Investing in children: The impact of EU tax and benefit systems on child poverty and inequality

Bornukova, Kateryna; Hernández, Adrian; Picos, Fidel Working Paper Investing in children: The impact of EU tax and benefit systems on child poverty and inequality JRC Working Papers on Taxation and Structural Reforms, No. 2/2024 Provided in Cooperation with: Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Commission Suggested Citation: Bornukova, Kateryna; Hernández, Adrian; Picos, Fidel (2024) : Investing in children: The impact of EU tax and benefit systems on child poverty and inequality, JRC Working Papers on Taxation and Structural Reforms, No. 2/2024, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Seville This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/306588 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Bornukova, K., Hernández, A., Picos, F. 2024 JRC Working Papers on Taxation and Structural Reforms No 2/2024 Investing in Children: The Impact of EU Tax and Benefit Systems on Child Poverty and Inequality JRC137125 Seville: European Commission, 2024 © European Union, 2024 The reuse policy of the European Commission documents is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. How to cite this report: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Bornukova, K., Hernandez Martin, A. and Picos, F., Investing in Children: The Impact of EU Tax and Benefit Systems on Child Poverty and Inequality, European Commission, Seville, 2024, https:// publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC137125, JRC137125. This document is a publication by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Contact information Name: Kateryna Bornukova Address: Edificio EXPO, c/ Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain Email: [email protected] EU Science Hub https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu i Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ i Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Policy instruments to support children: a review of their distributional effects in the EU ................................................. 6 3 Data and methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Measuring child-contingent cash support in EUROMOD ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Computing the poverty and inequality alleviation effects of child-contingent cash support ............................ 9 3.3 The challenge of measuring child in-kind support ................................................................................................................................... 10 4 Results .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 4.1 The amount and distribution of child-contingent cash support .................................................................................................. 11 4.1.1 Child-contingent cash support across the income distribution .................................................................................. 12 4.1.3 Changes in child-contingent cash support over the period 2019-2022 ........................................................... 14 4.2 The poverty and inequality alleviation effects of child-contingent cash support ...................................................... 15 4.3 Child-contingent cash support means-testing and targeting ........................................................................................................ 18 4.4 A glimpse into other types of child support: non-child-contingent benefits and in-kind support ............... 22 5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 List of abbreviations and definitions ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 List of figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Annexes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Annex 1. Additional results ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 1 Abstract The EU committed to meet the poverty reduction target set in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, which entails to reduce the number of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 5 million by 2030. The paper assesses the impact of child-contingent cash support in EU-27 in 20192022 on child poverty and inequality and sheds light on the role this kind of support plays, or could further play, when it comes to meeting the 2030 child poverty target. We use the microsimulation model EUROMOD to identify child-contingent cash support and find significant variation in average support per child across EU-27, ranging from 3.2% of GDP per capita in Ireland to 12% of GDP per capita in Austria. Correspondingly, the impact of child-contingent cash support on reducing child atrisk-of-poverty rates varies from 4 p.p. in Portugal to 16 p.p. in Slovakia. The inequality-reducing effect is highly correlated with poverty reduction. With rare exceptions, countries rely on child benefits as a primary source of child-contingent cash support, as opposed to tax-based support. Non-poor households receive over 50% of total child-contingent cash support in most EU countries. Meanstested benefits, while better targeted to impoverished households, do not always provide enough support to lift them above the poverty line. We do not observe correlation between child-contingent cash support, other benefits, and in-kind child support. 2 Acknowledgements The results presented here are based on EUROMOD version I5.99+. Originally maintained, developed and managed by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), since 2021 EUROMOD is maintained, developed and managed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission, in collaboration with Eurostat and national teams from the EU countries. We are indebted to the many people who have contributed to the development of EUROMOD. The results and their interpretation are the authors’ responsibility. The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments provided by Mathis Porchez, Stefan Iszkowski, Olivier Bontout, Jiri Svarc and other colleagues from DG EMPL, as well as participants of the FREE Network Conference in Visby. Authors Kateryna Bornukova Adrián Hernández Martín Fidel Picos 3 Executive summary Investing in child welfare is a cornerstone of the European Union's social policy, integral to mitigating child poverty and promoting equity among families. The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan seeks to reduce the number of children living at risk of poverty and social exclusion by 5 million by 2030. In this context, the working paper provides an in-depth analysis of child-contingent cash support in EU-27 from 2019 to 2022 and its impact on child poverty and inequality. This analysis is crucial given the high child at-risk-of-poverty rates in the EU, with 19.3% of individuals under 18 being at risk of poverty in 2022, alongside significant variation in child at-risk-of-poverty rates across Member States. The EU has long recognized the importance of addressing child poverty, through initiatives such as the European Commission's Recommendation "Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage" and the recent adoption of the European Child Guarantee, which aims to provide effective and free services for children. The paper's key conclusions reveal stark disparities in the extent, composition, and distribution of child-contingent cash support across EU Member States. The average support per child ranges from 3.2% to 12% of GDP per capita, with countries employing different policy mixes to reduce child poverty and inequality. Consequently, child-contingent cash support has varying impacts on reducing child at-risk-of-poverty rates, with reductions ranging from 4 to 16 percentage points. The effectiveness in reducing poverty and inequality is generally correlated, as countries achieving higher poverty reductions also experience greater inequality reduction through this support. The main findings underscore the correlation between poverty reduction and inequality reduction, with successful countries typically relying on a mix of universal schemes, contributory parental leave, and means-tested policies to achieve significant results in decreasing child at-risk-of-poverty rates. Notably, non-impoverished households receive over 50% of total child-contingent cash support in most EU countries. Yet, non-means-tested benefits play a crucial role in poverty alleviation for children. Means-tested benefits, while well-targeted, often fail to lift families out of poverty due to low adequacy. While on average EU countries that have higher pre-fiscal child at-risk-of-poverty rates also spend more on child-contingent cash support, there is a group of countries that spend little despite high prefiscal poverty and inequality. Moreover, the analysis reveals no observed correlation between childcontingent cash support and other types of spending, including in-kind child support, emphasizing the need for a multi-faceted approach to addressing child poverty and inequality in the EU. The paper stresses the need for a comprehensive approach to child-contingent cash support to effectively address child poverty and inequality in the EU-27. It provides valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan and offers implications for future research and analyses. Future work could focus on investigating the broader effects of child-contingent cash support, analysing the labour supply effects of different child-contingent cash instruments, and simulating policy reforms to achieve higher EU convergence in reducing child poverty. The evidence produced shall become instrumental in guiding EU policymaking and further enhancing the understanding of child poverty and inequality in the EU. 4 1 Introduction Children consistently face higher poverty than the rest of the population. In the European Union (EU), 19.3% of individuals under the age of 18 were at risk of poverty in 2022, compared to a populationwide average of 16.5%. Nevertheless, these numbers reveal a substantial extent of heterogeneity across EU Member States, with child at-risk-of-poverty (AROP 1 ) rates exceeding 27% in Bulgaria, Romania and Spain, whereas remaining below 11% in Denmark, Finland and Slovenia. 2 The EU has undertaken major efforts to combat child poverty, fostering upward converge in this matter in the EU, and the importance of child well-being has consistently featured in EU policy discourse. Article 3 of the Treaty of the EU already laid down the protection of the rights of children as a guiding principle of the EU, and Article 17 of the Revised European Social Charter recognised the need of undertaking appropriate measures to ensure that children have the necessary care, assistance, education and training. In alignment with these principles, the European Commission adopted in 2013 a Recommendation entitled “Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage” 3 , which provided EU Member States with guidelines to act against child poverty and social exclusion, focusing on ensuring access to adequate resources and affordable quality services, as well as supporting children’s participation in society. The EU committed to meet the poverty reduction target set in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, which entails to reduce by 15 million the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion, including at least 5 million of children, by 2030. Additionally, a Council Recommendation aiming at establishing a European Child Guarantee was adopted in 2021 with emphasis on the provision of effective and free services for children, such as early childhood education and care. 4 The allocation of public resources to children, complementing the role of families in this matter, is generally deemed as a sound public investment for its large socioeconomic significance. Specifically, by compensating the costs associated with raising children, this investment contributes to equivalising the incomes of families with and without children (Verbist and Van Lancker, 2016). Moreover, it proves high effectivity in combating (child) poverty (Bárcena-Martín et al., 2018; Leventi et al., 2019), thereby narrowing the gap between poorer and richer families, with family transfers characterized as one of the most progressive social transfers in several OECD countries (Joumard et al., 2013). Importantly, the effects extend beyond monetary outcomes, influencing key determinants of a child´s development, including improved educational (Danziger and Waldfogel, 2000) and health outcomes (Belli et al., 2005). The long-term returns of such investments are noteworthy: inclusive policies for children pave the way for their active participation in labour markets, fostering productivity and higher salaries. Growing up in poverty instead bears sizeable costs, such as larger welfare dependence if children become future precarious workers (Esping-Andersen, 2005), as well as crime and healthrelated costs (Holzer et al., 2008; Blanden et al., 2010). In addressing children needs, the allocation of public resources in this area might also help diminishing the intergenerational transmission of poverty (Jenkins and Siedler, 2007). The OECD has recently estimated the costs from socio-economic disadvantages in childhood to reach 3.4% of GDP annually (Clarke et al., 2022). EU Member States support children in practice through a compiling variety of policy instruments, displaying large diversity in the design of family policies (Thévenon, 2011). These instruments broadly range from the provision of monetary transfers to in-kind assistance, and its precise combination varies according to diverse social preferences, distributional concerns, expected labour supply effects, fertility aspects, and others (Förster and Verbist, 2012). On the one hand, the provision of monetary 1 We follow the Eurostat definition of at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) rate as the share of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfers) below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income. 2 Based on Eurostat data as derived from the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). If the indicator considers also social exclusion, the so-called at-risk-of-poverty rates or social exclusion go up to 24.7% in the case of children, and 21.6% for the whole population. Indicators [ilc_li02] and [ilc_peps01n], available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (last accessed: 19 January 2024). 3 2013/112/EU: Commission Recommendation of 20 February 2013 Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage. 4 Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1004 of 14 June 2021 establishing a European Child Guarantee. 5 assistance typically involves transferring cash to families through social transfers and tax-based support, according to each Member State’s tax and benefit legislation. According to Eurostat data, social transfers help reducing child AROP rates by 42% in the EU, depicting yet limited effects in Spain, Greece or Romania (of approximately less than 25%), whereas triggering much higher impacts in Finland, Ireland or Germany (of over 57%). 5 Notably, these numbers do not account for the extent of tax-based support, which holds relevance in several EU countries, calling for a comprehensive metric that encompasses both benefit and tax-based support (Figari et al., 2011). On the other hand, the provision of in-kind assistance typically involves the delivery of services, such as childhood education and childcare, healthcare for children, and others. These services can also help reducing child poverty, particularly through the facilitation of parents´ employment (Morrisey, 2017). Moreover, in-kind benefits might pose significant distributional consequences depending on the location of children in the income distribution (Paulus et al., 2010). Yet the measurement of in-kind mechanisms, particularly their transformation into monetary terms as to evaluate distributional effects remains a challenge (for a compendium of methodological issues, see Verbist and Matsaganis, 2014). In this paper, we examine the extent and distribution of public resources available for children across all EU Member States over the period 2019-2022, mainly assessing the impact of monetary instruments on child poverty alleviation and inequality reduction. Our work builds upon the foundational studies of Corak et al. (2005) and Figari et al. (2011), which laid the groundwork for a comprehensive measurement of child-contingent cash support via microsimulation modelling, encompassing both benefit and tax-based monetary support. We aim at complementing their research by updating the reference period and extending its scope to include all EU-27 Member States, while emphasizing some granular aspects on the provision of child-contingent cash support, including their age-specific profile (along the lines of Fidanovski, 2023), as well as their means-tested and universal characteristics (in the spirit of Van Lancker and Van Mechelen, 2015). Additionally, we briefly explore the magnitude of in-kind support for children in the EU, through a calculation of child-related health and education expenses, albeit as a supplementary analysis to the main assessment of childcontingent support. In that respect, we explore whether any link between monetary and in-kind assistance manifests in our analysis. The underlying rationale for undertaking this work is to underpin and support EU and national policymaking, specifically, although not exclusively, within the context of the recently approved European Child Guarantee and the complementary target of reducing child poverty and social exclusion in the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. Our results confirm a large heterogeneity in the amount, composition, and distribution of childcontingent cash support in the EU, with support per child ranging from 3.2% of GDP per capita in Ireland to 12% of GDP per capita in Austria. Countries rely on different policy mixes, although a benefit-based approach typically predominates via the provision of transfers at childbirth or for childrearing. The effectiveness in reducing child poverty and inequality varies, generally correlating with each other. Overall, countries with higher child AROP rates before child-contingent cash support achieve higher reductions through the support, with some exceptions. Countries successful in reducing child poverty typically employ a mix of universal schemes, contributory parental leave, and meanstested policies. Non-impoverished households receive a significant share of child-contingent cash support. Our analysis suggests that there is no direct link between child-contingent cash support and other spending types, including in-kind child assistance, and underscores the need for a multi-faceted approach to address child poverty and inequality reduction in the EU. The document is organised as follows. After this introduction, Section 2 categorises further the public mechanisms available to support children, and revises relevant research exploring their distributional effects in the EU. Section 3 describes the data and methodology used, with special emphasis on the calculation of child-contingent cash support, while Section 4 presents the results. Section 5 concludes. 5 Based on Eurostat data as derived from the EU-SILC. Indicators [ilc_li10] and [ilc_li02], available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (last accessed: 19 January 2024). 12 Figure 1 displays high heterogeneity in the extent of child-contingent cash support across EU countries, with significant variation in averages from 3.2% to 12% of GDP per capita. For instance, the average support per child is around 4% of GDP per capita in Spain (ES), Greece (EL) and Ireland (IE), and reaches over 10% of GDP per capita in Austria (AT), Poland (PL) and Latvia (LV). The higher share of child-contingent cash support comes from child benefits, but there are a few exceptions. For example, Hungary (HU) provides support mainly through tax reliefs, while Spain (ES) offers significant shares of assistance through other benefits. Typically, other benefits refer to minimum income schemes that either adjust the support depending on the number of household members (so adding a child to the household increases the eligible amount), or have special clauses for children, as is a case in Spain. 4.1.1 Child-contingent cash support across the income distribution Figure 2 presents the distribution of child-contingent cash support per child by deciles of equivalised disposable income, including child-contingent cash support, with the 1st decile corresponding to the 10% of individuals with lowest incomes, and the 10th decile to the 10% with the highest incomes. Again, as with the extent of child-contingent cash support, we observe significant heterogeneity in the distribution of this support across EU-27. Some countries provide higher support to lower income deciles, while others, on the opposite, provide higher amounts to higher income deciles. Notice that Figure 2 depicts amounts of cash support relative to GDP per capita, not relative to the household income. Hence this figure only informs us on absolute progressivity or regressivity of child cash support, but not on relative, as relative concepts are defined relative to income. As we will see in Subsection 4.2, overall child-contingent cash support is inequality-reducing, hence progressive in relative terms. Figure 2. Child-contingent cash support, average per child, by income deciles, share of GDP per capita, EU-27, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD Note: the vertical axes are in shares of GDP per capita, hence 0.1 refers to 10% of GDP per capita. 13 Child-contingent cash support is higher for lower deciles in Greece (EL), Italy (IT), Ireland (IE), Malta (MT) and, to a lesser extent, Portugal (PT), Czechia (CZ) and Slovenia (SI). All these countries except for Czechia and Slovenia have low levels of average child-contingent support compared to other EU countries. In other countries, child-contingent support is higher for top income deciles. This is the case for Estonia (EE), Hungary (HU), Latvia (LV) and Romania (RO). The three components of the child-contingent cash support have different distributional properties. Child benefits tend to be equally distributed across income deciles, highlighting their quasi-universal character. However, in some countries like Malta (MT) or Portugal (PT) child benefits are skewed to the left, reflecting the presence of means-testing. In other countries, child benefits are dominated by contributory parental leave support which is in turn income dependent. As a result, child benefits are higher for higher deciles in countries like Latvia (LV), Bulgaria (BG), Lithuania (LT) and Romania (RO). The other benefits concentrate in lower income deciles as they are often means-tested. Tax reliefs are higher for top deciles in some cases like Hungary (HU), Croatia (HR), Portugal (PT) and Spain (ES). For the sufficiently high tax reliefs, like the child tax credit in Hungary, the lower deciles cannot enjoy it fully as their tax liabilities before applying credit are lower than the maximum possible credit. As income and tax liabilities go up at higher deciles, higher tax credit becomes accessible, and leading to higher tax reliefs. 4.1.2 Child-contingent cash support across child age groups The analysis of average child-contingent cash support by age groups also highlights salient differences. Figure 3 displays average child-contingent cash support for four child age groups: 0-2, 3-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years old. The countries are sorted by the size of the difference between the average support to 0-2 and 12-17 age groups. In most EU countries, the group of 0-2 years old is the major target of child-contingent support. As children grow older, cash support generally decreases, resulting in households with adolescents receiving less financial assistance. Figure 3. Child-contingent cash support, per child, relative to GDP per capita, by child age groups, EU27, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD Birth grants, parental leave benefits and age-specific benefits explain this discrepancy. The difference between 0-2 and the rest of the age groups greatly varies across countries. In many of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, this difference is threeor four-fold. At the same time, there is a group of countries with insignificant differences between age groups. These are mostly countries with low child-contingent cash support, like Cyprus (CY), Malta (MT), Ireland (IE) or Italy (IT). Germany (DE) which mainly relies on a universal child benefit also does not display large age differences. Hungary 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% EE LV SK RO LT BG CZ SI DK FI AT PT ES SE FR PL LU BE HR NL EL DE CY HU MT IE IT 0-2 3-5 6-11 12-17 14 (HU) is another exception in this group with relatively high child-contingent cash support primarily driven by child tax credits, which are not age-differentiated. 4.1.3 Changes in child-contingent cash support over the period 2019-2022 Figure 4 summarizes the recent changes in child-contingent cash support in EU-27, with countries ranked by the average change. Notably, our analysis accounts for changes both in policies and the socioeconomic conditions of the population over the period 2019-2022. Again, we observe high heterogeneity both in the average changes as well as in the distributional impact as reflected in changes for the bottom and top deciles. For instance, the average increases in Hungary (HU) and Poland (PL) benefit the top decile more than the bottom decile. Despite similar dynamic, different underlying reforms drive these changes. In Poland, the child benefit, which used to be means-tested, became universal, with positive effect on upper deciles while leaving the bottom of the income distribution unchanged. Hungary introduced a significant increase to the child tax credit. The maximum amount of this tax credit is sufficiently high, and yet not cashable. As a result, the lower decile households only enjoy it up to the level of their low tax liability. Hence, this tax credit works to the benefit of upper deciles, while bottom deciles have low taxable incomes and only enjoy the potential of the child tax credit partially. Figure 4. Change in child-contingent cash support, per child, relative to GDP per capita, EU-27, 20192022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD In contrast, countries like Bulgaria (BG) and Italy (IT) have increased the average child-contingent cash support by offering more to the bottom deciles. Italy has introduced a universal child allowance and is gradually phasing out child tax reliefs. Bulgaria has been increasing the child tax credit, benefitting upper parts of the income distribution, but it has also introduced new lump-sum child benefits. Croatia (HR) increased the support to bottom deciles despite significant average declines. It has changed the means of subsistence norms to benefit families with children, which resulted in higher non-child-contingent support to low-income households. Several countries experienced modest declines in children support without large distributional changes. This observation applies to Finland (FI), France (FR), Ireland (IE), Malta (MT), Romania (RO), Sweden (SE) and Slovakia (SI). In these countries, no significant changes happened over 2019-2022 in policies simulated by EUROMOD, and the inflation combined with the lack of proper indexation of relevant nominal values might be causing the declines. -0,10 -0,08 -0,06 -0,04 -0,02 0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 BG DK SK PL IT HU CZ LT AT ES LV PT DE EL BE FI NL CY FR SE SI IE RO MT LU EE HR Average 1st decile 10th decile 15 4.2 The poverty and inequality alleviation effects of child-contingent cash support Child-contingent cash support has direct effect on AROP rates among children. This effect can be expressed as the difference in the child AROP rate at incomes with and without corresponding cash support. Figure 5 presents the child AROP rate alleviation effects of child-contingent cash support. The upper part of the figure depicts child AROP rates before and after child-contingent cash support. The lower part shows the decomposition of the poverty alleviation decline by component. The countries are arranged by the extent of child AROP rate alleviation due to of child-contingent cash support. Child-contingent cash support has varying impacts on reducing child AROP rates across EU countries. Some countries like Slovakia (SK), Hungary (HU) and Czechia (CZ) achieve significant reductions in the percentage of children at risk of poverty. Others like Denmark (DK), Netherlands (NL), Spain (ES) and Portugal (PT) only manage to bring about smaller improvements. The child AROP rate reductions range from 16 p.p. for Slovakia to 4 p.p. in Portugal (more details can be found in Table 2 of Annex 1). Figure 5. Child AROP rate reduction due to child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD On average countries with higher initial child AROP rates achieve higher poverty reductions due to child-contingent cash support. For countries like Denmark (DK) or Netherlands (NL), the initially low child AROP rates explain the low reductions. However, there are exceptions like Spain (ES), Bulgaria (BG) or Romania (RO), which do not manage to bring substantial reductions to the initially high child AROP rates. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 SK HU CZ DE AT LT FR LV PL LU EE FI CY BG SI IE MT IT BE EL RO SE HR DK NL ES PT AROP rate before child-contingent cash support AROP rate after child-contingent cash support -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 SK HU CZ DE AT LT FR LV PL LU EE FI CY BG SI IE MT IT BE EL RO SE HR DK NL ES PT Change due to child benefits Change due to other benefits Change due to tax reliefs 16 Overall, child benefits play a crucial role in achieving substantial reductions in child AROP rate incidence vis-à-vis other benefits or child-related tax reliefs. However, countries such as Hungary (HU) and to a lesser extent, Slovakia (SK) and Austria (AT), also stand out for their use of tax reliefs, which in turn contribute to reducing child AROP rates. The effects of other benefits are noticeable in France (FR), Luxemburg (LU), Finland (FI), Malta (MT), Greece (EL) and Spain (ES). Figure 6. Child AROP gap reduction due to child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD Figure 6 presents a similar analysis for the child AROP gap reduction. While AROP rate remains unchanged if the size of the child-contingent payment is not adequate to increase the income of a family with children above the poverty line, AROP gap would narrow in response, reflecting the improvements in the disposable income of the family. In Figure 6, countries are sorted by the AROP gap reduction. While the initial rates (before child-contingent cash support) of child AROP rate and child AROP gap are highly correlated, this correlation is weaker for the resulting rates after child support. This implies changes in the ordering of countries in Figure 6 as compared to Figure 5. Countries like Romania (RO), Ireland (IE) and Lithuania (LT) manage to reduce the child AROP gap more effectively than the poverty rate. On the other hand, Spain (ES) achieves relatively low reductions both in child AROP rate and child AROP gap. Another distinct feature of the child AROP gap is the lower role of the tax component in reducing it. Even in Hungary (HU) where the tax reliefs constitute over two thirds of the average child-contingent cash support, their role in reducing the child poverty gap is modest. The role of other benefits, to the contrary, is more salient in poverty gap reduction, although it remains secondary in comparison to the impact of child benefits. 0 5 10 15 20 LT RO IE HU AT BG SK LV LU DE PL EE IT CZ FR SI FI MT PT SE CY HR EL BE ES NL DK AROP gap index before child-contingent cash support AROP gap index after child-contingent cash support -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 LT RO IE HU AT BG SK LV LU DE PL EE IT CZ FR SI FI MT PT SE CY HR EL BE ES NL DK Change due to child benefits Change due to other benefits Change due to tax reliefs 17 Figure 7. Redistribution impact of child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD Figure 7 presents the redistribution impact of child-contingent cash support. The upper part of the Figure shows the Gini coefficient 12 before and after child-contingent cash support. The lower part of the figure decomposes the redistributive impact of child-contingent cash support, measured as the reduction in Gini index points, into changes due to the three components of child-contingent cash support and the effect of re-ranking (effect due to changes in the relative positions of individuals in the income distribution). Again, we observe major differences in inequality reduction, with Slovakia (SK), Ireland (IE), Austria (AT), Czechia (CZ) and Hungary (HU) being among the leaders with over 0.02 Gini points reduction, while Portugal (PT), Croatia (HR), Denmark (DK), Spain (ES), and Netherlands (NL) achieve reductions of less than 0.01 Gini points. The size of the redistributive effect is not directly connected to the initial inequality level. We have both the initially low inequality countries like Slovakia (SK), Austria (AT) and 12 The Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of inequality within a population, ranging from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality). 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 SK IE AT CZ HU LT BG PL RO LU SI LV IT FR EE CY SE DE FI MT EL BE PT HR DK ES NL Gini coefficient Gini before child-contingent cash support Gini after child-contingent cash support -0,02 -0,01 -0,01 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,02 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,04 0,04 SK IE AT CZ HU LT BG PL RO LU SI LV IT FR EE CY SE DE FI MT EL BE PT HR DK ES NL Redistributive effect (reduction in Gini points) child benefits other benefits tax reliefs re-ranking total 18 Czechia (CZ) leading in terms of the redistributive effect, and on the other extreme, countries with initially high inequality levels like Greece (EL), Portugal (PT) and Spain (ES), which at the same time achieve low redistribution. As in the case with child AROP rate reduction, child benefits have the most prominent role in inequality reduction. Even though tax reliefs are often assigning higher cash support to higher income deciles, for most countries these instruments play an equalizing role. The exceptions are Slovenia (SI), France (FR), Sweden (SE), Finland (FI) and Denmark (DK). The inequality-increasing effect of tax reliefs in these countries remains nevertheless small. The child AROP rate alleviation and the inequality reduction effects of the child-contingent cash support are strongly correlated. Typically, countries that achieve high reductions in child AROP rates, also achieve high redistribution. There are several exceptions. Ireland (IE) is more successful in redistribution and in the reduction of the poverty gap, while being average in child AROP rate alleviation. Germany (DE) is among the leaders in child AROP rate alleviation, but the redistribution effect is characterized as average in this country. The reliance of Germany on universal child benefits as a major tool of delivering child cash support might explain this pattern. 4.3 Child-contingent cash support means-testing and targeting The distributional properties and welfare effects of child-contingent cash support depend on its intended design. Even when not means-tested, child-contingent cash support may be progressive as it is addressed to families with children where the per-capita incomes are typically lower than average. Yet, many of the child benefits are also explicitly means-tested. To analyse to what extent child-contingent cash support is means-tested, we disaggregate the benefits into means-tested and non-means-tested. A benefit is classified as means-tested if eligibility criteria include income or wealth conditions. Means-tested benefits can be child benefits or a childcontingent part of other benefits. If a benefit is means-tested, it is not necessarily targeted to the children at risk of poverty, as income tests could be different from the poverty line. Child-related tax reliefs are not classified as means-tested in EUROMOD. Typically, child tax credits have a fixed upper limit. When this upper limit is sufficiently high, it might result into higher credits to upper deciles, as the credits to lower deciles are limited by their low tax liabilities. If child tax credits are cashable (a cash pay-out is possible if the tax liability is lower than the amount of tax credit), the cash-out amount might be classified as a benefit in EUROMOD and can be identified as means-tested. We can see in Figure 8 that means-tested benefits are on average a small share of total childcontingent cash support. Countries are sorted by the generosity of child-contingent cash support, as in Figure 1. Means-tested benefits constitute over half of average cash support only in four countries: Belgium (BE), Italy (IT), Cyprus (CY) and Greece (EL). 19 Figure 8. Means-testing of child-contingent cash support, average per child, in % of GDP per capita, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD Figure 9 depicts the disaggregated impact of child-contingent cash support on child AROP rate (upper part of Figure) and on child poverty gap (lower part). The countries are sorted by child AROP rate alleviation and poverty gap alleviation, correspondingly. Non-means-tested benefits, while not explicitly aimed at families at risk of poverty, play the highest role in poverty alleviation. Only in 6 out of the 27 countries, means-tested benefits are responsible for over half of the child AROP rate reducing effect. This result is expected, given the natural targeting of the child-contingent cash support to more vulnerable families, and the relative generosity of nonmeans-tested benefits compared to other types of payments in most EU countries. The effect of means-tested benefits is more salient in case of the poverty gap; however, it remains lower than that of the non-means-tested benefits. A higher share of means-tested benefits does not translate into higher child AROP rate alleviation. Many of the countries that use means-tested benefits extensively are in the middle of the sorting by child AROP rate reduction, with France (FR) being the only country with above-average AROP reduction. The opposite is also true as the AROP reduction leaders also do not rely on means-tested policies. There might be two alternative explanations for the fact that more means-testing does not lead to more poverty alleviation. The first possibility is that the use of means-tested benefits is more common in countries with low overall child-contingent cash support, which, despite being well targeted, is not enough to reach all children at risk of poverty. The second might have to do with the adequacy of the support, with means-tested benefits reaching the majority of children at risk of poverty, but not providing them with enough support to lift them out of poverty. The second explanation relates to the lack of adequacy of minimum income schemes in Europe, as highlighted by Almeida et al. (2022). -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% AT PL LV HU EE SK BG DE FR LT CZ BE SI DK RO MT IT FI SE HR PT NL LU CY ES EL IE means-tested benefits non means-tested benefits tax reliefs 20 Figure 9. Impact of means-tested benefits on child AROP rate and AROP gap, EU-27, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD For further analysis, child-contingent cash support can be classified as targeted if its recipient is a child that before the receipt was at risk of poverty. If the support is targeted, it can be either adequate, meaning it is enough to lift the child above the poverty line, thus eliminating the risk of poverty, or non-adequate in the opposite case. Hence, we can identify three types of child-continent cash support depending on the recipient and on the amount of support: ⎯ Non-targeted: child-contingent cash support to families which were not at risk of poverty before receiving child-contingent cash support; ⎯ Targeted to the poor, but non-adequate: child-contingent cash support to families that were at risk of poverty before receiving cash support and that remained at risk of poverty after receiving cash support; ⎯ Targeted to the poor and adequate: child-contingent cash support to families that were at risk of poverty before receiving cash support and that were elevated above the poverty line after receiving cash support. The results of this disaggregation are presented in Figure 10. Each category is expressed as share of the aggregate child-contingent cash support, with all the components adding up to 100%. The upper part presents all child-contingent cash support, while the lower part focuses on means-tested benefits only. The countries are sorted, in descending order, by the total share of targeted child-contingent cash support, adequate plus non-adequate. Negative values for means-tested benefits arise from benefit entitlement losses after factoring in child benefits. If a child benefit is factored into the income -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 SK HU CZ DE AT LT FR LV PL LU EE FI CY BG SI IE MT IT BE EL RO SE HR DK NL ES PT AROP rate reduction Change due to means-tested benefits Change due to non-means-tested benefits Change due to tax reliefs -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 LT RO IE HU AT BG SK LV LU DE PL EE IT CZ FR SI FI MT PT SE CY HR EL BE ES NL DK AROP gap reduction Change due to means-tested benefits Change due to non-means-tested benefits Change due to tax reliefs 21 considered for a means-tested benefit, the household without children might be eligible for the benefit, but if the household with children (and with the corresponding child benefit) is no longer eligible, we will see a negative value. Figure 10. Targeting and adequacy of child-contingent cash support, shares, 2022 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD In most EU countries, child-contingent cash support is not exclusively targeted to impoverished households. In fact, non-poor households receive more than 50% of the total child-contingent cash support for all EU countries. At the same time, in all EU-27 countries the share of child-contingent cash support that goes to children at risk of poverty is higher than the share of children at risk of poverty, so this at-risk group receives proportionally higher cash support. A relatively high share of targeted payments in Ireland (IE) explains why this country is among the leaders in reducing inequality and the poverty gap despite having low average child-contingent cash support. Furthermore, even among the support targeted at impoverished families, many of them are unable to surpass the poverty line after factoring in the child-contingent cash support. This situation of nonadequacy of child-contingent cash support is perhaps more marked in cases such as Italy (IT), Spain (ES), Romania (RO) and Portugal (PT). However, even when the support to those at risk of poverty is not enough to surpass the poverty line, it contributes to closing the poverty gap. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% IE BG MT CY IT SE LT SK EL HR RO FI AT SI CZ LU ES FR DE PT EE LV PL HU DK BE NL All child-contingent cash support Targeted, not adequate Targeted, adequate Not targeted -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% EE LV SE RO LU IE DE HR HU LT ES SK PT AT PL FI CZ BG NL SI CY EL FR IT MT DK BE Means-tested benefits Targeted, not adequate Targeted, adequate Not targeted 28 Sutherland, H., & Figari, F. (2013). EUROMOD: the European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model. International journal of microsimulation, 6(1), 4-26. Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Population and development review, 37(1), 57-87. Urban, I., & Pezer, M. (2018). Microsimulation of child benefits: a review of studies. International Journal of Microsimulation, 11(3), 134-169. Verbist, G., & Van Lancker, W. (2016). Horizontal and vertical equity objectives of child benefit systems: an empirical assessment for European countries. Social Indicators Research, 128, 1299-1318. Verbist, G. & Matsaganis, M. (2014). The redistributive capacity of services in the EU. In B. Cantillon & F. Vandenbroucke (eds.). Reconciling Work and Poverty Reduction: How Successful are European Welfare States? , Oxford University Press, Oxford. Van Lancker, W. (2013). Putting the child-centred investment strategy to the test: Evidence for the EU27. European Journal of Social Security, 15(1), 4-27. Van Lancker, W. (2023). The Matthew Effect in Early Childhood Education and Care: How Family Policies May Amplify Inequalities. In M. Daly, B. Pfau-Effinger, N. Gilbert, & D. J. Besharov (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Family Policy Over The Life Course (p. 0). Oxford University Press. Van Lancker, W., & Van Mechelen, N. (2015). Universalism under siege? Exploring the association between targeting, child benefits and child poverty across 26 countries. Social science research, 50, 60-75. 29 List of abbreviations and definitions AROP At-risk-of-poverty COFOG Classification of the functions of government EU European Union EU-SILC EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions FGT Foster–Greer–Thorbecke OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PPP Purchasing Power Parities 30 List of figures Figure 1. Child-contingent cash support, per child, relative to GDP per capita, EU-27, 2022 ...................................... 11 Figure 2. Child-contingent cash support, average per child, by income deciles, share of GDP per capita, EU-27, 2022 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 3. Child-contingent cash support, per child, relative to GDP per capita, by child age groups, EU-27, 2022 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 4. Change in child-contingent cash support, per child, relative to GDP per capita, EU-27, 2019-2022 14 Figure 5. Child AROP rate reduction due to child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022 ............................................. 15 Figure 6. Child AROP gap reduction due to child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022 .............................................. 16 Figure 7. Redistribution impact of child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022 ................................................................. 17 Figure 8. Means-testing of child-contingent cash support, average per child, in % of GDP per capita, 2022 .. 19 Figure 9. Impact of means-tested benefits on child AROP rate and AROP gap, EU-27, 2022 .................................... 20 Figure 10. Targeting and adequacy of child-contingent cash support, shares, 2022 ....................................................... 21 Figure 11. Impact of non-child-contingent benefits on child AROP rates, 2022 .................................................................. 23 Figure 12. Child-contingent cash support and in-kind support, average per child, % of GDP per capita, 2019 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 31 List of tables Table 1. Child-contingent cash support in 2022, average per child, different measurements, EU-27 .................. 32 Table 2. Child AROP rate reduction due to child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022................................................ 34 Table 3. Child AROP rate reduction due to non-child-contingent benefits, EU-27, 2022 ................................................ 35 Table 4. Child in-kind support and child-contingent cash support in 2022, average per child, EU-27, 2019 .... 36 32 Annexes Annex 1. Additional results Table 1. Child-contingent cash support in 2022, average per child, different measurements, EU-27 Current EUR PPP-adjusted EUR Child benefits Other benefits Tax reliefs Total Child benefits Other benefits Tax reliefs Total AT 3599 628 1718 5945 3059 534 1461 5054 BE 3001 -17 649 3633 2611 -15 565 3162 BG 906 19 186 1111 1749 37 360 2146 CY 1364 55 0 1419 1457 59 0 1516 CZ 1496 14 525 2036 1994 19 700 2713 DE 3708 -133 507 4081 3416 -123 467 3760 DK 4699 175 -365 4510 3267 122 -254 3136 EE 2568 95 -71 2592 3072 113 -85 3100 EL 635 99 53 787 755 117 63 935 ES 417 330 392 1139 422 335 398 1155 FI 2732 471 -383 2820 2113 364 -296 2181 FR 2081 341 943 3365 1925 315 873 3113 HR 421 63 432 916 631 95 646 1371 HU 504 -4 1211 1712 877 -6 2107 2978 IE 2999 168 1 3169 2048 115 1 2164 IT 1692 161 66 1919 1665 159 65 1889 LT 1943 133 -54 2021 2864 196 -80 2980 LU 5214 462 282 5959 3406 302 184 3893 LV 1735 105 518 2358 2275 137 680 3092 MT 1244 275 431 1949 1393 308 482 2183 NL 2254 8 412 2673 1869 7 341 2217 PL 1733 122 157 2012 3136 221 284 3640 PT 628 85 513 1226 716 97 584 1397 RO 914 44 3 961 1862 90 6 1958 SE 3475 228 -618 3085 2630 173 -467 2336 SI 1658 134 298 2090 1883 152 339 2374 SK 1268 -10 547 1805 1549 -12 668 2205 33 Table 1. Child-contingent cash support in 2022, average per child, different measurements, EU-27 (contd.) % of GDP per capita % of median income Child benefits Other benefits Tax reliefs Total Child benefits Other benefits Tax reliefs Total AT 7.3% 1.3% 3.5% 12.0% 17.6% 3.1% 8.4% 29.2% BE 6.4% 0.0% 1.4% 7.7% 16.8% -0.1% 3.6% 20.3% BG 7.3% 0.2% 1.5% 9.0% 21.3% 0.5% 4.4% 26.1% CY 4.6% 0.2% 0.0% 4.8% 12.1% 0.5% 0.0% 12.5% CZ 5.8% 0.1% 2.0% 7.9% 16.5% 0.2% 5.8% 22.4% DE 8.0% -0.3% 1.1% 8.8% 19.7% -0.7% 2.7% 21.7% DK 7.4% 0.3% -0.6% 7.1% 18.8% 0.7% -1.5% 18.0% EE 9.5% 0.3% -0.3% 9.5% 27.5% 1.0% -0.8% 27.7% EL 3.2% 0.5% 0.3% 4.0% 10.0% 1.5% 0.8% 12.3% ES 1.5% 1.2% 1.4% 4.1% 3.8% 3.0% 3.6% 10.4% FI 5.7% 1.0% -0.8% 5.8% 14.9% 2.6% -2.1% 15.3% FR 5.4% 0.9% 2.4% 8.7% 12.5% 2.1% 5.7% 20.3% HR 2.5% 0.4% 2.5% 5.3% 7.0% 1.0% 7.2% 15.2% HU 2.9% 0.0% 6.9% 9.7% 11.2% -0.1% 26.9% 38.0% IE 3.1% 0.2% 0.0% 3.2% 16.6% 0.9% 0.0% 17.5% IT 5.2% 0.5% 0.2% 5.9% 13.9% 1.3% 0.5% 15.8% LT 8.2% 0.6% -0.2% 8.6% 25.8% 1.8% -0.7% 26.8% LU 4.4% 0.4% 0.2% 5.0% 16.7% 1.5% 0.9% 19.1% LV 8.4% 0.5% 2.5% 11.4% 24.2% 1.5% 7.2% 32.9% MT 3.9% 0.9% 1.4% 6.1% 10.3% 2.3% 3.6% 16.1% NL 4.2% 0.0% 0.8% 5.0% 11.1% 0.0% 2.0% 13.2% PL 10.0% 0.7% 0.9% 11.6% 29.1% 2.0% 2.6% 33.8% PT 2.7% 0.4% 2.2% 5.3% 7.8% 1.1% 6.4% 15.3% RO 6.1% 0.3% 0.0% 6.4% 22.1% 1.1% 0.1% 23.2% SE 6.5% 0.4% -1.2% 5.8% 18.9% 1.2% -3.4% 16.8% SI 5.9% 0.5% 1.1% 7.5% 15.7% 1.3% 2.8% 19.8% SK 6.4% 0.0% 2.7% 9.1% 19.7% -0.2% 8.5% 28.1% Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD 34 Table 2. Child AROP rate reduction due to child-contingent cash support, EU-27, 2022 Decomposition of child AROP rate reduction effect by type: Decomposition of child AROP rate reduction effect by means-testing: Total child AROP rate reduction due to childcontingent cash support Child AROP rate before childcontingent cash support Child AROP rate after childcontingent cash support Child benefits Other benefits Tax reliefs Meantested benefits Nonmeantested benefits Tax reliefs AT 14.42 30.56 16.14 -9.14 -0.8 -4.48 -1.92 -7.97 -4.54 BE 8.88 20.23 11.36 -7.33 -0.1 -1.45 -6.84 -0.63 -1.41 BG 10.72 34.99 24.26 -8.67 -0.35 -1.7 -5.82 -3.16 -1.74 CY 10.76 25 14.24 -10.7 -0.06 0 -7.5 -3.26 0 CZ 15.22 25.39 10.18 -13.21 -0.37 -1.64 -7.3 -6.25 -1.66 DE 14.6 30.46 15.86 -15.68 1.6 -0.52 -0.5 -13.56 -0.53 DK 6.73 15.01 8.28 -6.7 -0.56 0.53 -3.31 -3.94 0.52 EE 11.06 24.91 13.85 -10.72 -0.16 -0.18 0.11 -10.94 -0.22 EL 8.39 27.18 18.79 -6.7 -1.41 -0.28 -7.88 -0.24 -0.26 ES 4.76 31.94 27.18 -1.34 -1.96 -1.46 -1.77 -1.52 -1.48 FI 10.94 22.52 11.58 -9.44 -2.75 1.25 -2.91 -9.33 1.3 FR 13.52 26.72 13.2 -10.7 -2.39 -0.43 -8.7 -4.41 -0.41 HR 7.09 24.51 17.43 -4.77 -0.57 -0.87 -2.95 -2.39 -0.86 HU 16.02 38.83 22.81 -5.81 -0.04 -10.16 -0.04 -5.81 -10.16 IE 10.48 32.16 21.67 -9.67 -1.02 0.2 -4.33 -6.54 0.38 IT 9.16 33.18 24.03 -8.45 -0.47 -0.24 -8.24 -0.67 -0.24 LT 14.35 30.84 16.49 -13.83 -0.89 0.37 -3.52 -11.17 0.33 LU 11.66 30.16 18.5 -8.73 -2.65 -0.28 -2.65 -8.73 -0.28 LV 13.14 26.79 13.66 -10.21 -0.6 -2.33 -0.56 -10.29 -2.28 MT 9.73 24.83 15.11 -7.63 -1.58 -0.51 -4.53 -4.61 -0.58 NL 5.17 18.3 13.13 -5.06 -0.04 -0.08 -2.59 -2.52 -0.06 PL 13.02 25.02 12 -11.28 -0.57 -1.16 -1.99 -9.92 -1.11 PT 4.72 22.51 17.79 -3.32 -0.34 -1.06 -2.95 -0.65 -1.12 RO 8.15 37.76 29.61 -7.53 -0.33 -0.28 -0.9 -6.96 -0.28 SE 7.74 25.25 17.52 -8.35 -0.76 1.38 -0.76 -8.35 1.38 SI 10.49 22.12 11.63 -9.07 -0.61 -0.81 -4.39 -5.44 -0.66 SK 16.05 32.6 16.56 -12.14 0.23 -4.14 -1.77 -9.97 -4.31 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD 35 Table 3. Child AROP rate reduction due to non-child-contingent benefits, EU-27, 2022 Decomposition of child AROP rate reduction effect by type of payment: Total poverty reduction due to nonchildcontingent benefits Child AROP rate at original income minus taxes and social insurance contributions Pensions Social and housing assistance Unemployment benefits Other family benefits Child AROP rate before childcontingent cash support and after nonchildcontingent benefits Child AROP rate after childcontingent cash support Total poverty reduction due to childcontingent support AT 11.72 42.28 -3.17 -2.56 -4.34 -1.64 30.56 16.14 14.42 BE 17.66 37.9 -6.01 -0.54 -7.52 -3.6 20.23 11.36 8.88 BG 7.3 42.28 -4.82 -0.02 -1.83 -0.62 34.99 24.26 10.72 CY 5.44 30.44 -2.36 -0.99 -1.47 -0.62 25 14.24 10.76 CZ 5.22 30.61 -4.53 -0.27 -0.33 -0.08 25.39 10.18 15.22 DE 5.28 35.73 -1.46 -0.12 -2.4 -1.29 30.46 15.86 14.6 DK 12.53 27.54 -2.52 -4.99 -2.35 -2.67 15.01 8.28 6.73 EE 8.3 33.21 -5.5 -0.22 -1.79 -0.79 24.91 13.85 11.06 EL 7.44 34.62 -4.45 -1.16 -1.68 -0.14 27.18 18.79 8.39 ES 10.01 41.95 -4.21 -0.21 -5.23 -0.35 31.94 27.18 4.76 FI 8.83 31.35 -2.83 -0.4 -3.93 -1.66 22.52 11.58 10.94 FR 12.15 38.87 -1.75 -4.57 -4.45 -1.38 26.72 13.2 13.52 HR 6.62 31.14 -5.14 -0.33 -0.38 -1.34 24.51 17.43 7.09 HU 6.17 45 -5.06 -0.22 -0.69 -0.2 38.83 22.81 16.02 IE 6.68 38.84 -5.06 -0.03 -1.26 -0.33 32.16 21.67 10.48 IT 8.65 41.83 -2.74 -1.49 -3.9 -0.52 33.18 24.03 9.16 LT 6.84 37.68 -4.14 -0.2 -2.07 -0.44 30.84 16.49 14.35 LU 3.92 34.08 -2.52 -0.26 -0.07 -1.07 30.16 18.5 11.66 LV 8 34.79 -5.2 -0.33 -1.75 -0.72 26.79 13.66 13.14 MT 5.59 30.42 -4.13 -0.38 -0.18 -0.91 24.83 15.11 9.73 NL 5.25 23.55 -2.58 -0.7 -0.85 -1.12 18.3 13.13 5.17 PL 11.95 36.97 -11.62 -0.07 -0.03 -0.23 25.02 12 13.02 PT 6 28.51 -4.43 -0.27 -0.99 -0.31 22.51 17.79 4.72 RO 6.13 43.88 -4.92 -0.31 -0.1 -0.8 37.76 29.61 8.15 SE 8.85 34.11 -4.58 -0.53 -1.4 -2.35 25.25 17.52 7.74 SI 7.22 29.34 -4.7 -0.2 -1.65 -0.66 22.12 11.63 10.49 SK 6.57 39.17 -6.11 -0.03 -0.13 -0.3 32.6 16.56 16.05 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD 36 Table 4. Child in-kind support and child-contingent cash support in 2022, average per child, EU-27, 2019 Healthcare Education Child-contingent cash support Share of childcontingent cash support Primary Secondary Tertiary Other AT 2.99% 1.88% 2.55% 0.77% 0.67% 11.30% 0.560 BE 2.47% 1.78% 2.36% 1.13% 0.86% 7.77% 0.475 BG 2.55% 0.92% 1.95% 0.66% 0.35% 6.68% 0.509 CY 1.69% 1.83% 1.97% 0.88% 0.77% 5.09% 0.416 CZ 2.54% 1.22% 2.34% 0.83% 0.79% 6.42% 0.454 DE 4.24% 1.70% 1.94% 0.92% 0.59% 8.70% 0.481 DK 3.55% 1.90% 1.58% 2.00% 0.29% 4.85% 0.342 EE 3.17% 1.69% 1.72% 1.36% 0.83% 12.37% 0.585 EL 1.45% 1.52% 1.42% 0.92% 0.65% 3.99% 0.401 ES 2.81% 1.96% 1.47% 0.52% 0.38% 3.43% 0.324 FI 4.00% 1.33% 2.53% 1.96% 0.34% 5.96% 0.370 FR 3.33% 1.73% 2.44% 0.61% 1.02% 9.06% 0.498 HR 2.91% 2.44% 1.07% 1.01% 0.79% 7.80% 0.487 HU 2.35% 1.45% 1.87% 0.86% 0.93% 8.27% 0.525 IE 2.16% 1.55% 1.18% 0.57% 0.18% 4.27% 0.431 IT 2.84% 1.77% 2.09% 0.32% 0.38% 4.40% 0.373 LT 2.27% 0.88% 2.27% 0.67% 0.98% 7.57% 0.517 LU 1.73% 2.03% 2.31% 0.39% 0.92% 6.58% 0.471 LV 2.64% 1.63% 1.36% 1.05% 1.14% 11.10% 0.586 MT 2.41% 1.31% 1.97% 0.99% 1.08% 7.42% 0.489 NL 3.40% 1.67% 1.98% 1.32% 0.25% 5.26% 0.379 PL 3.72% 2.01% 1.13% 1.36% 0.57% 9.63% 0.523 PT 1.65% 1.61% 1.67% 0.69% 0.59% 4.99% 0.445 RO 2.71% 0.88% 1.43% 0.75% 0.48% 7.55% 0.547 SE 4.73% 6.20% 1.24% 1.16% 0.39% 6.46% 0.320 SI 3.76% 1.93% 2.12% 1.08% 0.46% 8.28% 0.470 SK 2.58% 1.72% 1.62% 0.60% 1.27% 7.09% 0.477 Source: Own elaboration using EUROMOD, Eurostat (2019) and European Commission (2021) GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU In person All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). On the phone or in writing Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: — by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), — at the following standard number: +32 22999696, — via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU Online Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website (europeanunion.europa.eu). EU publications You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). EU law and related documents For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eurlex.europa.eu). Open data from the EU The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries. The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries.