Group 3 average of 4.5% of GDP.


With a ratio of 71 for women and 69 for men, Georgia’senrolment ratios are well below the Group 3 average of77.8 for women and 75.7 for men. Public expenditureon education, is 5.2% of GNP, is 0.2% below the Group3 average of 5.4% of GNP. The internet is not widelyused: - less than 0.6% of the population use the internetas compared to a Group 3 average of about 1.2%. At0.01%, the number of refugees is in line with otherGroup 3 countries. (However, as is clear from theCaritas input, these statistics do not include internallydisplaced persons). From 1998 – 1999, unemploymentincreased for both men and women, though men wereless likely than women to be unemployed.Unemployment is high: the official 1999 figureestimates unemployment at 14% though realunemployment is probably much higher.

■ Georgia

88

Overview

The large Albanian minority and the de factoindependence of neighbouring Kosovo continue to besources of ethnic tension. At independence inNovember 1991, Macedonia was the least developed ofthe Yugoslav republics, producing a mere 5% of thetotal federal output of goods and services. An absenceof infrastructure, UN sanctions on its largest market,Yugoslavia, and a Greek economic embargo hinderedeconomic growth until 1996. GDP has subsequentlyincreased each year, rising by 5% in 2000. Successfulprivatisation in 2000 boosted the country's reserves toover $700 million. The political leadership hasdemonstrated a continuing commitment to economicreform, free trade, and regional integration.

Demographics

With a total population of 2 million, Macedonia’spopulation is the smallest for Group 3 countries. Itsannual growth rate of 0.2 is higher than Group 3average, and life expectancy, at 72.7 years, is aboveaverage (70.4) for this Group. 62% of the people live

in urban areas, in line with the Group 3 average of58.6%. Infant mortality, at 22 deaths per 1000, isabove the Group 3 average of 20.9 deaths per 1000.There are 204 physicians per 100,000 people, lowerthan Group 3 on average (64.9% of the average).Public health expenditure is 1% below the Group 3average of 4.5% of GDP.


With a ratio of 70 for women and 70 for men, Macedoniahas the lowest enrolment ratio in Group 3, well belowthe average of 77.8 for women and 75.7 for men. Thislower overall level of education is reflected in thenumber of engineers per 1000 which, at 1.3 per 1000, islower than the Group 3 average of 1.8 per 1000. Publicexpenditure on education, however, at 5.1% of GNP, isonly 0.3% lower than the Group 3 average of 5.4% ofGNP. The internet is more widely used in Macedoniathan in other Group 3 countries: 1.5% of the populationuse the internet as compared to a Group 3 average ofabout 1.2%. At 0.05%, the number of refugees is belowthe average of 0.01% for Group 3. Unemployment ishigh and estimated to be around 32%.

■ Macedonia

living below the poverty line. All these problems werecompounded by the armed conflicts in Abkhazia andSamachablo (South Ossetia), resulting in largemovements of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) –more than 300, 000 IDPs are dispersed throughoutthe country - deprived of their land, their homes andtheir possessions. The IDPs receive a purely symbolicallowance of about US $ 6 per person per month.They are accommodated in schools, former camps(summer houses), They occupied health-careinstitutions, large parts of which are not in use due to

the lack of patients (people cannot afford to stay inthe medical institutions), hotels or old and unfit fordwelling buildings. Most of them live in unbearable,unsanitary and unhealthy conditions. Given the lackof adequate social benefits, the most vulnerablepeople are pensioners, children in institutions and thedisabled. Low income brings with it a high level ofmalnutrition that combines with the difficulty inhaving access to basic health services to form avicious circle of poverty.

After independence was achieved in 1991,Macedonia underwent dramatic changes because ofthe economic transition from a state-dominatedsocialist system to a market driven economy. As aconsequence of this process which led to theprivatization of public companies, organizations andfactories, many people lost their employment. Thosewho kept their jobs are earning minimum wages or no

wages at all while still being enrolled in the socialsecurity schemes. Since 1991, the differentiation ofsocial classes has significantly increased: the middleclass is vanishing and the poor people alreadyrepresent 20% of the total population. TheGovernment of the Republic of Macedonia considersthose households whose income is lower than 25Euro per month as below the poverty line.

The Caritas Macedonia Perspective

89

Overview

Formerly ruled by Romania, Moldova became part ofthe Soviet Union at the end of World War II. One of thepoorest nations in Europe and plagued by a moribundeconomy, in 2001 Moldova became the first formerSoviet state to elect a communist as its president.Moldova enjoys a favourable climate and goodfarmland. Ambitious reform efforts could not offset theimpact of political and economic difficulties, bothinternal and regional. In 1998, the economic troubles ofRussia, by far Moldova's leading trade partner, were amajor cause of the 8.6% drop in GDP. In 1999, GDP fellagain, by 4.4%, the fifth drop in the past seven years;exports were down, and energy supplies continued tobe erratic. GDP declined slightly in 2000, with a severedrought having serious adverse effects on agriculturalproduction.

Demographics

With 4.3 million people, Moldova’s population is aboutmedian for Group 3. Its annual growth rate of –0.2 isaverage for this Group, and life expectancy, at 66.6

years, is below average (70.4) for this Group. Infantmortality, at 27 deaths per 1000, is the second highestfor this Group after Albania. The incidence of HIV in thepopulation as a whole, at 0.02%, is slightly lower thanthe Group 3 average of 0.28.There are 350 physiciansper 100,000 people, slightly higher than Group 3 onaverage (111% of the average). Public healthexpenditure at 6.4% of GNP is 1.9% above the Group 3average of 4.5% of GDP.


With a ratio of 75 for women and 70 for men,Moldova has enrolment ratios slightly below theGroup 3 average of 77.8 for women and 75.7 formen. Public expenditure on education, at10.6% ofGNP, is the highest in Group 3 which averages 5.4%of GNP. The number of computers per 1000 is muchlower than the average Group 3 country, and theinternet is not widely used: - less than 0.6% of thepopulation use the internet as compared to a Group3 average of about 1.2%. In 1999, women were muchmore likely than men to be unemployed, thoughofficially unemployment is only 1.9%.

■ Moldova

In the framework of geopolitical uncertainty,economic reforms, such as privatisation andeconomic liberalization, are carried out with greatdifficulty and to not have the anticipated effect. Thestate does not have fiscal proceeds, does not paywages to employees, government is highly corrupt,

and foreign investors avoid this insolvent country. Theeconomy is still dependent on economic fluctuationsin Russia. A significant portion of enterprises wentbankrupt. Due to financial crisis, the state hasaccumulated huge arrears in wages to itsemployees39. Many companies do not repay current

The Caritas Moldova Perspective

38 Almost 80% of poor people live in communities where the head of the family has only primary school education.39 The state pays salaries to people only after long delays: in the best-developed areas of activity, the employees

sometimes receive their salary with a delay of 2/3 months.

The scenario is even worse if the situation of the Romaminority and of the “new poor” is considered. Indeed95 % of the Roma population is unemployed and, as aconsequence, they often live as squatters on communalproperty without official approval. In addition they arelacking basic public services such as electricity, waterand sanitation facilities. The so-called ‘new poor’ are

the result of the migration from the poor rural areas intourban areas: pensioners with low social benefits,unemployed persons and workers earning low salariesfeature in this new category. Moreover, the country hasto face the problems resulting from the lack ofeducation together with the lack of opportunities toopen up private and small-scale business.38

90

Overview

A decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union in1991, Russia is still struggling to establish a modernmarket economy and achieve strong economicgrowth. Russia remains heavily dependent on theexport of commodities, particularly oil, natural gas,metals, and timber, which account for over 80% ofexports. As any country dependent on the export ofprimary products, the Russian Federation isvulnerable to fluctuations in world prices and whichare beyond its control. Russia's agricultural sectorremains beset by uncertainty over land ownershiprights, which has discouraged much neededinvestment and restructuring. Another threat isnegative demographic trends, fuelled by low birthrates and a deteriorating health situation - includingan alarming rise in AIDS cases - that have contributedto a nearly 2% drop in the population since 1992.Russia's industrial base is increasingly dilapidated andmust be replaced and modernised if the country is toachieve sustainable economic growth. Otherproblems include widespread corruption, capitalflight, and a brain drain.

Demographics

With a total population of 146.2 million, Russia is, byfar and away, the largest Group 3 country. Its annualgrowth rate of –0.6 is well below the average forGroup 3, as is life expectancy, which, at 66.1 years, islowest in Group 3. 77% of the population – thehighest for Group 3 - live in urban areas. Infantmortality, at 18 deaths per 1000, is lower than the20.9 deaths per 1000 registered across Group 3. Theincidence of HIV in the population as a whole, isreported to be 0.18% of the population, thoughanecdotally the incidence of HIV is deemed to bemuch higher. There are 421 physicians per 100,000people, much higher than Group 3 on average (134%of the average). Public health expenditure is 0.1%above the Group 3 average of 4.5% of GDP.


With a ratio of 82 for women and 75 for men, Russiahas enrolment ratios that are above average forGroup 3. In keeping with Russia’s highly skilled work

■ Russian Federation

debts for inputs and electric energy. The only solutionis to pay wages in kind. Some companies used toissue bonds against which the employees get theirwages when money is available.

More than 50% of the Moldavian population isemployed in agriculture. This sector of the economyis undergoing a serious crisis caused by the absenceof investment and lack of fuel. According topreliminary estimates, 53.4% of the population livedbelow the absolute poverty line (7.5 Euro per capita)in 1999. During the transition period, the healthsector has deteriorated significantly and recorded asignificant decline in expenditure: spending onlyaccounted for 2.9% of the GDP in 2000 against 6% in1997 - a decline in the hope for life.

There has also been an increase in the number ofpeople who suffer from various diseases such as

tuberculosis. This disease has assumed a greater scaledue to deteriorating sanitary and social conditions.Because of the high fees, the education sector hasalso declined considerably during the transitionperiod: a reduction in the enrolment rate, chronicabsenteeism of poor children, reduced participationof poor students in the secondary and post-secondary education, and a reduction in spending onthis sector.

In the countryside, living conditions are more difficult;two-thirds of the needy population live in the ruralareas where houses are not equipped with waterconduits or sewer systems40. Heating is non-existent.Warm water and electricity are luxuries that only fewcan enjoy. Moreover, the state does not havenecessary resources to meet the needs of thepopulation in the field of medical care, education,and culture.

40 Electricity is cut more frequently by the village administration in order to save money.

91

force, the number of engineers per 1000 at 3.6 per1000 is the highest in Group 3. Public expenditure oneducation, however, at 3.5% of GNP is 1.9% lowerthan the Group 3 average of 5.4% of GNP. Thenumber of computers per 1000 is the highest inGroup 3 and 1.85% of the population claim to use theinternet compared with a Group 3 average of 1.85%.At 0.012%, the percent of refugees is in line forGroup 3. From 1998 – 1999, unemployment

increased for both men and women, though menwere more likely than women to be unemployed.Official unemployment is 10.5%. Income for womenat 5.9K compares favourably with the average of 3.5Kin Group 3 and is the highest in Group 3. Men’sincome is the second highest after Croatia, theirincome is 9.3K compared with a Group 3 average of5.9K. Women earn about 63% of men’s income: this iscompared to about 60% across Group 3.

Poverty has become a widespread phenomenon,affecting not only traditionally vulnerable categories(unemployed, families with children, disabled, youngpeople, pensioners) but also a part of the economicallyactive population of the country, especially thosefinanced from the state budget – doctors, teachers,representatives of science and culture - who weredeprived of the state subsidies depreciated by inflation.The size of pensions, social subsidies and salaries oftentraps people in the category of poor. The average sizeof pensions (with compensation) was 910 rubles inMarch 2001 (1$ - 29 rubles). In a year the nominalincrease was 48.4%, and the real one (with the inflationcoefficient) was 20.0%. The situation of families withchildren, particularly those with many children and loneparent families is especially difficult. Child benefit permonth is 200 rubles till the age of 1.5 years and 70rubles thereafter until the age of 16. Lone parentfamilies receive social aid of 140 rubles a month.

A special category of poor are employed but who donot receive their salary for several months or evenyears running. More than 60% of the stateorganizations' debt is in the social sphere. It shouldbe noted that, in April 2001 17.7% of the total debtis in the federal budget and 82.3% in the budget ofregions of the Russian Federation and localmunicipalities. Economic decline over the recentyears has given rise to the phenomenon of forcedadministrative vacation without pay or with partialpayment of salaries. Having a job - and thus no rightto an unemployment subsidy - means people get intoserious financial difficulties. Almost 10% of thoseemployed in industrial enterprises experiencingdevelopment difficulties in the first quarter of 2001were obliged to take such vacations. In the footwearindustry this percentage soared to 80%.

In spite of the trend towards the general growth ofsalaries, there remains the problem that, in large

sectors of economy (light industry, commerce,maintenance of buildings and communal services,healthcare, science, culture, education, and even inthe scientifically and technologically advanced andsocially oriented sectors), the level of salaries doesnot correspond to the contribution of these sectors tothe Gross Domestic Product, to their importance forthe future competitiveness of Russia in the worldmarket and, what matters most of all for the people,to the level of minimum needs as formalised in theminimum wage.

Therefore, a significant sector of the population isseeking a second job: 11.1% of working people areactively trying to raise their household incomethrough an extra job. An additional problem is thedifferences between regions. Thus, of the 89 regionsof the Federation, the 10 most successful onesconsume 49.2% of the total amount consumed byregions, whilst 19 unsuccessful ones consume only4.7%. In the second quarter of 2001 the averageincome per person was 2354.7 rubles. (1$ = 29rubles). The income differences are such that,compared to the average in the country, in Moscow itis 3.78 times as high, in Tumen – 2.30, in Khanty-Mansiysky autonomous region – 3.6, in Ingushetya -0.32, in Ivanovo – 0.38, in Kalmykya – 0.42.

It should be noted that a certain part of thepopulation’s income, in particular that resulting froma second job, cannot be counted in practice since it isrelated to the 'shadow' or 'black' economy whichmakes up an important part of the Russian economy.The proliferation of the shadow economy is not onlya source of unregistered income, it also underminesthe state system of social welfare which is the onlysource of income for the most vulnerable groups ofthe population. The non-payment of taxes enriches asmall proportion of the population (the per capitaincome difference coefficient is 15.4. The richest 10%

The Russian Federation Caritas Perspective

92

Overview

Although independence was attained in 1991 withthe dissolution of the USSR, freedom remains elusiveas many of the former Soviet elite remain entrenched,stalling efforts at economic reform, privatisation, andrespect for civil liberties.

After Russia, the Ukrainian republic was far and awaythe most important economic component of theformer Soviet Union, producing some four times theoutput of the next-ranking republic. Shortly afterindependence in late 1991, the UkrainianGovernment liberalised most prices and erected alegal framework for privatisation, but widespreadresistance to reform within the government and thelegislature soon stalled reform efforts and led tosome backtracking. Output in 1992-99 fell to lessthan 40% the 1991 level. Loose monetary policiespushed inflation to hyperinflationary levels in late1993. Ukraine's dependence on Russia for energysupplies and the lack of significant structural reformhave made the Ukrainian economy highly vulnerable

to external shocks. Outside institutions - particularlythe IMF - have encouraged Ukraine to quicken thepace and scope of reforms and have threatened towithdraw financial support.

Demographics

With a total population of 50 million, Ukraine is thesecond largest country, after Russia, in Group 3. Itsannual growth rate of –0.9 is lowest in Group 3, andlife expectancy, at 68.1 years, is below average (68.1)for this Group. 68% of the Ukraine’s population live inurban areas, more than is usual for Group 3 (58.6%)on average. Infant mortality, at 17 deaths per 1000, isbelow the 20.9 deaths per 1000 registered acrossGroup 3. The incidence of HIV in the population as awhole, at 0.96% is the highest reported for thisGroup. There are 299 physicians per 100,000 people,slightly higher lower than the Group 3 average(95.2% of the average). Public health expenditure is0.9% below the Group 3 average of 4.5% of GDP.

■ Ukraine

receive 33.7% of the total income, whilst the poorest10% receive only 2,4%) and deprives the needy ofsources of financing.

A dangerous consequence of this situation is the lossof not only material benefits but of social status of theemployed. A considerable number of qualifiedspecialists, with diplomas in engineering, teachersetc. take work which does not correspond to theirqualifications since otherwise they cannot provide fortheir families. Federal and regional authorities try tocombat such situation.

The trend of growth of income and expenses of thepopulation that began to take shape in 2001 was notstrong enough to have any significant impact on theeradication of poverty. Even if delays in payingsalaries, pensions, child benefits etc. decreased, theyare not yet completely eliminated. And, even if paidon time, they are not high enough to allow asignificant decrease in the number of the needy.Regular increases in pensions, social benefits,

minimum wages have little influence over thesituation. In a year (data for the second quarter of2001) pensions grew by 23.4% and average monthlysalaries by 18.8%. In this context, the astute socialpolicy of regional authorities plays an important role.In some regions (for example Moscow, Norilsk)additional payments to pensions and social benefitsare higher than the sums established by the state.

The statistics indicate a gradual increase in the livingstandards of the population of Russia. But a complexof factors militates against taking an optimistic view:increase in prices for communal and transportservices, building maintenance, communication andelectricity. Consumer prices for goods and services ofprimary importance grow more rapidly than others.Thus, the increases in income and benefits do notkeep pace with the rising cost of living. All this has anegative effect on living standards and, in the nearfuture, will not permit the majority of Russia's peopleto live above the poverty line.

93

Overview

The swift collapse of the Yugoslav federation in 1991was followed by highly destructive conflict, thedestabilisation of republic boundaries, and the break-upof important inter-republic trade flows. Output inYugoslavia dropped by half in 1992-93. Like the otherformer Yugoslav republics, it had depended on its sisterrepublics for large amounts of energy and manufacturedgoods. The break of many of the trade links, the sharpdrop in output as industrial plants lost suppliers and

markets, and the destruction of physical assets in thefighting have all contributed to the economic difficultiesof the republics. Reliable statistics continue to be hard tocome by, and the GDP estimate is extremely rough. Allsanctions have now been lifted. Yugoslavia is in the firststage of economic reform. Severe electricity shortagesare chronic, the result of lack of investment by formerregimes, depleted hydropower reservoirs due toextended drought, and lack of funds. GDP growth in2000 was perhaps 15%, which in large partcompensated for the 20% decline of 1999.

■ Yugoslavia, FR (Ser./Mont.)


With a ratio of 78 for women and 77 for men, Ukrainehas enrolment ratios that are just above average forGroup 3. This higher overall level of education isreflected in the number of engineers per 1000 which at2.2 per 1000 is slightly higher than the Group 3average of 1.8 per 1000. Public expenditure oneducation, at 5.6% of GNP, is 0.2% higher than theGroup 3 average of 5.4% of GNP. The number ofcomputers at 15.8 per 1000 is lower than the averageGroup 3 country (which is skewed by a high number in

Croatia and Russia) and the internet is not widely used:- less than 0.4% of the population use the internet ascompared to a Group 3 average of about 1.2%. At0.01%, refugees barely register and are among thelowest in Group 3. From 1998 – 1999, unemploymentdecreased for both men and women, though menwere more likely than women to be unemployed.Official unemployment is listed at 4.3%. Incomes ingeneral are below average for Group 3: women earn2.5K compared with the 3.5K Group average and menearn 4.6K compared with a Group 3 average of 5.9K.Women earn about 54% of men’s income.

Caritas Europa has two member organisations in theUkraine: Caritas Spes (the Caritas of the RomanCatholic Church in Ukraine) and Caritas Ukraine (theCaritas of the Greek Catholic Church).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, factoriesclosed down and enormous numbers of peoplebecame unemployed overnight. The new laws wereoften not passed by the Parliament quickly enough tokeep pace with the new economic reality. The systemof taxation remained the same as the one of theSoviet era and is not really compatible with a freemarket economic system. The elderly, the familieswith many children, the unemployed and the so-called ‘budget sphere employees’ (e.g. doctors,teachers, social sphere employees…) represent thecategories of people most directly affected bypoverty. The budget sphere employees earn only 30

Euros per month and this low wage is the main causeof the current brain drain and the loss ofprestige/status of these professions.

Adequate housing is a major problem together withmedical and health care. Most hospitals do not evenprovide patients with medicines or food: the patient orhis family must supply this. A particular problem is thepoverty of the state itself and its failure to establishefficient social services for those citizens who aresimply not able to fully care for themselves (e.g.elderly, disabled, children). The official cost of living forthe year 2000 was 62.5 Euro, whereas the minimumwage was approximately 24 Euro and the minimumpension 17 Euro. The development of the blackeconomy and the imperfection of taxation policy haveresulted in a state budget which is manifestlyinsufficient to cover the needs of the country.

The Caritas Ukraine Perspective

94

Demographics

52% of Yugoslavia’s people live in urban areas, lessthan is usual for Group 3 (58.6%) on average.


Scientists and engineers are 1/1000 in Yugoslavia. Thenumber of computers per 1000 is relatively high: thereare 20.7 computers / 1000 people. Unemployment ishigh and estimated to be around 30%.

The great influx of non-Albanian people (Serbs,Montenegrins, Roma) from Kosovo, which started inJune 1999, resulted in some 200,000 internallydisplaced persons who entered Serbia during thecourse of last summer. Among these refugees fromBosnia and Croatia, there are more than 500,000located primarily in the northern part of the country.The living standard of these people is very low sincethey are accommodated in collective centres (e.g.schools, hospitals, and factories) which are frequentlyovercrowded. Hygiene conditions are precariousbecause of the lack of facilities. In such a situation, theprovision food becomes increasingly necessary since

people living in the centres cannot find a job and earntheir living. As a consequence of inadequateaccommodation, the lack of food and basic hygiene,many people become sick and the hospitals areovercrowded with patients. Nowadays, hospitals haveto face not only the lack of medicines but also thelack of items necessary for the normal functioning oftheir kitchens. The country urgently needs substantialprovisions of medicines and medical equipment. Thisis particularly important for the elderly and for thechildren who are the most vulnerable to diseases andinfections

The Caritas Yugoslavia Perspective

95

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

As this report has amply demonstrated, poverty isa multi-dimensional, complex issue and therefore isnot amenable to simplistic solutions. A holisticapproach is necessary - not simply to alleviatepoverty (although this is a good in and of itself) -but to eradicate it from society. The elimination ofpoverty involves tackling the root causes andputting in place a matrix of multi-sectoralapproaches and programmes. In developing suchapproaches and programmes, the centrality of thehuman person must be underscored. Thus, humandignity, equity, basic human needs and rights,participation, social and political inclusion are allkey concepts in this approach. In the currentenlargement process which seeks to embrace theassociated countries of central and eastern Europe,the European Council in Copenhagen (June 1993)developed the following criteria41:

■ The stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities (political criterion);

■ The existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the European Union (economic criterion);

■ The ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union (criterion concerning adoption of the Community acquis.

As a grouping of relief, development and socialwork organisations throughout Europe, CaritasEuropa places particular stress on the first of thesecriteria. Ensuring democracy (including politicalparticipation, the fostering of a vibrant civil society,social inclusion), the rule of law, respect for humanrights in their widest sense and respect for andprotection of minorities are of paramountimportance in the creation of a more just, moreequitable European Union. In particular, we wouldemphasise the following policy recommendations:

41 Enlargement: Preparing for Accession, European Commission. Last updated on May 14 2001. Website: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e4001.htm.

Employment-oriented activities

■ Introduction

Since unemployment has been identified as the key factor in the poverty matrix, particular attention should begiven to the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. The promotion of job-oriented programmes,training and vocational courses would greatly facilitate the reintegration into the labour market of those in longterm unemployment.. Initiatives need to be developed to improve infrastructures and create new jobs, placingparticular emphasis to the fight against social exclusion.

This goal could be achieved by:

■ Promoting access to the job market for everybody;

■ Guaranteeing to workers a minimum wage and one which will meet their family's needs;

In regard to the fight against social exclusion, jobs should be provided for disabled people, through, forinstance, the introduction of a quota system with financial incentives for employers. Moreover financialassistance could further contribute to enabling those persons who find it difficult to get a job to remain in orenter the labour market.

■ Eliminating any form of discrimination - based on gender, ethnic origins, sexual orientation, language, disabilities and religion of the job seeker - in the labour market;

■ Innovation in social service thorough the creation of new jobs

Education and Training

The link between educational levels and the capacity/opportunity to find a suitable job is firmly established.Illiteracy, poor educational attainment and lack of skills training all limit the individual's options and potential.Thus, the acquisition of knowledge, skills and qualifications should be acknowledged as vital in today’s highlycompetitive world. Investment in human capital is critical for the future. There is the need of targeted actionsfor:

■ The amelioration of educational methods and the necessary support systems for those children living in the most disadvantaged areas and for those children with cultural, physical and/or mental handicaps.

Education should be freely accessible in order to give to everybody the chance to acquire a certain level ofcompetence necessary to enter the labour market, to contribute meaningfully to society and to fulfil eachperson's potential.

■ The permanent fight against illiteracy through accessible, affordable adult literacy and skills training programmes

■ The promotion of life-long learning should be considered a political priority.

9641 Enlargement: Preparing for Accession, European Commission. Last updated on May 14 2001.

Website: http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e4001.htm.

Social Protection

Social benefits need to improve the situation of the socially excluded and to provide security for those f peoplewho are not in a position to assume full responsibility for their own livelihood. Such social security should beIndependent from a person's participation in the labour market but be determined according to the specificneeds of each individual. In this regard, each person should be entitled to:

■ Access to social benefits■ A guaranteed minimum income

These entitlements should enable large categories of people - such as those ejected or excluded from thelabour market, families with more than three children and disabled people - to avoid both chronic poverty andsocial exclusion. Benefits low-income households should be larger in order to help the most disadvantaged.The necessary modernisation of social protection systems should be based, above all, on the principle ofsolidarity and the equitable sharing of the benefits of society.

■ The right to retirement pension which allows the elderly to live securely and in dignity. Today, in some of the richest countries of the world, the elderly are faced with the invidious choice of heating their homes or eating decently.

Healthcare

It is widely recognised that the promotion of health and well-being is the cornerstone of development. Goodhealth is both an engine for economic growth and a consequence of it. In this respect, it should be made clearthat the link between health and living conditions has to be the basis for the health promotion programmes inorder to promote health, notably for the socially disadvantaged groups. In the interest of social justice:

■ Low-income individuals or persons with above average expenditure due to illness, disability or the need for regular or constant care should be exempt from any medical treatment charge and hence from all other additional payments;

Local authorities have developed projects and initiatives to improve medical care for the homeless, focusing onease of access to medical care. National and regional government regulations should support these initiativesin order to contribute significantly to help the most disadvantaged. Primary care has to be guaranteed withoutregard to the question of finance.

■ Recipients of wage-replacement benefits (e.g. unemployment benefit, sick pay and minimum resources) should be likewise ensured ;

■ Family members with no income or only a very low income of their own should also be automatically insured.

97

98

Housing

There is the need for more housing suitable for poor families, the elderly and other disadvantaged people.Tenants and potential tenants with low income should have secure access to decent housing through housingallowances and social housing schemes. To this end:

■ Recipients of social assistance should receive a financial contribution to ensure suitable housing and heating costs, in addition to the basic social assistance rate;

Granting special housing benefits for those households in need and making a better use of the existing stock ofaccommodation are but two ways that can help in better targeting public action in the housing sector.

■ Housing benefits should be paid to low-income households (i.e. in the form of a top-up payment for the cost of housing);

■ For the needs of the homeless, pilot projects should be developed in order to establish alternative forms of cheap housing.

Lone Parent Families and Families with more than three children

There needs to be better harmony between the demands of family life and the exigencies of earning a living.In this respect, accessible and affordable child-care facilities such as kindergartens and nursery places need tobe made available to low-income, disadvantaged groups. Childcare subsidies and childcare allowances are twoimportant examples of good practice that would improve the participation in the labour market - both forparents with a larger than average number of dependent children and for lone parents. With the financial needsof the family in mind, the following should be strengthened:

■ Financial contributions to those parents in a difficult economic situation in order to ensure the welfare of their children;

■ Educational systems taking fully into account thosefamilies with financial difficulties (e.g. guaranteeinga sufficient number of free childcare facilities);

■ Support for parents with small children (e.g. parental leave, medical care for pregnant women, financial support).

99

The Elderly

The old-age pension should allow a person without any other income a reasonable standard of living.

■ Home-based care for the elderly and the infirm should be strengthened, particularly in those situa-tions where the elderly are not self-reliant and, as a consequence, they are more vulnerable to the risk of social exclusion. Home care should cover a large range of services and be provided independently from the financial situation of the elderly;

In this respect and as is the case for all other social services, it is fundamental to ensure that the necessaryinformation should be readily accessible and the procedure as simplified as possible. Such transparency ofinformation would avoid current problems where those entitled fail to claim all their due benefits, eitherbecause of ignorance concerning entitlement or because of frustration related to the procedure, and, as aresult, fall below the socio-cultural minimum standard of living.

■ There should be a legal entitlement to social assistance whenever a person, because of age and/or personal situation, cannot obtain sufficient income from employment, social insurance, private maintenance entitlement or other sources.

Asylum Seekers

Every asylum seeker unable to meet their cost of living should be given accommodation, social assistance andaccess to full medical care. In particular:

■ Asylum seekers should enjoy the same social assistance benefits as nationals and other residents;

■ With regard to young asylum seekers, schooling should not finish at the end of the compulsory period, but on a completion of an education geared to the potential of the student and leading to a worthwhile career;

Asylum seekers should enjoy the right to free movement and be given documents proving their status. Thisprocess should be a speedy one. Governments should also facilitate contacts between asylum seekers and thelocal population, with a view to increasing public awareness and understanding of asylum seekers’ situation.

■ Psychological support, especially in the initial period after arrival, basic language and vocational training should be provided for asylum seekers;

■ Support should be provided to self-help groups within the refugee community.

100

Legally resident migrants

There is a need to ensure fair treatment of third-country nationals who reside legally on the territory of EUMember States, as the European Council acknowledged in Tampere (15-16 October 1999). Caritas Europasupports the Council's declaration that a more vigorous integration policy should aim at granting legallyresident migrants rights and obligations comparable to those of EU citizens. In addition some specific measuresshould be taken:

■ The right to reside in a country should go hand-in-hand with the right to take up employment;

■ After a period of time (to be determined) the status of all family members who reunited with their "link" in Europe should become independent.The Commission proposal for a Council Directive on the status of long-term resident third country nationals is to be considered as a step in the right direction.

In addition to these specific requirements, legally resident migrants should also benefit from therecommendations made in this report with regard to education and training, job-oriented activities, socialprotection, healthcare, lone parent families and childcare institutions, housing, elderly etc.

■ Specific efforts should be made with regard to vocational training and life-long learning;

■ Training of social sector staff in cross-cultural communication is essential.

Clandestine migrants and victims of trafficking

In addition to fighting organised crime, combating the trafficking in human beings and penalizing traffickers,there is a need to secure the basic rights of persons who - for whatever reason - find themselves in an "irregular"situation in Europe. There should be more effective investigations and more stringent punishment of those whoexploit clandestine migrants on the "black labour market". Furthermore, there is need for:

■ Assistance to clandestine migrants enabling them to claim their human rights, for example if they are in forced labour or held in slavery-like conditions.

■ Creating an environment of a minimum of social security for these "people without rights". This should, for example, allow them to sue a legal case against exploiters who did not pay the agreed salaries;

Preventing future trafficking is the most effective way of combating the endless replay of this enormous humanand personal tragedy. Any irregular status must not permit the disregard of the affected person's dignity.Regarding all clandestine migrants. government should take care of these persons' social and human problemssimply because they are living on our territory. If governments do not do so, they could loose the ability togovern these sectors of their societies.

■ Providing clandestine migrants with support for survival according to the requirements of human dignity (accommodation, food, health-care etc.)

■ Victims of trafficking in human beings need professional psychological and social support. Victims of trafficking should be offered professional counseling enabling them to develop realistic future.

101

Relation between the European Union and the Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries (CEECs).

Stronger financial solidarity among the Members States of the European Union and the EU candidate countriesand the non-candidate countries of Europe should be developed. In particular:

■ There should be a renewed statement of and commitment to the principle of solidarity among citizens, regions and Member States of the European Union and the rest of Europe, in particular o the candidate countries. The European union should strengthen this solidarity with the candidate countries through the Structural Funds;

■ The EU Member States should develop their commercial and cultural exchanges with the candidate countries during the pre-accession phase and as part of the accession strategy. In relation to economic globalisation of the economy, within the framework of world trade negotiations, the European Union in particular should ensure that the situation in central and eastern European countries is taken fully into account;

The European Union is already the largest economic and trading bloc in the world. Unfortunately its politicalinfluence has tended to lag behind this reality. It is hoped that, through such measures as the above, applicablenot only in the European Union but in the candidate countries, non-candidate countries and even further afieldto the even poorer countries of the South, the European Union can also become the flagship of a more humane,just and equitable grouping of countries.

■ The European Union should foster support for regional cooperation among the Western, Central and Eastern European countries in order to strengthen the exchange between peoples;

■ The European Union should call on NGOs in the EU countries and in the CEECs to participate in these exchanges. Such participation should not be limited to those NGOs from the economic or administrative sphere but should encompass the broad range of civil society organisations.

Group 1European Union Plus

Group 2Candidate Countries to Membership

Group 3 Non Candidate Countries

■ ALBANIACaritas AlbaniaRruga Don Bosko, 4TiranaTel.: (+355.42)30 088Fax: (+355.42) 34 [email protected]

■ ANDORRACaritas AndorranaCasa de l’Església Sta. Ma del Fener,C/.Sant Salvador,9Andorra La VellaTel.: (+376.8) 06 111Fax: (+376.8) 66 [email protected]

■ ARMENIACaritas Armenia41, Mhes MkrtchyanGiumryTel.: (+374.41) 37201Fax: (+374.41) [email protected]

■ AUSTRIAOesterreichische CaritaszentraleAlbrechtskrethgasse 19-21,1160 ViennaTel.: (+43.1) 48831410Fax: (+43.1) [email protected]

■ BELARUSCaritas Belarus3/22 Masherova Str.200000 MinskTel.: (+375.17) 227 51 02Fax: (+375.17) 227 51 [email protected]

■ BELGIUMCaritas Catholica BelgicaGuimardstraat 11040 BrusselsTel.: (+32.2) 51 10 468Fax: (+32.2) 51 20 [email protected]

Caritas en Communauté Francophone etGermanophoneRue Belliard 23a1040 BrusselsTel.: (+32.2) 230 39 27Fax: (+32.2) 230 23 [email protected]

Caritas Secours International BelgiqueRue de la Charité 43a1210 BrusselsTel.: (+32.2) 229 36 11Fax: (+32.2) 229 36 [email protected]

Caritas VlaanderenGuimardstraat 11040 BrusselsTel.: (+32.2) 507 01 05Fax: (+32.2) 512 01 [email protected]

■ BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINACaritas Bosnia-HerzegovinaM.1.K. Ljubusaka 671000 SarajevoTel.: (+387.71) 20 64 42Fax: (+387.71) 20 66 [email protected]

■ BULGARIACaritas Bulgaria Oboriste Str. 91504 Sofia Tel.: (+359.2) 944 18 58Fax: (+359.2) 946 11 [email protected]

■ CROATIACaritas CroatiaKaptol 2610000 ZagrebTel.: (+385.1) 48 12 022Fax: (+385.1) 48 12 [email protected]

■ CZECH REPUBLICCeska KatolickaCharitaVladislavova 1211100 Prague 1Tel.: (+420.2) 96 24 33 43-44-45Fax: (+420.2) 96 24 33 [email protected]

■ DENMARKCaritas DenmarkVibevej 7 A, 12400 CopenhagenTel.: (+45.38) 10 30 49Fax: (+45.38) 10 53 [email protected]/medorg/caritas.htm

Caritas Europa Member Organizations

102

■ ENGLAND AND WALESCAFODCatholic Fund for United KingdomOverseas Development2 Romero Close,Stockwell RoadLondon SW9 9TYTel.: (+44.207) 73 37 900Fax: (+44.207) 27 43 [email protected]

CASCCatholic Agency for Social Concern39 Eccleston SquareLondon SW1 V1BXTel.: (44207) 428 43 71Fax: (44207) 630 51 [email protected]

■ ESTONIACaritas EstoniaVene Street 20-410123 TallinnTel.: (+3726) 442 918Fax: (+3726) 313 [email protected]

■ EUROPACaritas EuropaRue de Pascale1040 BruxellesBelgiumTel.: (+32.2) 280 02 80Fax: (+32.2) 230 16 [email protected]

■ FINLANDCaritas FinlandManeesikatu 500170 HelsinkiTel.: (+358 0) 135 79 98Fax: (+358 0) 135 40 [email protected]

■ FRANCESecours Catholique 106 Rue du Bac75341 Paris Cedex 07(+33.1) 45 49 73 00 (+33.1) 45 49 94 50dir-action-france-international@secours-catholique.asso.frwww.perso.club-internet.fr/faguir

■ GEORGIACaritas Georgia65 Zhiuli Shartava str.380060 TbilisiTel.: (+995 32) 94 2073Fax: (+995 32) 94 2073/29 [email protected]

■ GERMANYDeutscher CaritasverbandPostfach 42079104 Freiburg im BreisgauTel.: (+49.761) 200 274 Fax: (+49.761) 200 5 [email protected]

■ GREECECaritas HellasKapodistriou 5210432 AthensTel.: (+30 1) 524 66 37/78 79Fax: (+30 1) 524 79 [email protected]

■ HUNGARYCaritas HungaricaPostafiok 239 1519 BudapestTel.: (+36 1) 372 09 10/365 09 79Fax: (+36 1) 372 09 [email protected]

■ ICELANDCaritas IslandP.O. Box 7043127 ReykjavikTel.: (+354) 55 88 36Fax: (+354) 56 204 [email protected]

■ IRELANDTROCAIRE169 Booterstown AvenueBlackrockCo.DublinTel.: (+353.1) 28 85 385/288 35 77Fax: (+353.1) 28 36 [email protected]

■ ITALYCaritas ItalianaViale Ferdinando Baldelli, 4100146 RomeTel.: (+39.06) 54 19 21Fax: (+39.06) 54 10 [email protected]

103

■ LATVIACaritas LatviaKraslavas 22-181003 RigaTel.: (+3717) 21 02 66Fax: (+3717) 21 02 [email protected]

■ LITHUANIACaritas LithuaniaAukstaiciu 103005 KaunasTel.: (+370.7) 32 35 48Fax: (+370.7) 20 55 [email protected]

■ LUXEMBOURGCaritas LuxembourgB.P. 17211017 LuxembourgTel.: (+35.2) 402 131 200Fax: (+32.2) 402 131 [email protected]

■ MACEDONIACaritas Macedoniaul Petar Poparsov 4791000 SkopjeTel.: (+389.91) 22 06 22Fax:(+389.91) 22 06 [email protected]

■ MALTACaritas Malta5, Lion StreetVLT 16 FlorianaTel.: (+356) 24 19 29/24 53 58Fax: (+356) 24 63 [email protected]

■ MOLDOVACaritas MoldovaStradel La Sf. Andreï 7Chisinau MD 2004Tel.: (+373.2) 29 31 56Fax: (+373.2) 29 31 [email protected]

■ MONACOCaritas Monaco6 rue des Fours98000 MonacoPrincipality of MonacoTel.: (377) 93 30 87 70Fax: (377) 93 25 01 [email protected]

■ NETHERLANDSCORDAIDP.O. Box 164402500 BK The HagueTel.: (+31.70) 31 36 300Fax: (+31.70) 31 36 [email protected]

■ NORWAYCaritas NorgeP.B.5254 Majorstua0303 OsloTel.: (+47 23) 33 43 60Fax: (+47 23) 33 43 [email protected]/caritas

■ POLANDCaritas PolskaSkwer Kardynala Wyszynskiego 601-015 WarsawTel.: (+48 22) 636 41 70Fax: (+48 22) 838 70 [email protected]

■ PORTUGALCaritas PortuguesaEstrada do Forte de Ameixoeira 191700 LisbonTel.: (+35121) 759 60 46Fax: (+35121) 759 62 [email protected]

■ ROMANIAConfederatia Caritas RomaniaStrada Washington 38 Sector 171241Bucarest Tel.: (+40 1) 231 29 00/230 40 13Fax: (+40 1) 231 29 00/230 40 [email protected]; [email protected]

■ RUSSIAFederal Caritas of RussiaP.B.33191014 St PetersburgRussiaTel.: (+7812) 27 27 838Fax: (+7812) 27 27 [email protected]

Caritas of the Asian Part of RussiaP.O. Box 38630033 NovosibirskRussiaTel.: (+73832) 47 65 47/73832 55 11 56Fax: (+73832) 47 65 47/73832 55 11 [email protected]/~caritasp

104

Caritas of the European Part of RussiaP.B. 93127434 MoscowRussiaTel.: (+7095) 95 60 585/7095 97 62 438Fax: (+7095) 95 60 585/7095 97 72 [email protected]

■ SCOTLANDSCIAFScottish Catholic International Aid Fund19 Park CircusGlasgow G3 6BETel.: (+441) 41 35 45 555Fax: (+441) 41 35 45 [email protected]://www.sciaf.org.uk/

■ SLOVAKIASlovenska KatolickaCharitaKapitulska 1881415 Bratislava Tel.: (+4212) 54 43 25 03/28 01/15 06Fax. :(+4212) 54 43 30 [email protected]

■ SLOVENIACaritas SloveniaKristanova 11000 Ljubljana Tel.: (+386 1) 300 59 60Fax: (+3861) 232 31 [email protected]

■ SPAINCaritas EspanolaApartado de Correos no 1009528015 MadridTel.: (+3491) 444 10 00Fax: (+3491) 593 48 [email protected]

■ SWEDENCaritas SverigeÖlandsgatan 4211663 Stockholm Tel.: (+46 8) 643 80 29Fax: (+46 8) 702 05 [email protected]

■ SWITZERLANDCaritas SchweizLöwenstrasse 36002LucerneTel.: (+41 41) 419 22 22Fax: (+41 41) 419 24 [email protected]

■ TURKEYCaritas TurquieHarbiye Cayiri Sok no 6480230 Emadag - IstanbulTel.: (+90 212) 234 45 64/240 88 01Fax: (+90 212) 240 88 01/233 11 [email protected]

■ UKRAINECaritas Ukraine Caritas of the Greek Catholic ChurchVul. Ozarkevycha 479016 [email protected].: (+380.322) 96 68 90/96 68 91/97 88 08Fax: (+380.322) 96 68 90/96 68 91/97 88 08

Caritas SpesCaritas of Roman CatholicChurch in UkraineVul. Kostiantynivska 22/17, kv. 1504071 KyivTel.: (+380.44) 467 60 80/462 59 17/416 43 79Fax: (+380.44) 416 63 [email protected]

■ YUGOSLAVIACaritas YugoslaviaVisegradska 2311000BelgradeTel.: (+38111) 36 10 325Fax: (+38111 ) 68 84 [email protected]

■ All these Caritases are also members of

Caritas InternationalisPalazzo San CalistoV-00120Vatican City Tel.: (+39.06) 698 79 799Fax: (+39.06) 698 87 [email protected]

105

■ Human Development Report 2001,United Nations Development Programme,UNDP, New York, published by OxfordUniversity Press, 2001.

■ 2001 World Development Indicators,The World Bank, Washington DC, 2001.

■ Eurostat Yearbook 2001,Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommunities, Luxembourg.

■ The CIA Factbook, available on line from www.odci.gov/index.htm.

■ The European Community's Development Policy, Statement by the Council and the Commission,2001, available on line from:http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/lex/en/council2001110_en.htm.

■ Republic Of Armenia: Country Report On Population And Development 1999, Republic Of Armenia – National Report, R.O.A.Ministry Of Statistics, Prepared for theInternational Hague Forum on ICPD+5, TheHague, Netherlands, 8-12 February 1999.

■ Social Assessment On The Republic Of Armenia,Report 2000, by Khachikian, M. for the Population Institute,Yerevan, Armenia, 2000.

■ Food Security And Nutritional Status Survey, Prepared by WFP (United Nations World FoodProgramme), UNICEF (United Nations Children’sFund), UNHCR (United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees), Armenia,September 2000.

■ Human Development Report, Armenia 1998, The Role Of The State, UNDP (United Nations Development Program),Armenia, 1998

■ Human Rights And Human Development Report,Action For Progress, Human Development Report, UNDP (UnitedNations Development Program), Armenia, 2000.

■ Poverty and social exclusion in Britain by David Gordon et al., is published by theJoseph Rowntree Foundation (ISBN 1 85935 059 3)

■ Georgia. Portfolio Of Operations, The World Bank Group, January 2001.

■ Georgia. Fy02-04 Country Assistance Strategy. Draft Of Primary Directions, The World Bank Group, January 12, 2001.

■ Poverty In Transition – Transition In Poverty edit. UNESCO, 1999, Chapter Four “Towards PovertyEradication in Georgia” (based on the survey ofthe Institute of Demography and SociologicalResearch of Georgia.

■ Poverty Reduction in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 2000. Riga, 2000. Highlights of the Conference onPoverty Reduction in Baltic State 10-11 February2000. http://www.undp.riga.lv

■ Social Report 1998. Republic of Latvia. Ministry of Welfare.

■ On the Verge of Poverty. Welfare and Economic Transition in Latvia, Franziska Gassmann, Maastriccht, 2000.

■ Social Policy Research Series: by Martee Keune, Frannnziska Gasssmann, Chris de Neubourg, Ilze Trapenciere, RitmaRungule, Maruta Pranka, Ta_a L_ce, NoraDudwick, Aadne Aasland. Ministry of Welfare ofthe Republic of Latvia, United NationsDevelopment Program. Riga, Latvia 2000.

■ Le sentiment de solitude: quelle population est la plus concernée ? Population et Emploi, Frédéric Berger, Differdange, 1999.

■ Indicators of Poverty in Transitional Russia, Lilia Ovcharova et al. Economic ResearchConsortium, Working Paper No. 98/04, p. 4.

■ Poverty in Russia During the Transition: An Overview, Klugman, Jeni and Jeanine Braithwaite. WorldBank Research Observer, Vol. 13, No. 1(February 1998), pp. 37-58.

Bibliography

106

■ Russia: Reports Says Women Bear Brunt of Poverty. Sophie Lambroschini. (Year and publication not listed).

■ Persistent Poverty in Russia, Dmitri Spryskov. Working paper #BSP/2000/037E for the New Economic School,p.4

■ 2002 - Global economic needs a growth locomotive, United Nations Economic Commission forEurope (UNECE), 15 November 2001

■ 2002 - Transition economies: considerable risks due to the global downturn, United Nations Economic Commission forEurope (UNCE), 15 November 2001

■ Enlargement: Preparing for Accession, Commission of the European Communities,updated May 2001, available on line:http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/e4001.htm.

■ Enlargement and Civil Society, Proceedings of the European Commissionsponsored Caritas Conference, Brussels,October 1999. Caritas Europa, 4 rue dePascale, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

■ Leben am Rand des Sozialsystems. Die Klientinnen und Klienten der Sozialberatungsstellen der Caritas Österreich, Caritas Austria, Caritas Österreich, Wallner-Ewald S., Verarmungsrisiken im WohlfahrtsstaatII. Julius Raab Stiftung, Wien 1999

■ El Context Social de la transicio a la Vida Adulta dels joves a Andorra, Estudi sobre la Joventut al Principat d’Andorra,2000; Nadal-Butlleti informatiu de CaritasAndorrana desembre 2000

■ Políticas sociales contra la exclusión social. Cáritas Española Actas del Simposio realizadoen Madrid Junio 1997. Published in ‘DOSSIER’nº 43

■ Las condiciones de vida de la población pobre desde la perspectiva territorial. Pobreza y Territorio. Caritas-Fundación Foessa, EDIS, Alguacil, J,Camacho, J., Fernández, F., Renes,V., Trabada, E.Madrid, 2000.

■ Las condiciones de vida de la población pobre en España. Caritas-Fundación Foessa, EDIS, Ayala, L.,Esteve, F., García Lizana, A., Muñoz de Bustillo,R., Renes, V. y Rodríguez Cabrero, G. (1998)Madrid 1999

■ Les Oubliés de la Croissance,Caritas France, Secours Catholique, Paris 1999

■ La France des sans ressources,Caritas France, Secours Catholique. Paris 2001

■ Caritas Germany, Deusche Caritas Verband, Ein Drittel Habe nichtse, in: ‚Sozialcourage’, Freiburg-i Br. 1999; Hauser ,R. und Hübinger, W.:Arme unter uns, Freiburg i.Br., 1993; Hübinger,W. und Neumann, U.: Menschen im Schatten.Lebenslagen in den neuen Bundesländern, hrsg.vom Diakonischen Werk der EKD e.V. und demDeutschen Caritasverband e.V., Freiburg i. Br.,1997

■ Caritas Italiana, Rapporto 1996 su emarginazione ed esclusione sociale -„I bisogni dimenticati“, Rapporto 1997 suibisogni dimenticati-„Gli Ultimi della Fila“,Rapporto 1998 su emarginazione e disagio nei contesti familiare Fondazione -„La rete spezzata“,-Fondazione E. Zancan,Feltrinelli, Roma

■ Poverty in Malta-Report 1994, 1996, 1998. Caritas Malta

■ Report of activities 2000 Caritas Moldova.

■ Working poor: ils sont pauvres et pourtant ils travaillent, Prise de Position de Caritas Suisse, EditionsCaritas, Lucerne 1998.

107

· ackowledgements the organisation of the first caritas europa report on poverty in europe would...

Documents