View
220
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
page 1
Flash Eurobarometer
Consumer protection
and consumer rights
Analytical Report for
Cyprus- third wave
Fieldwork: June 2008
Publication: June 2008
This survey was requested by Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal
Opportunities and coordinated by Directorate-General Communication
This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations
and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
European
Commission
Fla
sh
Eu
rob
aro
me
ter
28
6 –
Th
e G
allu
p O
rga
niz
ati
on
Flash Eurobarometer
Monitoring the social impact of
the crisis: public perceptions
in the European Union
Wave 2
Analytical report
Fieldwork: December 2009
Publication: March 2010
European
Commission
Flash EB Series #286
Monitoring the social impact
of the crisis: public perceptions
in the European Union Wave 2
Survey conducted by The Gallup Organization, Hungary upon the request of
Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Coordinated by Directorate-General Communication
This document does not represent the point of
view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it
are solely those of the authors.
THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 3
Table of contents
Table of contents ................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Main findings ........................................................................................................................................ 5
1. Perceptions about the existence of poverty .................................................................................... 8
1.1 Perceived trends in poverty at local, national and EU levels ....................................................... 8
1.2 Estimating the proportion of poor people in the respondent’s country ...................................... 13
2. Degree of financial difficulty ......................................................................................................... 17
2.1 Keeping up with household bills and credit commitments ......................................................... 17
2.2 Running out of money to pay for essential goods and services .................................................. 19
3. Changes in healthcare and social-care affordability ................................................................... 22
4. Expectations about the household financial situation ................................................................. 28
5. Views about being able to cope financially ................................................................................... 33
6. Future affordability of accommodation ....................................................................................... 39
7. Views on the employment situation .............................................................................................. 41
7.1 Respondents’ confidence in the ability to keep their job ............................................................ 41
7.2 Confidence in finding a job in the event of being laid off .......................................................... 44
8. Concerns about future finances .................................................................................................... 49
8.1 The impact of changes in pension entitlements .......................................................................... 49
8.2 Concerns regarding income in old age ....................................................................................... 51
I. Annex tables .................................................................................................................................... 57
II. Survey details ................................................................................................................................. 97
III. Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................. 103
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 4
Introduction
When the EU’s growth and jobs strategy was launched in March 2000, EU leaders pledged to make “a
decisive impact on the eradication of poverty” by 2010. However, many people still live in destitution
with no access to basic services such as healthcare. Almost 80 million Europeans live below the
poverty threshold. To focus on the situation, 2010 has been designated as the “European Year for
combating poverty and social exclusion”, in order to recognise that:
All people have a right to live in dignity and take part in society
Public and private sectors share the responsibility to combat poverty and social exclusion
Eradicating poverty for a more cohesive society benefits all
Commitment at all levels of society is needed to achieve this goal1.
In response to the current global economic crisis, on 26 November 2008, the European Commission
presented a comprehensive action plan to protect Europe’s citizens from the worst effects of the
financial crisis. It includes extensive action at national and EU levels to help households and industry
and to concentrate support on the most vulnerable2.
It is in this context that the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal
Opportunities decided to regularly monitor public opinion about the social impact of the global
economic crisis. The first survey was conducted in July 2009 – Flash Eurobarometer survey No
276.
The current report presents results of the second wave – Flash Eurobarometer survey No
286
(conducted in December 2009) – and looks at comparative data between the two waves.
The objectives of the Flash Eurobarometer survey – “FL286 Monitoring the social impact of the crisis:
public perceptions in the European Union (Wave 2)” – were:
To investigate perceptions about the existence of poverty
To gain knowledge about the degree of financial difficulty of households – at present and in
the 12 months leading up to the survey
To measure changes in healthcare and social-care affordability in the past six months
To understand how people feel about their future pension entitlements and their concerns
about their financial situation in their old age.
In addition, the survey looked at the perceptions of EU citizens in the near future (in the following 12
months). More precisely it covered the following issues:
General expectations about households’ financial situation
Perceptions about the risk of falling behind with various payments
The ability to afford one’s current accommodation
The likelihood of keeping one’s job.
The survey obtained interviews – fixed-line, mobile phone and face-to-face – with nationally
representative samples of EU citizens (aged 15 and older) living in the 27 Member States. The target
sample size in most countries was 1,000 interviews; in total, 25,630 interviews were conducted by
Gallup’s network of fieldwork organisations from November 30 to December 4, 2009. Statistical
results were weighted to correct for known demographic discrepancies. More details on the survey
methodology are included in the Annex of this report.
Please note that due to rounding, the percentages shown in the charts and tables do not always exactly
add up to the totals mentioned in the text.
1 Source: : http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=637
2 See, for example: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=422&furtherNews=yes
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 5
Main findings
Perceptions about poverty in the EU
The trends in EU citizens’ views about poverty were negative: more than half of respondents
(between 54% and 76%) considered that poverty had increased at local, national and EU levels
during the 12 months prior to December 2009.
Three-quarters of EU citizens said that poverty had increased in their country in the 12 months
prior to the survey, but they were less likely to think that poverty in their local area had increased
in that timeframe; this opinion was held by roughly 6 in 10 interviewees.
As opposed to national and local levels of poverty, respondents found it difficult to estimate any
change in poverty levels across the EU. Nevertheless, the proportion who thought that poverty
had strongly or slightly increased across the EU was significantly higher than those who thought
there had been a decrease in the year prior to the survey.
Individual country results showed the greatest degree of variation in citizens’ perceptions
regarding changes in poverty levels in their area. While less than 4 in 10 respondents in Sweden,
Denmark and the Netherlands considered that local poverty had strongly or slightly increased in
the period under consideration, more than three-quarters of respondents in Hungary, Lithuania,
Bulgaria, France and Latvia had a similar perception.
Perceptions about the numbers of poor people in the EU
The majority of EU citizens considered that poverty was rather widespread in their country: 31%
of respondents estimated that one person in five was poor in their country, and approximately the
same proportion (30%) felt that one person in three was poor.
The most pessimistic citizens were those of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where more than 6 in
10 interviewees estimated that about one-third of their fellow citizens lived in poverty (67%, 64%
and 62%, respectively). In each of these countries, less than a fifth of citizens believed that the
proportion of poor people in their country did not exceed 10%.
Respondents‟ views about their household‟s degree of financial difficulty
A fifth of EU citizens surveyed in December 2009 had difficulties in keeping up with household
bills and credit commitments and a similar proportion (19%) stated that their household had had
no money to pay ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items, on at least one occasion,
in the 12 months prior to the survey.
In Greece, 58% of respondents stated that their household was having difficulties in keeping up
with day-to-day bills and credit commitments. In all other Member States, less than half of
interviewees had had such an experience, ranging from 3% in Denmark and the Netherlands to
44%-45% in Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Latvia.
Romanians (40%) and Latvians (39%) were the most likely to have run out of money to pay for
essential goods and services at least once during the 12 months prior to the survey. In Denmark
(4%), the Netherlands (7%), Sweden and Austria (both 10%), however, far fewer residents had had
such problems.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 6
Coping with the costs of various types of healthcare in the past six months
Between 27% and 34% of EU citizens (where a specific type of healthcare was applicable) had
noted it had become somewhat or much more difficult in the past six months to bear the costs of
general healthcare, childcare and long-term care.
About half of respondents (48%-53%) who had had difficulties in paying day-to-day bills in
the past year now found it more difficult to afford (applicable) healthcare. By comparison, in the
group of respondents who had had no difficulties in paying bills, roughly half as many
interviewees said things had changed for the worse.
More than 6 in 10 (65%) Latvians said that in the half year prior to the survey, they had noted
it had become somewhat or much more difficult to bear the costs of general healthcare. Just under
half of Hungarians (49%) and Poles (48%) also felt that it was now harder for them to afford
general healthcare.
Putting the focus solely on respondents who considered the question about childcare to be
relevant to their personal situation showed that more than 4 in 10 citizens in Greece (57%), Malta
(50%), Hungary (45%), Latvia (43%) and Bulgaria (41%) felt that it was now somewhat or much
more difficult to afford childcare.
The most likely to have had difficulties in coping with long-term care costs were Latvians
(72% of those who answered the question on this subject), followed by Hungarians (56%) and
Greeks (55%).
Expectations about respondents‟ household financial situation in the next 12 months
Looking ahead, roughly a quarter (22%) of EU citizens said they expected their household’s
financial situation to deteriorate during the next 12 months. Over half (54%) of interviewees
thought the situation would be stable and 21% anticipated that it would improve in the near future.
These results were more positive than those from the previous wave of the survey (July 2009)
when 26% of EU citizens expected their household’s financial situation to be worse in the 12
months following the study, and 16% anticipated that it would improve.
Respondents who had run out of money – at least once – to pay for essential goods and services in
the year prior to the survey were more likely, than those who had not been through such an
experience, to state that they expected their household’s financial situation to deteriorate (32% vs.
19%) in the year to come; however, members of the group were also more likely to expect an
improvement in the situation (27% vs. 19%).
At least half of respondents in Lithuania (56%) and Latvia (50%) expected their household’s
financial situation to be worse in the next 12 months, and at least 4 in 10 citizens expected the
same in Ireland (48%), Cyprus (45%) and Malta (40%). In all other Member States, 60%-90% of
citizens anticipated the same or a better financial situation for their households in the next 12
months.
Respondents‟ views as to whether they could cope financially in the next 12 months
Of the four types of payments under review, an unexpected expense of €1,000 (or its equivalent
in national currency) worried EU citizens the most: more than 6 in 10 respondents said there was
at least a low risk of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 in the year to
come. Day-to-day expenditures (paying bills, buying food or other daily consumer items) were
reasons for anxiety for 45% of EU citizens.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 7
While more than three-quarters of citizens in Lithuania and Hungary (both 77%), Bulgaria (79%),
Poland (80%), Portugal (84%) and Latvia (92%) thought that, in the year to come, they might not
be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000, this proportion decreased to less than 40%
in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands (between 27% and 34%).
More than a quarter (27%) of respondents felt that the question about paying rent or mortgage was
not relevant to their personal situation and 36% said the same for the question about repaying
consumer loans. Among those who did reply, 46% said there was at least a low risk that they
would not be able to pay the rent or mortgage on time in the year to come and 49% expressed such
pessimism about their ability to repay consumer loans on time.
Respondents‟ ability to afford their current accommodation in the next 12 months
Six percent of EU citizens said that it was very or fairly likely that they might be forced by
financial circumstances to leave their accommodation within the next 12 months. In four Member
States, about 1 in 10 or more respondents considered it likely that they would have problems
meeting the costs of their accommodation: Latvia (14%), Spain, Greece and Italy (9%-11%).
Views on the employment situation
While 77% of respondents in employment were very or fairly confident that they would be able to
keep their job in the next 12 months, just 45% thought it would be very or fairly likely that they
would be able to find a new job within six months, in the event that they were laid off.
Citizens of the Baltic states were the most pessimistic about their ability to stay in their current job
in the next 12 months: more than 4 in 10 Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians were not confident
about this. In comparison, less than 1 in 10 Finnish, Austrian, Dutch, Danish and German
residents, in employment, were concerned about keeping their job.
Italian, Maltese, Lithuanian, Spanish, Irish, Portuguese and Latvian citizens were the most
pessimistic about their likelihood of finding a new position in case they were laid off: 62%-66%
felt that it would not be at all likely or fairly unlikely that they would find a new job within six
months of that happening. Danish citizens were the least pessimistic: just 27% felt that it would not
be likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off.
The impact of the crisis on future pension entitlements
Turning to EU citizens’ views about how their pension entitlements might change in the future, a
quarter of interviewees thought that they would have to save more for when they retired. A further
one in four (24%) thought that they would receive lower pension benefits than expected, while about
one in five (19%) respondents said that they would have to retire later than planned.
Roughly half of EU citizens were worried – compared to 46% who were not worried – about the
chances that their income in old age would not be sufficient to allow them to live in dignity.
Respondents in Italy and Portugal were the most likely to be very or fairly worried that their
income in old age would not be adequate to enable them to live in dignity (71% and 66%,
respectively). Danes were the most optimistic, with 83% of citizens expecting an income in old
age that would make it possible for them to live in dignity.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 8
1. Perceptions about the existence of poverty
This survey gauged EU citizens’ perceptions of poverty. First of all, it focused on their views
regarding poverty trends at various levels. Such trends were seen as negative by EU citizens: more
than half of the respondents (between 54% and 76%) considered that poverty had increased at local,
national and EU levels during the 12 months prior to December 2009.
In addition, EU citizens were asked to make an estimate of the proportion of poor people living in their
country. About 6 in 10 interviewees thought that poverty was rather widespread – i.e. they estimated
that at least 20% of their country’s inhabitants lived in poverty.
1.1 Perceived trends in poverty at local, national and EU levels
Roughly three-quarters of EU citizens said that poverty had increased in their country in the 12
months prior to the survey. Furthermore, 4 in 10 interviewees thought that poverty had strongly
increased at national level. Roughly 1 in 10 respondents – in each case – considered that poverty in
their country had either remained unchanged (8%) or had strongly or slightly decreased (11%) in the
period under consideration.
EU citizens were less likely to think that poverty in their local area had increased in the 12 months
prior to the survey; this opinion was held by roughly 6 in 10 interviewees (25% felt it had “strongly
increased” and 36% “slightly increased”). Approximately a quarter (24%) of respondents felt that – in
their area – poverty had stayed at the same level. A positive view about the change in the level of
poverty in their local area was supported by 11% of respondents – i.e. they considered that poverty had
strongly or slightly decreased.
Considering the three levels reviewed in the survey, respondents found it difficult to express an
opinion about the change in the level of poverty at EU level: 27% gave a “don’t know” response
(compared to 4%-5% for local and national level questions). Nevertheless, as with changes in the
degree of poverty at local or national levels, interviewees who thought that poverty had strongly or
slightly increased across the EU largely outnumbered those who thought there had been a strong or
slight decrease in the year prior to the survey (54% vs. 10%).
Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in...
23
39
24
34
36
31
27
8
9
8
8
7
2
3
2
5
6
27
… the area where you live
... home country
…the EU
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…?
Base: all respondent, % EU27
25
40
23
36
36
31
24
8
9
9
8
8
2
3
2
4
5
27
… the area where you liveStrongly increased Slightly increased Stayed the same
Slightly decreased Strongly decreased DK/NA
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
A comparison, between the results of the first (July 2009) and second wave (December 2009),
concerning EU citizens’ perceptions about poverty trends, showed no differences for the national and
European level questions. Respondents in the current survey, however, were somewhat more likely to
think that poverty in their local area had strongly or slightly increased in the 12 months prior to the
survey (61% vs. 57% in July 2009).
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 9
Country variations
The opinion that poverty at country level had strongly or slightly increased in the 12 months prior to
the survey was shared by at least half of respondents in all Member States. Latvians had the most
pessimistic view: an overwhelming (95%) majority felt that the level of poverty in their country had
increased in the past 12 months. A similar view was held by 9 in 10 respondents in Lithuania, Portugal
and France (90%-91%).
The conviction that poverty had strongly increased in their country was felt by three-quarters of
interviewees in Latvia and more than 6 in 10 respondents in Hungary (64%), Greece (63%) and
Portugal (62%). In a further five countries (e.g. Lithuania and Romania), between 57% and 59% of
respondents had a similar perception. In Denmark and Sweden, on the other hand, just 13%-14% of
respondents said poverty had strongly increased in their country.
Respondents in the two last-named countries were among the most likely in the EU to sense that the
level of poverty was stable in their country (18% and 15%, respectively), while Polish, Czech, Irish
and British respondents had the most positive view – at least a fifth of respondents in these countries
said that poverty in their country had strongly or slightly decreased in the 12 months prior to the
survey (between 20% and 26%).
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months
75
58 62 5849
6456
6347
5946
2131
57
39
16
40 36
1724
41
1732
13 1428 23 16
20
33 29 3239
2331 23
3722
35
5848
21
39
61
36 40
56 4627
5035
51 4930
3239
3 6 3 3 6 3 3 3 63 8 10 9
4 5 13 8 11 1311
4 916 18 15
8 16 16
2 4 2 4 5 6 6 6 58
7 6 7 13 107
11 9 6 11 25 1714 11
1326 20 23
3 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 9 4 4 5 5 7 3 5 4 8 8 3 7 3 7 10 8 9 7
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
FR
PT
LT SI
HU ES
EL
EE
BG IT FI
DE
RO
BE
LU
EU
27
CY
AT
MT IE NL
SK
DK
SE
UK
PL
CZ
Strongly increased Slightly increased Stayed the same Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased DK/NA
In comparison with perceptions about poverty trends at a national level, the country results at a local
level showed a greater degree of variation. The proportion of respondents who thought that poverty in
their local area had strongly or slightly increased in the 12 months prior to the survey was as low as
30% in Sweden and as high as 89% in Latvia.
Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria and France joined Latvia at the higher end of the scale: between 76% and
80% of citizens in these countries felt that the level of poverty around them was getting worse. Almost
6 in 10 respondents in Latvia said poverty had strongly increased in their area (58%). A similar view
was shared by roughly half of Bulgarians and Hungarians (52% and 47%, respectively).
On the contrary, as well as Swedish respondents, Danish and Dutch citizens (37%-38%) were the least
likely to think that poverty had increased in their area in the past 12 months. In these three countries,
just about 1 in 20 respondents considered that poverty in their area had strongly increased (5%-6%).
Furthermore, more than 4 in 10 Swedes and Danes said that the level of poverty had remained the
same in their area (48% and 45%, respectively); Dutch respondents, however, were less likely to share
this view (39%). More than a tenth (15%) of the latter said that poverty in their area had strongly or
slightly decreased in the period under consideration. Czech, British, Irish and Polish respondents,
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 10
nonetheless, had the most positive view – at least a fifth said the level of poverty around them was
decreasing (21%-22%).
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live
58
3852
3747
36 38
21
40 4231 29
22 259 12
2517 19
8 15 10 12 1218
6 5 5
31
4227
4129
36 34
51
32 2938 40
41 3651 47
3340 36
44 3738 35 32 24
32 3225
613 8 12 13 14 16 19 15
1122 21
21 24 28 30 2517 23 36
26 3928 30 32 39 45
48
2 4 9 7 8 7 10 7 8 164 8
7 11 8 8 1422 11
7
105
20 21 22 15 8 10
2 4 4 3 3 6 2 2 4 3 4 2 8 4 3 5 3 4 10 512 8 4 5 3 9 10 12
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
FR
BG
LT
HU
EE IT SI
EL
RO
PT
ES
BE
EU
27
LU
DE
SK IE CY FI
MT
AT
CZ
UK
PL
NL
DK
SE
Strongly increased Slightly increased Stayed the same Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased DK/NA
Note: increased = “strongly increased” + “slightly increased”
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 11
Respondents found it difficult to estimate any change in poverty levels across the EU: between 9% of
respondents in Luxembourg and 44% in Bulgaria could not or would not say whether poverty had
decreased or increased in the EU in the year prior to the survey. In several Member States that joined
the EU in 2004 or later, a third or more respondents did not answer: in addition to Bulgaria, these
countries were Poland and Romania (both 37%), Estonia (35%), Latvia, Hungary and Malta (all 33%).
In addition, 38% of British interviewees gave no response.
Focusing solely on those who did respond, it was noted that residents in France, Portugal and Cyprus
were the most likely to think that poverty had strongly or slightly increased at EU level (90%-91%).
Roughly 6 in 10 Cypriots (61%) and about half of Portuguese and French respondents (49% and 51%,
respectively) said there had been a strong increase of poverty in the EU in the previous 12 months.
In Poland, on the other hand, less than half as many respondents as in Cyprus thought that poverty had
increased at EU level (42% vs. 91%; a 49-percentage point differences with Cyprus). In one additional
country – the Czech Republic – less than half of respondents thought that there had been an increase of
poverty in the EU (49%).
A quarter of Czech and Polish residents felt that the level of poverty across the EU had been stable
(25%-26%) and a somewhat higher proportion perceived a strong or slight decrease in the level of
poverty in the EU (26% and 32%, respectively). Respondents in Slovakia were as likely as
respondents in the two former countries to think that the level of poverty had remained the same
during the past year (26%), while those in the UK were as likely to think that the amount of poverty
had deteriorated (28%).
Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU
39 40
2336 38 38
45
1724 24 30
23 18 21 2312 18 19 15 9 13
6 12 16 916 9 7
41 34
4733 31 30 22
49 41 39 3137
38 35 3138 31 30 33
39 3138 32 25
29 2023
19
45 7 6 5 3 2 9 8 10 9 7 11 8 9
1021
7 9 12 15 15 159 19
8 11 17
83 5 6 6 4 5
5 7 6 6 8 8 1610 11
12
17 9 12 7 8 612
21
1813
20
918 18 19 21 24 26 19 21 22 24 25 24 20
27 2918
27 33 29 33 33 35 3722
38 4437
0
20
40
60
80
100
LU PT SI
BE
EL
FR
CY FI
AT
DE IT ES
DK
NL
EU
27
SE
SK IE
MT
LT
HU
LV
EE
RO
CZ
UK
BG
PL
Strongly increased Slightly increased Stayed the same Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased DK/NA
Base: all respondents
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased, slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…?
% by country
Base: respondents who provided an answer (excluding “don’t know” answers)
6149 51
43 48
28
44
2130
4031 30 24
3222 18
2618
2613
209
25 22 2515 12 11
3041 39
45 39
5841
6151
4149 49
5143
50 5344
5042
5447
5740
38 3342
3731
3 5 4 4 6 9 7 12 10 12 9 1314 12 14 14 10
239
17 22 2315 26
14 2025
26
7 4 6 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 11 8 11 13 14 15 209
2416 11 11
20 1428 23 26 32
0
20
40
60
80
100
CY
PT
FR
LU
EL SI
BE FI
AT IT ES
DE
DK
EU
27
MT
SE
NL
EE IE LT
HU
LV
RO
SK
UK
BG
CZ
PL
Strongly increased Slightly increased Stayed the same Slightly decreased/Strongly decreased
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 12
A comparison with EU citizens’ perceptions about poverty in July 2009
Based on individual country results – both in July and December 2009 – regarding EU citizens’
perceptions about poverty trends at various levels, a few conclusions can be drawn:
In both waves of the survey, perceptions varied the most between countries when respondents
were asked about the level of poverty in their area. Similarly, in both surveys, respondents found
it the most difficult to express an opinion about the change in the level of poverty at EU level.
Examining country breakdowns, it was noted that their ranking remained more or less the same
between the two surveys. For example, citizens in Latvia, Portugal and Hungary were among the
most likely to feel that the situation of poverty in their country had worsened in the past 12
months – both in July and in December 2009.
It was noted above that, when asking EU citizens about changes in poverty trends, the results at
EU level were similar in July and December 2009. There was, however, no overall pattern, and in
some Member States there was no difference in perceptions, while in others, there were examples
of both positive (i.e. a lower proportion who felt there had been a slight or strong decrease) and
negative (i.e. a higher proportion who felt there had been a decrease) trends.
Socio-demographic considerations
The youngest respondents were less likely than their older counterparts to consider that poverty had
increased in the 12 months prior to the survey in their local area or in their country. For example,
while 72% of 15-24 year-olds felt that the level of poverty had risen in their country, between 75% and
79% of the other age groups had a similar view. At the same time, 15-24 year-olds were more likely
than their older counterparts to sense that poverty had tended to decrease in their country (16% vs.
10%-11%) and in their local area (18% vs. 9%-10% of older respondents).
Over 54 year-olds were more likely to give a “don’t know” response when asked about poverty in the
EU (33% vs. 21%-25% of all the other age groups). When taking this difference into account,
however, a similar pattern of differences emerged as discussed above: 15-24 year-olds were less likely
than their older counterparts to consider that poverty had increased at EU level.
Full-time students, compared to all other respondents, also felt there had been greater decreases in the
degree of poverty at local, national and EU levels during the 12 months prior to the survey. For
example, about a fifth (19%) of full-time students thought that poverty had decreased in their local
area compared to only about half as many of those no longer in education (9%-12%).
Respondents with the lowest level of education found it most difficult to express an opinion about the
change in the level of poverty at EU level (34% gave a “don’t know” response vs. 23%-28% of those
with a higher level of education). Nevertheless, after controlling for the number of “don’t know”
responses – and as for the findings for poverty at local and country levels – it appeared that the
respondent’s educational background had little impact on their perceptions about trends in the levels of
poverty.
Within occupational segments, the self-employed were the least likely to sense that poverty had
increased at local, national and EU levels during the 12 months prior to the survey. The most liable to
say that poverty had increased at local and national levels were manual workers; employees were the
most likely to state that poverty had increased in the EU in the 12 months prior to the survey For
example, 70% of the self-employed thought that poverty had increased in their country, compared to
80% of manual workers, 78% of employees and 75% of non-working respondents.
Although men and women did not differ in the overall proportions who thought there had been an
increase in the levels of poverty, the latter were more likely to sense that there had been a strong
increase. For example, a slim majority of both men and women said that poverty had increased in the
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 13
EU in the 12 months prior to the survey (53% and 55%, respectively); however, while 27% of women
said that this had been a strong increase, just 20% of men agreed.
For further details, see annex table 1b, 2b and 3b.
1.2 Estimating the proportion of poor people in the respondent’s country
About 6 in 10 EU citizens considered that poverty was rather widespread in their country – i.e. they
thought that at least 20% of their country’s inhabitants lived in poverty. This was unchanged from the
previous wave of the survey.
More precisely, 30% of respondents estimated that one person in three (i.e. roughly 30% of the
country’s population) was poor, and approximately the same proportion (31%) said that one person in
five (i.e. 20%) was poor in their country.
Somewhat more than a fifth (22%) of EU citizens estimated that the proportion of poor people in their
country was about 10%, and roughly 1 in 10 (9%) thought that about 5% of their fellow citizens lived
in poverty. Finally, less than 1 in 20 (4%) respondents thought that the proportion of poor people in
their country was less than 5%.
29
31
21
8
4
5
1 person out of 3 - or about 30%
1 person out of 5 - or 20%
1 person out of 10 - or 10%
1 person out of 20 - or 5%
Less than 5%
DK/NA
Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ? Base: all respondents, % EU27
Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries
30
31
22
9
4
5
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
The most pessimistic citizens were those of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, where more than 6 in 10
interviewees estimated that about one-third of their fellow citizens lived in poverty (67%, 64% and
62%, respectively). Lithuania, Latvia and Greece had more than 4 in 10 interviewees stating that
poverty affected roughly 30% of their country’s population (49%, 48% and 45%, respectively). In
each of these countries, less than a fifth of citizens believed that the proportion of poor people in their
country did not exceed 10% (between 10% and 19%).
Turning to the most “optimistic” country, just 2% of respondents in Denmark thought that one person
in three was poor in their country, and 12% thought the figure was one person in five. Three in 10
Danes estimated that the proportion of poor people in their country was about 10%, and another 27%
thought that about 5% of the country’s residents were poor. Finally, about a quarter (24%) believed
that poverty affected less than 5% of the country’s residents.
Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands had roughly 1 in 10 interviewees (9%-11%)
stating that poverty affected about 30% of their country’s population. Overall, almost two-thirds of
respondents in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland (all 64%) and a slim majority in Luxembourg
(53%) thought that the proportion of poor people in their country did not exceed 10% of the
population.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 14
The map (following the bar chart) shows for each country the proportion of respondents who thought
that poverty was rather widespread in their country (i.e. at least 20% of their country’s inhabitants
lived in poverty). This map illustrates – once again – the contrast between the pessimism shown by
respondents in many eastern and south-eastern European countries and the relative optimism shown by
interviewees in the Nordic countries and certain northern and central European Member States.
Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ? Base: all respondents, % by country
Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries
67 64 6249 48 45
39 38 38 37 34 33 30 28 26 25 25 24 23 22 20 17 15 11 10 10 92
16 2315
26 28 33
28 30 29 29 33 3331
2539
3022
34 28 3041
30 32
20 22 2432
12
88
10 11 13 14
19 18 18 22 17 1822
22
22
23
19
29
20 24
24
26 30
35 3436
35
30
42
4 6 4 45 6 6
68 7 9
11
7
9
9
8
14 116
1413
19 1919
14
27
1 01 2 1 1
2 1 3 2 3 2 46
34
8
310 7
4 8 6 10 119 4
24
5 3 8 7 6 3 8 6 6 3 5 7 5 8 3 916
2 4 6 5 5 4 5 5 2 5 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
BG
HU
RO
LT
LV
EL
SK
EE
PL SI
IT PT
EU
27
CZ
FR
ES
MT
DE
CY
UK
BE IE AT
NL
SE FI
LU
DK
1 person out of 3 - or about 30% 1 person out of 5 - or 20% 1 person out of 10 - or 10%
1 person out of 20 - or 5% Less than 5% DK/NA
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 15
EU citizens’ perceptions about poverty – a comparison between July and December 2009
Between July 2009 and the current survey, the individual country results mostly showed small
differences between respondents’ perceptions about the amount of poverty in their countries. There
were, however, a few exceptions.
The July 2009 results showed that more than three-quarters (77%) of Portuguese respondents thought
that at least one-fifth of their fellow citizens lived in poverty; in December 2009, however, far fewer
Portuguese respondents selected this response (66%, -11 percentage points). A similar trend was
observed in Spain (from 61% in July to 55% in December, -6 percentage points).
Luxembourg and Malta, on the other hand, had seen an increase of at least 15 percentage points in the
proportion of respondents who estimated that the share of poor people in their country was at least
20% (Luxembourg: from 27% to 42%, +15 percentage points; Malta: from 29% to 47%, +18).
Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ? Base: all respondents, % by country
Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries Comparison between waves
85
81
73
79
74
74
65
64
66
70
65
77
62
62
61
60
61
51
47
54
46
29
44
27
32
34
30
1687
83
78
76
76
75
68
68
67
66
66
66
65
61
60
58
55
53
52
52
47
47
47
42
34
32
31
14
0
20
40
60
80
100
HU
BG
EL
RO
LV
LT
EE IT SI
PL
SK
PT
FR
BE
EU
27
DE
ES
CZ
CY
UK IE
MT
AT
LU FI
SE
NL
DK
Fl276 - At least 1 person out of 5 - or 20%
Fl286
+5 -11
+3+1
+2-3
+2+2
-1-1+3+1
-4+1
+4
+1-2+5+2
-6-2
+1-2+2
+15+3+18
-2
Socio-demographic considerations
Generally, women were more likely to believe that there was a higher proportion of poor people in
their country: 32% of women thought that about one-third of their fellow citizens were poor compared
to 27% of men who held that opinion. Almost 4 in 10 (39%) men felt that 10% or less people were
poor in their country, compared to 31% of women who had that view.
Similarly, manual workers made more negative estimates about the issue compared to respondents in
other occupational categories. While more than a third (36%) of manual workers considered that
about 30% of the population in their respective countries were poor, between 26% and 31% of
respondents in other occupational groups felt that way. Almost 4 in 10 employees and self-employed
respondents estimated the share of poor people to be 10% or less (39% and 37%, respectively), the
corresponding proportions for manual workers and non-working respondents were, respectively, 27%
and 33%.
The opinion that poverty affected roughly 30% of their country’s population was less frequently held
by the most educated respondents: 22% selected this response vs. 33%-34% of those with a lower
level of education. The most educated respondents were more likely to think that either about 20% or
10% of their fellow citizens lived in poverty. For example, 26% of the former thought that about one-
tenth of their fellow citizens were poor compared to 20%-21% of respondents with a lower level of
education.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 16
Finally, within the various age groups, it was noted that a lower proportion of the oldest respondents
mentioned the highest ratios of poverty: 56% of the over 54s said that either one person in three or one
person in five was poor in their country, compared to 61%-63% of other age groups. The oldest
respondents found it more difficult to estimate the proportion of poor people in their country: 8% gave
a “don’t know” response (compared to 2%-4% for other age groups).
For further details, see annex table 4b.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 17
2. Degree of financial difficulty
This survey used two subjective measures to identify the degree of financial difficulty existing in EU
households:
the ability of households to keep up with bills and credit commitments at the time of the survey,
and
whether households had run out of money to pay essential goods and services at some time in the
12 months prior to the survey.
Both measures gave similar results: a fifth of EU citizens surveyed in December 2009 had difficulties
in keeping up with household bills and credit commitments and a similar proportion (19%) stated that,
on at least one occasion in the 12 months prior to the survey, their household had had no money to pay
ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items.
2.1 Keeping up with household bills and credit commitments
In December 2009, keeping up with household bills and credit commitments was a problem for a fifth
of EU citizens: 15% said that this was a constant struggle, 3% had fallen behind with some bills and
credit commitments, and 2% had had real financial problems and had fallen behind with many such
payments.
A third of EU citizens stated that their household occasionally struggled to keep up with day-to-day
bills and credit commitments; more than 4 in 10 (45%) said that this was never a problem.
45
33
15
3
2
1
45
34
15
3
2
1
I am / we are keeping up without any difficulties
I am / we are keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time
I am / we are keeping up but it is a constant struggle
I am / we are falling behind with some bills / credit commitments
I am / we are having real financial problems and have fallen behind with many bills and credit
commitments
DK/NA
Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present?
Base: all respondents, % EU27
Households’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
In Greece, 58% of respondents stated that their household was having difficulties in keeping up with
day-to-day bills and credit commitments3. In all other Member States, less than half of interviewees
were struggling to that extent, ranging from 3% in Denmark and the Netherlands to 44%-45% in
Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Latvia.
The proportion of interviewees who said that their household was in real trouble (i.e. had fallen behind
with some or many bills and credit commitments) was higher than 10% in eight Member States:
Bulgaria (15%), Greece (14%), Malta, Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary (all 13%), Estonia (12%) and
Romania (11%).
3 Sum of: “constant struggle” + “falling behind with some bills” + “falling behind with many bills”
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 18
In Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, on the other hand, at least three-quarters of respondents
stated they had absolutely no difficulty in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments
(82%, 76% and 75%, respectively). In five further countries, a majority of respondents selected this
response: Slovenia (51%), Slovakia (57%), Austria (63%), Finland and Luxembourg (both 66%).
Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Households’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments
14 13 157
135
13 12 13 116 5 7 5 4 2 5 5 3 5 3 4 3 2 2 1 1 1
4432 30
37 3135
26 26 24 2220 20 17 15 15 15 11 12 11 9 11 10 6 7 5 4 2 2
2234 40
31 32 3424 29 36 41
34 30 31 3324
40 3932 39 35 35 35
24 25 29
18 2014
20 20 1523 23 24
35 32 28 2340 43 45 45
57
42 4350 46 50 50 51
66 66 63
75 76 82
0
20
40
60
80
100
EL
LV
BG
CY
MT
PT
LT
EE
HU
RO IT CZ
ES
EU
27
SK
FR IE UK
BE
PL
DE SI
LU FI
AT
SE
NL
DK
falling behind with some/many bills keeping up but it is a constant struggle
keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time keeping up without any difficulties
DK/NA
Examining the country breakdown in December 2009 compared to July 2009, it was noted that the
ranking of countries remained more or less the same between the two surveys. For example, in both
waves, the highest proportions of respondents who stated that their household was having difficulties
in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments were found in Greece, Latvia and
Bulgaria. Moreover, as in July 2009, it can be concluded that Danish, Swedish and Dutch respondents
were the least likely to have such financial problems.
Two countries are worthy of extra attention: Cyprus and Malta. These countries saw an increase of
more than five percentage points from July 2009 to December 2009 in the proportions of interviewees
who stated that their household was having difficulties in keeping up with their day-to-day bills and
credit commitments (Malta: from 36% to 44%, +8 percentage points; Cyprus: from 38% to 45%, +7).
Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit commitments at present?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Households’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitmentsComparison between waves
54
48
43
38
36
43
37
37
32
33
23
22
23
20
21
18 17 16 13 14 13 12 8 7 7 5 5 257
45
45
45
44
40
39
39
37
33
25
25
24
20
18 18 17 17 14 14 14 14 9 9 7 5 3 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
EL
LV
BG
CY
MT
PT
LT
EE
HU
RO IT CZ
ES
EU
27
SK
FR IE UK
BE
PL
DE SI
LU FI
AT
SE
NL
DK
Fl276 - % “constant struggle” + “falling behind with some bills” + “falling behind with many bills”
Fl286
+2
+3
+2-3+8+7
-3
+3
-3+0+1+2
+0+5
+2
+1+0+1+1+0+0
-2+0+0+2+1
+2
+1
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 19
Socio-demographic considerations
Respondents with the lowest level of education and manual workers were the most likely to state that
their household was having difficulties4 in keeping up with day-to-day bills and credit commitments
(28%-29%, compared to an EU average of 20%). On the other hand, respondents with the highest level
of education, employees, full-time students and respondents younger than 25 were the ones least
frequently encountering financial difficulties (between 13% and 16%).
Although the proportion of respondents who stated that their household was having financial
difficulties was not very different for the youngest (under 25) and oldest respondents (over 54), the
latter were more likely to state that they had absolutely no difficulty in keeping up with day-to-day
bills and credit commitments (53% vs. 43% of 15-24 year-olds). The most educated respondents,
employees, men and metropolitan residents were as likely as the over 54 year-olds to have this
viewpoint (between 49% and 56% – compared to, for example, 32% of manual workers, 38% of the
least educated respondents and 42% of women).
For further details, please see annex table 5b.
2.2 Running out of money to pay for essential goods and services
About one in five (19%) EU citizens stated that their household had run out of money to pay ordinary
bills, buy food or other daily consumer items, on at least one occasion, in the 12 months prior to the
survey. These results were similar to those in July 2009: 18% of EU citizens stated that their
household had had such an experience.
Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months?
18
81
1
Yes
No
DK/NA
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items?
Base: all respondents, % EU27
19
81
0
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
Romanians (40%) and Latvians (39%) were the most likely to have run out of money to pay for
essential goods and services during the 12 months prior to the survey. In some of the other eastern
European countries, such as Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria, at least 3 in 10 respondents stated that
their household had lived through a similar experience (between 30% and 36%). In Denmark (4%), the
Netherlands (7%), Sweden and Austria (both 10%), however, far fewer residents had had such
problems.
In accordance with the results discussed in the section 2.1, compared to July 2009, respondents in
Malta and Cyprus were now more likely to state that their household had run out of money to pay
ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items, on at least one occasion, in the 12 months prior
4 Sum of: “constant struggle” + “falling behind with some bills” + “falling behind with many bills”
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 20
to the survey (Malta: +5 percentage points; Cyprus: +7 percentage points). The opposite trend was
observed in Romania: in July 2009, 45% of Romanians said their household had run out of money to
pay for essential goods and services; in the current survey, this proportion had decreased to 40%.
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months?
40 39 36 32 30 27 26 26 25 24 22 22 20 19 19 18 17 17 16 15 15 14 12 11 10 10 7 4
59 61 63 67 69 73 72 74 75 76 77 78 80 80 81 81 83 83 84 85 84 86 88 88 89 88 93 96
0
20
40
60
80
100
RO
LV
BG
HU LT
EL
EE
CY
PL IT
MT
SK
ES
BE
EU
27
CZ
PT FI
SI
FR
UK IE DE
LU
AT
SE
NL
DK
Yes No DK/NA
As stated in section 2.1, respondents in the Nordic countries – Denmark, Sweden and Finland – were
among the least likely to state that they had had difficulties in keeping up with day-to-day bills and
credit commitments. In the current section, it was noted that they were also among the least liable to
have run out of money to pay for essential goods and services during the 12 months prior to the
survey; this can be seen on the map on the next page. Less than a sixth of respondents in these
countries and in other central and northern European Member States had run out of money to pay for
essential goods and services; however, the map also indicates that this proportion increased to more
than a third of respondents in some eastern European countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 21
Socio-demographic considerations
Looking at the socio-demographic segments, those most affected by financial problems in the year
prior to the survey (i.e. they had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services on at least
one occasion) were 25-39 year-olds, the least educated respondents and manual workers; the least
affected were the most educated respondents, those still in education and over 54 year-olds.
Across age groups, 24% of 25-39 year olds said that during the 12 months prior to the survey their
household had run out of money to pay ordinary bills, buy food or other daily consumer items,
compared to 14% of over 54 year-olds and 16% of 15-24 year-olds.
While 13% of the most educated citizens and 16% of those still in education stated that their household had
had problems with ordinary payments in the year prior to the survey, this compared to more than one in five
of those with a lower level of education (21%-24%). Similarly, 28% of manual workers had had a similar
experience; this proportion dropped to 14% for employees and 18% for the self-employed.
Finally, although differences were smaller than the ones discussed above, women were somewhat more
likely to state that they had had no money to pay for essential goods and services, on at least one occasion,
in the 12 months prior to the survey (21% vs. 17% of men).
For further details, see annex table 11b.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 22
3. Changes in healthcare and social-care affordability
The survey next asked whether, in the past six months, respondents had noted any changes in their
ability to afford general healthcare, childcare or long-term care services. A few respondents (6%-9%)
now found it easier to afford such services – that were applicable to them – than six months ago, while
between 27% and 34% of interviewees said things had changed for the worse. For the majority of EU
citizens (where a specific type of healthcare was applicable to the respondent), no changes were
noticed in these three areas.
Three in 10 (30%) respondents said it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford general
healthcare for themselves or their relatives in the past six months. Almost six in 10 (57%)
interviewees stated that, in this timeframe, there had been no changes in their ability to bear the costs
of general healthcare for themselves or their relatives. Finally, 6% of interviewees said that they felt
that healthcare had become more affordable in the past six months.
A slim majority (54%) of respondents did not answer the question about changes in the affordability of
childcare – as this question was not relevant to their personal situation. Among respondents who did
respond, 58% thought that the affordability of childcare had remained stable in the past six months and
about half as many – 27% – noted that it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford
childcare. Just 9% of respondents had noted a positive change.
The question about long-term care for themselves and their relatives was answered by almost two-
thirds of respondents – 31% of respondents considered that the question was not relevant to their
personal situation. Roughly one in three (34%) respondents – who answered this question – found it
now more difficult to cope with the costs involved in long-term care services than six months ago,
while less than a tenth of interviewees (8%) had noted that such services had become more affordable.
Finally, 51% of interviewees felt that the affordability of long-term care had not changed in the past
six months.
11
5
11
10
15
18
7
16
13
19
59
27
59
37
53
4
2
5
3
5
1
1
2
1
2
5
55
30
2
3
6
5
7
all respondents
all respondents
if it applies
all respondents
if it applies
Healthcare for you or your relatives
Childcare for your children
Long-term care for you or your relatives
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives?(IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult?
Base: all respondent, % EU27
11 18 59 41 5 2all respondents
Yes, much more difficult Yes, somewhat more difficult
No, no changes Yes, somewhat more easy
Yes, much more easy Not applicable
DK/NA
12
5
11
11
15
18
7
16
13
19
57
27
58
35
51
5
3
7
4
6
1
1
2
1
2
5
54
31
2
3
7
5
8
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
Perceived changes in the ability to afford various types of healthcare
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 23
Country variations
Latvians stood out from respondents in other Member States with almost two-thirds (65%) of them
saying that, in the half year prior to the survey, they had noted it had become somewhat or much more
difficult to bear the costs of general healthcare for themselves and their family members.
Furthermore, 42% of Latvians stated that it was now much more difficult to afford such care. Almost
half of Romanians (49%) and Poles (48%) also felt that it was now harder for them to afford general
healthcare – about a quarter stated that it was much more difficult (25%-26%).
In the last six months, less than 1 in 10 citizens in the Nordic countries – Denmark, Sweden and
Finland – found it more difficult to meet the costs of general healthcare services (between 5% and
9%). In this regard, these countries were the most stable of all the EU countries. Roughly 8 in 10, or
more, of respondents in Denmark (85%), Sweden and Finland (both 79%) had seen no changes in the
affordability of general healthcare in the past six months.
In almost all Member States, not more than 1 in 10 respondents had seen an improvement in their
ability to afford general healthcare services for themselves and their family members in the past six
months. In Bulgaria, the UK, Cyprus and Luxembourg, however, between 11% and 14% of
respondents had seen an improvement in this respect.
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives?(IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family
42
26 25 24 23 22 19 16 15 15 12 16 179 8 12 11 7 9 4 9 6 6 4 5 2 2 1
23
23 23 22 23 22 25 27 28 2425 20 19
27 23 18 1518 15
15 10 11 10 12 97 6 4
28
40 38 40 38 36 38 3644 47
46 50 55 5658 57
57 6560 65 71 71
6069 77
79 79 85
04 8 6 7 11 6 10
8 9 13 35 7
66
75
614 6 9
11
84
3 43
4 5 3 4 3 55 9
4 4 37
3 1 2 5 7 48
2 4 212
6 4 8 5 5
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
HU PL
RO
LT
BG
EE
MT IE EL
CY IT PT
FR SI
EU
27
SK
DE
BE
LU ES
CZ
UK
NL
AT FI
SE
DK
Yes, much more difficult Yes, somewhat more difficult
No, no changes Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy
Not applicable DK/NA
The proportion of respondents who considered that the question about childcare was not relevant to
their personal situation ranged from 27% in Italy to 81% in Finland. Other countries with a high
proportion of “non-applicable” responses were Portugal (78%), the Netherlands (75%), Latvia and
Bulgaria (both 69%).
Putting the focus solely on interviewees who considered the question about the affordability of
childcare to be relevant to their personal situation showed that almost 6 in 10 (57%) respondents in
Greece and half of interviewees in Malta felt that it was now somewhat or much more difficult to
afford childcare. In Bulgaria, Latvia and Hungary, between 41% and 45% of respondents shared this
opinion.
On the other hand, virtually no Swedes (3%) agreed that it had become somewhat or much more
difficult to bear the costs of childcare in the past six months, while a majority (59%) thought that the
situation in this regard was stable (note: 35% of Swedes who responded said they did not know
whether there had been a change in affordability). Respondents in Denmark were the most likely to
say that the affordability of childcare had remained stable (87%).
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 24
Approximately one in seven respondents in Cyprus, Austria and Luxembourg had seen an
improvement in this matter in the six months prior to the survey (15%-16%). In a majority of the
Member States, however, between 5% and 10% of respondents felt that childcare was now more
affordable.
Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare
10 8 8 11 12 10 7 8 9 7 6 6 7 7 5 3 3 2 4 3 4 2 2 3 0 1 0 0
18 17 17 12 10 11 12 10 9 9 8 7 6 6 7 9 8 9 5 5 4 5 5 23 2 2 1
16 1827
41
3039
21 2115 18
33
16 1610
2718
3424 31
48
925 26
23 32
18 1426
3 5
11
3
6
7
5 3
1 3
3
3 13
4
4
8
32
6
2
5 75
1
31
2
51 4933 27
36
31
5244 61 55
50
66 6969
5464
46
60 54
35
78
60 55 65 6375
81 56
2 2 3 6 7 2 313
5 91 1 1 5 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 5 2 2 1 1
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
EL
MT
CY IT RO
SK
PL
EE
HU LT
ES IE LV
BG
EU
27 SI
LU
FR
BE
CZ
PT
DE
AT
UK
DK
NL FI
SE
Yes, much more difficult Yes, somewhat more difficult
No, no changes Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy
Not applicable DK/NA
Base: all respondents
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives?(IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult?
% by country
Base: respondents who provided an answer
21 1623 22 23
15 1812 17 16 19
814 15 14 12
511 6 9 6 9 5 5 1 4 1 1
3634 22 21 18
25 2225 20 20 15
2519 17 16 15
2216
15 1212 7 11 8 10 7
7 2
3335
3951
3343 47
41 4239 46 50
38
56 57 6661 58
62 6763 66
5974 76
7287
59
7 103
3
9
1010
169
6
911
5
4 105
78 15 5
13 14
15
9 5 131
4
4 413
417
7 3 512
2011 7
24
8 3 1 5 7 28 7 4
125 7 5 4
35
0
20
40
60
80
100
EL
MT
HU
LV
BG
PL IE CY
PT
LT
RO SI
EE IT SK
ES
FR
EU
27
LU
BE
DE
UK
AT
CZ FI
NL
DK
SE
Yes, much more difficult Yes, somewhat more difficult
No, no changes Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy
DK/NA
Respondents were also asked to evaluate any changes in their ability to afford long-term care for
themselves and family members. Hungarian and Latvian residents were the least likely to answer this
question (71% and 68%, respectively, of interviewees said the question was “non-applicable”). In
Sweden, Portugal and Finland, at least half of respondents considered that this question was not
relevant to their personal situation (between 50% and 63%).
As in the case of the affordability of general healthcare – again placing the focus on those interviewees
who had actually responded – citizens of Latvia and those of Sweden and Denmark were at the
extremes. While more than 7 in 10 Latvians said that it had become somewhat or much more difficult
for them to afford long-term care in the past six months (72%), not more than 1 in 10 Danes and
Swedes felt that way (7% and 10%, respectively). Furthermore, 49% of Latvians – compared to 2% of
Danes and Swedes – said that it had become much more difficult to bear the costs of long-term care.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 25
Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria and Malta joined Latvia at the higher end of the ranking with a slim
majority of respondents for whom it had become somewhat or much more difficult to cope with the
costs of long-term care (between 53% and 56%).
At least 7 in 10 respondents (of those where long-term care was applicable) in Denmark (82%),
Finland (75%), the Netherlands and the Czech Republic (both 70%) felt that the affordability of long-
term care for themselves or their family members had remained stable.
Finally, less than a tenth of respondents in almost all Member States had seen an improvement in their
ability to afford long-term care for themselves or their family members. In Poland, Cyprus, the UK
and Luxembourg, on the other hand, between 10% and 14% of respondents felt that long-term care
was now more affordable.
Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family
2215
2213 13
2216 14 15 16 14 15 11 16
7 8 5 9 6 7 10 7 7 6 3 1 1 1
30
30 1925 24
1519 20 17 13 13 12
13 715 11 13 8 11 10 6 9 8 8
64 4 3
2935
25 3122
3628 30
4344 45
2035
7
42
24
53
2238
50
8
57
1929 38
27 28
50
86
610
7
8
8 6
73
7
5
5
0
6
4
12
3
9
4
1
6
2
45
1 1
2
45
22 1428
922 23
1020
16
34
31
68
29
49
17
44
3026
71
17
6248
45
6350
40
6 9 6 8 5 10 7 6 7 5 416
5 1 1 4 114
7 2 5 3 2 4 3 316
5
0
20
40
60
80
100
EL SI
BG
CY
MT
RO PL IE ES IT SK
LT
EU
27
LV
FR
DE
LU
EE
UK
BE
HU CZ
PT
AT
NL FI
SE
DK
Yes, much more difficult Yes, somewhat more difficult
No, no changes Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy
Not applicable DK/NA
Base: all respondents
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives?(IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult?
Base: those respondents where long-term care was applicable, % by country
49
3623 28
19 16 21 18 1524 22 19 17 15 19 15 17 17
10 11 9 9 6 9 6 3 2 2
23
20
32 2534
31 25 26 2917 18 21 19 21 16 19 16 15
21 1615 13 15 11 11
108 5
22
26 31 32 31 37 36 39 36 3929
5048 48 55
51 54
40
5957
5468
64 70 70 75
56
82
1
29 8 9 6 10 8 11 8
7
48 7
38 8
5
88
13
6 14 8 9 3
3
3
416
6 7 7 10 9 8 9 1123
6 8 9 7 8 5
24
28 9
3 1 3 5 8
32
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
HU
EL
BG
MT SI
PL IE CY
RO LT
PT
ES
DE IT
EU
27
SK
EE
FR
AT
UK
BE
LU CZ
NL FI
SE
DK
Yes, much more difficult Yes, somewhat more difficult
No, no changes Yes, much more easy/somewhat more easy
DK/NA
Base: respondents who provided an answer
Relationship between respondents’ ability to afford healthcare and their problems in paying day-to-
day-to-day bills
A cross-tabulation of the answers for Questions 4 and 9 showed whether households that had run out
of money to pay for essential goods and services during the 12 months prior to the survey were also
the ones that reported having problems in bearing the costs of various types of healthcare.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 26
About half of respondents (between 48% and 53%) who had had difficulties in paying day-to-day bills
in the past year now found it somewhat or much more difficult to afford some or all of the various
healthcare services – that were applicable to them – than six months ago. By comparison, in the group
of respondents who had had no such difficulties in paying bills, only roughly half as many
interviewees said things had changed for the worse (between 21% and 29%), while the majority had
noticed no changes in these three areas (between 55% and 63%).
25
13
23
23
29
24
13
25
19
24
39
21
39
26
33
5
3
6
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
45
22
2
4
7
6
8
all respondents
all respondents
if it applies
all respondents
if it applies
Healthcare for you or your relatives
Childcare for your children
Long-term care for you or your relatives
Q4. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or your relatives?(IF YES) Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more difficult?
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items?
Base: all respondent, % EU27
11 18 59 41 5 2all respondents
Yes, much more difficult Yes, somewhat more difficult
No, no changes Yes, somewhat more easy
Yes, much more easy Not applicable
DK/NA
9
3
8
8
12
16
6
13
12
17
62
28
63
37
55
5
3
7
4
6
2
1
2
1
2
5
56
33
2
3
7
5
7
Perceived changes in the ability to afford various types of healthcare
Respondents in households that had run out of money in the past year
Respondents in households that had not run out of money in the past year
EU citizens’ perceptions about the affordability of healthcare – a comparison between July and
December 2009
At the EU level, no differences were observed between the July 2009 and December 2009 results in
terms of EU citizens’ perceptions about changes in healthcare and social-care affordability in the past
six months. There was, however, no overall pattern: in some Member States, perceptions were
unchanged, while in others, examples of both positive (i.e. easier to afford services) and negative (i.e.
more difficult to afford services) trends emerged.
This positive trend was most noticeable in Romania. The proportion of Romanians who said that, in
the past six months, it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford general healthcare
decreased by five percentage points from 51% in July 2009 to 46% in December 2009. The
corresponding proportion for long-term care and childcare (among respondents who considered that
type of healthcare to be relevant to their personal situation) decreased by 9 and 10 percentage points,
respectively.
The opposite tendency was noted when looking at the results of a few other Member States, for
example, Luxembourg, Hungary and Ireland. In these countries, the proportion of respondents who
said things had changed for the worse in terms of affordability of general healthcare, childcare and
long-term care increased between the two waves of the survey. For example, in Ireland, for each of
these types of healthcare, an increase of at least seven percentage points was observed in the
proportion of respondents who said it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford such
services – that were applicable to them: +6 percentage points for general healthcare and +12
percentage points for long-term care and childcare.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 27
Socio-demographic considerations
The socio-demographic analysis revealed that women were more likely to say that in the past six
months it had become somewhat or much more difficult to afford general healthcare (32% vs. 26% of
men), childcare (14% vs. 11%) and long-term care services (26% vs. 21%).
The older the respondent, the more likely he or she was to feel that it had become harder to afford
general healthcare and long-term care for themselves and their family. For example, 17% of the
youngest citizens reported that it was somewhat or much more difficult to afford general long-term
care for themselves and their family in the past six months compared to more than a quarter of the
oldest citizens (27%). On the other hand, in the last six months, higher proportions of 25-54 year-olds
felt it was now more difficult for them to afford childcare (16%-18% vs.7%-8% of all other age
segments). Of course, this question about childcare was more relevant to 25-54 year-olds (40%-42%
“non-applicable” answers vs. 59% for 15-24 year-olds and 70% for over 54 year-olds).
In accordance with the results for the youngest respondents, full-time students were the least likely to
find it more difficult to afford healthcare services in the last six months. Among respondents who had
completed their education, those with the lowest level of education were the most likely to have
problems bearing the costs of healthcare and social-care services. For example, 38% of respondents
with the lowest level of education now found it somewhat or much more difficult to afford general
healthcare for themselves and their family compared to 25% of the most educated and 15% of full-
time students.
Manual workers and those not working were the most likely to say that in the past six months it had
become harder to afford general healthcare and long-term care for themselves and their family, and
employees were the least liable to have that opinion. For example, with regard to the latter type of
healthcare, approximately a quarter of manual workers and those not working (25%-26%) said that
such services had become less affordable compared to a fifth of employees; the corresponding
proportion for the self-employed was 23%. In addition, manual workers now found it more difficult to
afford childcare (17% vs. 12%-13% of respondents of all the other occupational groups – note that
60% of non-working respondents felt that this question was not relevant to them).
For further details, see annex table 6b, 7b and 8b.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 28
4. Expectations about the household financial situation
Looking ahead, roughly a quarter (22%) of EU citizens said they expected their household’s financial
situation to deteriorate during the next 12 months. Over half (54%) of interviewees thought their
household’s financial situation would be stable and 21% anticipated that it would improve in the near
future.
These results are more positive than those from the previous wave of the survey when 26% of EU
citizens expected their household’s financial situation to be worse, in the 12 months following the
study, and 16% anticipated that it would improve.
Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be?
26
55
16
4
Worse
The same
Better
DK/NA
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household?
Base: all respondents, % EU27
22
54
21
3
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
At least half of respondents in Lithuania (56%) and Latvia (50%) expected their household’s financial
situation to be worse in the next 12 months, and at least 4 in 10 citizens expected the same in Ireland
(48%), Cyprus (45%) and Malta (40%). In other words, the countries where citizens thought their
economic situation would deteriorate were similar – with the exception of Ireland (see further) - to the
ones where respondents had experienced significant financial problems.
In all other Member States, 60%-90% of citizens anticipated that their household would have the same
or a better financial situation in the following 12 months. At least two-thirds of respondents expected
their household’s financial situation to remain the same in the next 12 months in the Netherlands
(67%), Austria (68%), Finland (69%) and Luxembourg (70%). Respondents in Denmark (26%),
Sweden (28%), Italy and Romania (both 30%), on the other hand, were the most likely to expect an
improvement in their household’s financial situation in the year to come.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 29
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months… will it be? ...
56 50 48 45 40 36 36 34 34 32 31 29 28 24 24 23 22 19 19 19 18 17 16 15 14 12 10 9
25 38 3935 38 42 44 42 38
52
3153
45 55 52 50 5447
64 67 6356
6855
64 70 6964
14 7 1216 13 17 17 21 23
15
30
1622
17 18 21 2130
16 12 1625
1428
20 17 20 26
5 5 1 4 9 4 3 3 5 1 7 3 6 4 6 6 3 4 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
LT
LV IE CY
MT
HU
EL
EE
BG SI
RO
CZ
PL
ES
PT
SK
EU
27
IT DE
NL
BE
UK
AT
SE
FR
LU FI
DK
Worse The same Better DK/NA
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 30
EU citizens’ perceptions about their household’s financial situation – a comparison between July
and December 2009
Across the EU, between July 2009 and December 2009, a small decrease (from 26% to 22%, -4
percentage points) was observed in the proportion of respondents who expected their household’s
financial situation to deteriorate in the next 12 months; a similar increase was seen in the proportion who
anticipated that their financial situation would improve (16% to 21%, +5).
At the individual country level, this decrease in the proportion of respondents who expected their
household’s financial situation to deteriorate in the next 12 months was seen primarily in Latvia (-15
percentage points), Hungary (-11), Romania (-10) and Poland (-9). Romania, however, was the only
country where respondents were also significantly more likely to to expect an improvement in their
household’s financial situation in the year to come (+8 percentage points). Other countries where
respondents were now more likely to anticipate such an improvement included Italy (+9), France (+7),
Germany (+6), Denmark, Luxembourg, the UK and Bulgaria (all +5).
A negative trend was observed in a few Member States. Malta saw an increase of 12 percentage points
from July 2009 to December 2009 in the proportion of interviewees who expected their household’s
financial situation to deteriorate in the coming year, and a decrease of eight percentage points of
respondents who stated the opposite – i.e. they anticipated an improvement. In Ireland and Cyprus,
interviewees were now also more likely to think that their household’s financial situation would
deteriorate (+5 and +8 percentage points, respectively); no significant changes were seen, however, in
the proportion anticipating an improvement in the year to come.
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months… will it be? …Comparison between waves
58
65
43
37
28
48
41
41
36
33
41
34
37
27
25
29
26
21
22
21
19 22
18 15 20
17 15 1056
50
48
45
40
37
36
34
34
32
31
29
28
24
24
23
22
19 19 19 18 17 16 15 14 12 10 9
10
5 11 17 21
14 12 18 18 13 22 12 19 15 17 17 16 21
10 10 14 20 12 24 13 12 16 21
14
7
12 16 13 17 18 21
23 15 30 16 22 17 18 21
21
30 16 12 16 25 14 28
20 17 20
26
0
20
40
60
80
100
LT
LV IE CY
MT
HU
EL
EE
BG SI
RO
CZ
PL
ES
PT
SK
EU
27
IT DE
NL
BE
UK
AT
SE
FR
LU FI
DK
Fl276 - Worse - Fl286
Fl276 - Better - Fl286
-8
+8
-1
+5
+1
-15
+2
+4
-2
-5
+4
-10
+8
-1
+2
-2
+5
-7
+3
-5
-6
-11
-3
+12
+2
+5
+4+2
+6
+9
+5+4+1
+2+3
+5
+4+5
+7
+4
-5-1
-2-3-2
-4-6
-1-3
-9
-1-5
-5-6
+0-2
Bet
ter
Wo
rse
Relationship between households’ financial situation in the past 12 months and in the near future
A cross-tabulation of the answers for Questions 7 and 9 showed whether respondents’ perceptions
about their households’ financial situation in the past 12 months corresponded to their expectations for
this in the near future. The results were cross-tabulated at individual (micro-) and country (macro-)
levels.
Comparing perceptions at the country level
It was noted above that the countries where citizens thought their household’s economic situation
would deteriorate were similar to the ones where respondents had experienced significant financial
problems. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the proportion of respondents who
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 31
stated that their household had run out of money to pay for essential goods and services during the 12
months prior to the survey, and the proportion who expected their household’s financial situation to
deteriorate during the 12 months following the survey, in each Member State, was 0.65 – a
moderately-strong correlation between the two variables at the country level.
The scatter plot below highlights a few outliers – i.e. countries where a high proportion of respondents
stated that they had had no money to pay day-to-day bills (prior to the survey) was combined with a
low proportion of respondents who anticipated a deterioration of their financial situation in the near
future (e.g. Romania) or where the opposite was observed (e.g. Ireland).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Yo
ur
ho
us
eh
old
ha
dr
un
ou
t o
f m
on
ey
to p
ay
o
rd
ina
ry
bil
ls i
n t
he
pa
st
12 m
on
ths
(%
)
Your household’s financial situation will deteriorate in the next 12 months (%)
DK
LVRO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
AT
PL
NL
MT
HU
LU
CY
IT
PT
IE
LT
FR
ES
ELEE
DE
CZ
BG
BEEU27
Correlation coefficient:rxy = .654
Relationship between past experiences and future expectations for households’ financial situation
Comparing perceptions at the individual level
The results for the current survey showed that respondents whose household had run out of money to
pay for essential goods and services in the year prior to the survey were more likely, than those who
had not been through such an experience, to state that they expected their household’s financial
situation to deteriorate (32% vs. 19%) in the year to come; however, they were also more likely to
expect an improvement in their household’s financial situation (27% vs. 19%).
Furthermore, comparing the results of December 2009 with those of July 2009, it was noted that
respondents who had experienced significant financial problems were the ones who were the most
likely to answer more optimistically in the current survey: the proportion who expected a deterioration
decreased by 10 percentage points from July to December 2009 (compared to -4 percentage points for
those who had not had such problems) and the proportion who anticipated a better financial situation
increased by 7 percentage points (vs. +4 percentage points for those who had not had such problems).
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 32
Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months... will it be?
42
23
34
60
20
15
5
3
Household had run out of money during the past 12 months
Household had not run out of money during the past 12 months
Fl276 (07/2009)
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items?
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household?
Base: all respondents, % EU27
32
19
37
59
27
19
4
3
Fl286 (12/2009)
Worse The same Better DK/NA
Socio-demographic considerations
Men were more optimistic than women regarding the evolution of their household’s financial situation
in the next 12 months: 24% anticipated a better financial situation, compared to 18% of women.
Women were somewhat more likely to expect their household’s financial situation to remain the same
(56% vs. 53% of men).
The younger the respondent, the more likely he or she was to anticipate a better financial situation for
their household in the next 12 months. While about a third (32%) of 15-24 year-olds expected an
improvement, the proportion of optimistic respondents decreased gradually to 10% among those aged
55 and over. On the other hand, the proportion of respondents who anticipated that their household’s
financial situation would get worse increased from 12% among 15-24 year-olds to 27% among over 54
year-olds.
Respondents with an average or a higher level of education were somewhat more liable, than those
with a low level of education, to expect an improvement in their household’s financial situation (21%
vs. 17%) and they were less likely to expect it to get worse (20%-22% vs. 28%). Those still in
education were the most optimistic of all (29% of them anticipated an improvement, and only 11%
thought it would get worse).
The self-employed were more apt, than those in other occupational groups, to expect a better
financial situation for their household in the next 12 months (29% vs. 19%-23%). Employees, in turn,
were the most likely to expect a stable financial situation (59% vs. 47%-54%). Finally, non-working
respondents and manual workers were somewhat more prone to anticipate that their household’s
financial situation would get worse (23% vs. 19%-20%).
Finally, city dwellers were more likely than those living in rural areas to expect their household’s
financial situation to become better in the 12 months following the study (23% vs. 18%); the latter
group were somewhat more liable to expect a stable situation (57% vs. 52%-54%).
For further details, see annex table 12b.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 33
5. Views about being able to cope financially
The survey also asked whether – in the next 12 months – there would be a risk of respondents falling
behind with various payments. Of the four types of payments under review, an unexpected expense of
€1,000 (or its equivalent in national currency) worried EU citizens the most: more than 6 in 10
respondents said there was at least a low risk of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of
€1,000 in the year to come.
More precisely, 25% of respondents perceived this risk as high; a further 20% considered it to be a
moderate risk and 17% thought there was a low risk of not being able to cope with an unforeseen
financial cost of €1,000 in the next year. About a third (34%) of EU citizens stated that there was no
risk at all in this regard.
More than 4 in 10 (45%) EU citizens envisaged at least some risk of falling behind with ordinary
payments (paying bills, buying food or other daily consumer items) in the next year. This risk was
seen as being moderate by 18% of respondents and as low by 21%; just 6% of respondents, however,
considered it to be a high risk. Moreover, a slim majority of EU citizens stated that they were not at all
concerned about their future ability to cope with day-to-day expenditures (“no risk at all”, 52%).
0
25
0
6
0
6
9
0
7
11
20
18
12
16
11
18
17
21
16
21
13
20
34
52
38
52
31
48
2
1
27
36
3
1
2
2
2
3
Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope financially over the next 12 months
23
7
6
8
7
10
20
17
12
16
12
18
17
20
14
19
13
19
35
52
41
55
34
50
3
2
26
32
3
2
2
2
2
3
all respondents
all respondents
all respondents
if it applies
all respondents
if it applies
High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk at all Not applicable DK/NA
Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of € 1,000
Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items
Paying your rent or mortgage on time
Repaying consumer loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture) on time
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…?
Base: all respondent, % EU27
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
When respondents were asked if there was a risk that they would be unable to pay their rent or
mortgage on time, 27% considered that the question was not relevant to their personal situation (i.e. they
had no rent or mortgage to pay). Additionally, more than a third (36%) of interviewees also felt that
the question about repaying consumer loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances or furniture) was
not relevant to their personal situation.
Focusing solely on respondents who did respond, a similar picture emerged as described above for
day-to-day expenditures. A slim majority (52%) said there was no risk at all that they would not be
able to pay their rent or mortgage on time in the year to come and 48% expressed such optimism about
their ability to repay consumer loans on time. Roughly 1 in 10 (9%) respondents said there was a high
risk of being unable to make their rent or mortgage payments on time over the next 12 months; a
further 16% considered it to be a moderate risk and 21% thought there was a low risk. Finally,
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 34
approximately half of respondents believed there was a high (11%), moderate (18%) or low risk (20%)
of not being able to repay consumer loans.
Country variations
More than 9 in 10 Latvians (92%) and more than 8 in 10 Portuguese residents (84%) said that there
would be at least a low risk of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 (or its
national equivalent) in the next 12 months. On the other hand, not more than a third of Danes and
Swedes expressed a concern about their ability to cope with such an expense (27% and 33%,
respectively).
Almost two-thirds of interviewees in Latvia (64%) and half of Bulgarian respondents (50%) felt that
there was a high risk of being unable to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 in the year to
come. Less than 1 in 10 respondents in Denmark (5%), the Netherlands (6%) and Luxembourg (7%)
thought the same; this is not surprising as a majority of Danes, Dutch and Luxembourgers thought that
there was no risk at all of not being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 in the next
year (72%, 60% and 51%, respectively). In Austria, Finland and Sweden, between 54% and 63% of
respondents stated that they envisaged no risk at all in this regard.
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months
64
44 4150 46 43 40
2330
2328
44
26 25 2229 29
22 25 2014
7 12 13 146
10 5
22
2826
1919 22
19
2625
21
29
15
23 24 2723 19
1720
2019
1415 8
12
11 98
6
1213 10
12 1214
22 1625
12 918 18 17 14
1523 17
1820
26 16 20 14
17 1414
514
14 12 1712 17 24 21 21
28
13
27 29 32 30 33 34 34 40 4551
54 5745 60 63 72
1 0 3 6 45 7
33 4
0
9
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 4 1
93 1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
PT
PL
BG
HU LT
EE
CZ
MT
SK
EL
RO IT SI
IE CY
ES
UK
EU
27
FR
DE
LU
AT FI
BE
NL
SE
DK
High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk at all Not applicable DK/NA
While almost three-quarters of citizens in Lithuania (74%) and Latvia (73%) thought that, in the year
to come, there would be at least a low risk of not being able to pay their bills, buy food or other
daily consumer items in the next 12 months, this proportion decreased to less than a quarter in
Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands (between 14% and 21%).
The proportion of those who saw no risk at all of not being able to day-to-day bills was as low as 22%
in Lithuania and 25% in Latvia and as high as 85% in Denmark. In the Netherlands, Finland and
Sweden, between 75% and 77% of respondents thought that there was no risk at all of having
difficulties in paying day-to-day bills in the year to come.
In all Member States, the proportion of respondents who thought there was a high risk of being unable
to pay day-to-day bills in the year to come was significantly smaller than the proportion thinking that
there would be a similar risk in their ability to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000. For
example, 30% of Maltese said that there was a high risk that they would be unable to cope with an
unexpected expense of €1,000, whereas the proportion thinking that about their ability to pay day-to-
day bills was 18%.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 35
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other
daily consumer items over the next 12 months
19 16 168 5
14 186
145 8 8 11
410 7 6 6 8 5 3 2 4 2 2 1 1 0
32 3427
17 26
26 21
26
24
26 24 24 19
21
2725
17 18 1918
12 12 118 6 4 5 4
23 2324
38 3020 20
26 1926 25 24 24
3017
1826 21 18
18
19 19 1719
13 16 1310
22 2529
31 35 32 3340 40 41 38 42 41 43 43 47 49 52 53 58
65 6655 66
75 77 77 85
1 0 1 3 22 5
1 1 1 31 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
95 3 2 2 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
LT
LV
BG
SK
HU
RO
MT
PL
CY
PT
EE IE IT CZ
EL SI
UK
EU
27
ES
FR
DE
LU
BE
AT
NL FI
SE
DK
High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk at all Not applicable DK/NA
The proportion of respondents who thought that the question about rent or mortgage payments was
not relevant to their personal situation ranged from 2%-3% in Sweden and Denmark to 70% in
Bulgaria. In a further two countries, Romania and Greece, more than half of interviewees did not
respond (58% and 52%, respectively).
Looking only at respondents who considered that this question was relevant, it was noted that Latvia
and Lithuania were again at the higher end of the distribution: 79% of Latvians and 71% of
Lithuanians said there was at least a low risk of being unable to make rent or mortgage payments on
time in the next 12 months. Nonetheless, Cypriots were the most likely to estimate that there was a
high risk that they would have difficulties in paying the rent or mortgage on time (30% – compared to
20% of Lithuanians and 23% of Latvians).
Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Dutch respondents – once again – were the least likely to consider that
there was at least some risk that they would have difficulties in paying the rent or mortgage on time in
the next year (between 16% and 25%) and they most frequently stated that they saw no risk at all in
this regard (between 74% and 84%).
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 36
Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months
208
167 11 8
146 6 3
917
6 9 10 7 3 310
2 28 3 2 1
6 1 1
33
16
22
2321
1816
2014
11
1511
1211 11
117
12
13
9 6
97 6
3
8
3 3
16
32
1824 21
21 1615
2023
12 816 13 9 11
19 146
15 174
11 1314
312 12
17
2418
29 3134
2421 20
43
23 18
38
16 18 22
60
44
18
42
60
13
48
70
53
7
79 81
1217
2215 14 18
2735 38
18
3942
27
49 4947
11
26
52
31
13
58
27
8
29
70
2 31 3 4 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 0 1 1 2 1
7 4 1 1 5 2 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
SK
LT
CZ
EE IE IT PT
HU
UK
ES
CY
EU
27
PL
MT SI
DE
FR
EL
LU
AT
RO
BE
NL FI
BG
SE
DK
High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk at all Not applicable DK/NA
Base: all respondents
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…?
% by country
23 209
1810 10 8
1930
1220 19 15
2110 13
209 4 4 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 1
38
28
20
22
2331
27
23
19
25
2722
24
27
2221
21
1614 16
13 8 79
4 6 4 3
18
23
3825
3223
2922
1424
1218 20
11
26 21 10
2128 19
2222
20 1520 14
13 12
2023 29 32 32 32 34 32 32 36 38 35 38
23
42 41
3152 53
60 61 67 70 66 74 7681 84
2 6 4 3 2 4 2 4 5 3 3 6 3
18
1 3
18
2 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 2 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
LT
SK
PL
HU PT
CZ IT CY
EE
EL
MT
ES
BG IE SI
RO
EU
27
UK
FR
LU
DE
AT
BE FI
NL
SE
DK
High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk at all DK/NA
Base: respondents who provided an answer
The proportion of “not applicable” responses to the question about repaying consumer loans (e.g.
loans to buy electrical appliances or furniture) varied from approximately a sixth in Ireland and
Luxembourg (16%-17%) to a majority in Greece and the Netherlands (both 51%), Portugal (54%),
Bulgaria and Finland (both 55%), Latvia (56%) and Hungary (62%).
Looking only at respondents who considered this question to be relevant, similarities could again be
seen: for example, 86% of Latvians, followed by 72% of Lithuanians, saw at least a low risk of being
unable to repay consumer loans on time over the next 12 months. However, such worries for the future
were expressed by less than a fifth of respondents in Sweden (15%) and Denmark (18%). Furthermore,
more than 7 in 10 respondents in Denmark (80%), Sweden (78%), the Netherlands and Finland (both
71%) saw no risk at all that they would be unable to cope with repayments of consumer loans in the
year to come.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 37
Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months
9
2314
5 10 10 11 16 14 13 11 8 122
7 5 9 10 8 5 3 3 2 5 1 1 1 0
16
14
18
1919 19
1214 15 16 15
1514
1211
912 10 12
107 8
5 53 2 2 3
2612
1720 16 14
17 9 8 9 11 12 719 13 18
9 9 810 15 10 14 10
7 9 8 8
20 25 2825
38
20 23
916
6
25 28
15
50
3138
1612 15
12
45
28
4235
35 32
5948
2723 18 28
16
35 33
47 39 56
36 35
51
17
3630
50 55 5462
30
50
3540
51 55
2540
4 2 5 2 1 2 3 6 71 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 4 2 2 0 1 1 5 2 1 5 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
SK
CY IT CZ IE PL
EE
LT
RO
LV
ES SI
EL
LU
EU
27
UK
MT
BG
PT
HU
DE
FR
AT
BE
NL FI
SE
DK
High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk at all Not applicable DK/NA
Base: all respondents
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or no risk at all of falling behind with…?
% by country
30 30
12 1624 23
12
30
717
2316 18 17 17 12 12 11 6 6 2 4 7 3 1 3 0 1
3626
21
29
2822
26
19
27
2725
1825
22 2423 22
1813 17
15 109
84 7
5 3
20
16
3522
1521
2716
2818 13
2617
21 1719 19
2025 20
2321 17
2121 15
13 11
13
17 27 30 3026 31 33 35 33
2734 32 35 39 44 45
48 53 56 60 6458 65
71 71 8078
211
5 2 3 8 4 3 3 512
5 8 6 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 08
2 3 5 2 7
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
LT
SK
PL
EL
BG
HU
CY
CZ
PT
RO
EE
MT IT ES SI
IE
EU
27
UK
FR
LU
DE
BE
AT FI
NL
DK
SE
High risk Moderate risk Low risk No risk at all DK/NA
Base: respondents who provided an answer
EU citizens’ perceptions about being able to cope financially – a comparison between July and
December 2009
Based on individual country results – both in July 2009 and December 2009 – regarding EU citizens’
perceptions about the risk of falling behind with various payments, a few conclusions can be drawn:
The country rankings showed similarities between the two surveys. For example, in July 2009 and
in December 2009, citizens in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands were among the least likely
to feel that they would be at risk of falling behind with various payments in the next 12 months.
Similarly, in both waves, Latvia, Lithuania and Bulgaria were consistently found among the
Member States where respondents were the most likely to feel they were at risk of falling behind
with such payments.
The most noticeable changes in country breakdowns were found when looking at the results for
Portugal and Luxembourg. In Portugal, the proportion of respondents who thought there would be
at least a low risk of falling behind with payments decreased significantly for three of the four
types of payments: -7 percentage points for paying ordinary bills, -11 points for rent or mortgage
payments and -15 points for repaying consumer loans (note: among respondents who did
respond). In Luxembourg, however, the opposite tendency was observed; the proportion of
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 38
Luxembourgers who said that there would be at least a low risk of falling behind with payments
increased by at least seven percentage points for all four types of payments.
Socio-demographic considerations
Paying ordinary bills, buying food or other daily consumer items were reasons for anxiety for
manual workers – 56% of them stated that in the next 12 months they envisaged at least a low risk of
falling behind with these kinds of payments, compared to 42%-46% of employees, the self-employed
and non-working respondents. Half of those respondents with an average or low level of education
shared the same opinion, compared to 37% of the most educated interviewees and 42% of full-time
students. A slim majority (52%) of 25-39 year-olds, 49% of 40-54 year-olds and 46% of 15-24 year-
olds were worried about falling behind with such payments, compared to 39% of the oldest
respondents (over 54).
Coping with an unexpected expense of €1,000 (or its national equivalent) in the next 12 months
would involve at least a low risk for more than 7 in 10 manual workers (72% vs. 58%-63% in other
occupational categories), as well as 64% of full-time students and 65% of respondents with an average
or low level of education (vs. 53% of the most educated). Finally, 15-39 year-olds were also somewhat
more likely than their older counterparts to share this view (67%-69% vs. 62% of 40-54 year-olds and
54% of the over 54s).
The over 54 year-olds, non-working respondents and those with a low level of education were more
likely to state that the questions about rental or mortgage payments and the repayment of
consumer loans were not relevant to them. For example, while 40% of respondents with the lowest
level of education considered the question about rent or mortgage payments to be “non-applicable”,
this proportion fell to 22% for respondents with the highest level of education. Nonetheless, when
controlling for differences in the level of “non-applicable” responses, a similar pattern of differences
appeared once more. Manual workers, respondents with a low level of education and 15-39 year-olds
were more likely than their counterparts to consider that in the year to come they would be at risk of
falling behind with rental or mortgage payments and to believe that repayment of any consumer loans
could be at risk during that period.
Gender and place of residence appeared to have a smaller impact on respondents’ views about being
able to cope financially in the next 12 months. Nonetheless, women were each time somewhat more
likely than men to consider that in the year to come they would be at risk of falling behind with
various payments (for example, 48% of women, compared to 44% of men, said there was at least a
low risk of falling behind with day-to-day bills). No consistent pattern of differences emerged when
looking at the respondents’ place of residence.
For further details, see annex table 13b, 14b, 15b and 16b.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 39
6. Future affordability of accommodation
As in the previous wave of this trend survey, 2% of EU citizens said that it was very likely that they
might be forced by financial circumstances to leave their accommodation within the next 12 months,
while 4% saw this as being fairly likely.
The majority of EU citizens felt that they would have no problem in paying for their accommodation
during the next 12 months: 16% said that it was fairly unlikely that they would have to leave their
accommodation in the near future for financial reasons and 76% estimated that this would be very
unlikely.
Likelihood that respondents would have to leave their accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in the next 12 months
2 4
16
75
3
Very likely
Fairly likely
Fairly unlikely
Very unlikely
DK/NA
Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12 months because you can no longer afford it?
Base: all respondents, % EU27
2 4
16
76
2
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
At the country level, in July 2009, 20% of Latvians estimated it to be very or fairly likely that they
would need to leave their current home in the 12 months following the survey, as it would be
unaffordable. In December 2009, Latvia was again at the top of the country rankings; the proportion
selecting this response, however, decreased to 14% (-6 percentage points). In a further three Member
States, about 1 in 10 respondents considered it likely that they would have problems meeting the costs
of their accommodation: Spain, Greece and Italy (9%-11%).
On the other hand, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania, Austria and Finland were the Member States
that had the most citizens who thought that it would be very unlikely that they would not be able to
afford their accommodation throughout the 12 months following the survey (between 86% and 88%) –
in comparison, in Latvia and Lithuania, just a slim majority of respondents selected this response (51%
and 54%, respectively).
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 40
Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12 months because you can no longer afford it?
Base: all respondents, % by country
Likelihood that respondents would have to leave their accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in the next 12 months
14 11 9 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
30
13 12 2034
13 21 2418
10 16 17 249
16 19 18 2213 8 5
2112 14 9 10 10 13
51
72 78 7154
7670 66 75
84 76 7570
8378 76 76 71
8183 86
7583
6488 87 86 86
4 4 1 1 5 3 3 4 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 1 2 3 2 6 5 1 320
1 1 2 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV IT EL
ES
LT
BE
PT
EE SI
CY
EU
27
PL
CZ
BG
HU
UK IE SK
SE
MT
RO
DE
FR
LU FI
AT
NL
DK
Very likely/Fairly likely Fairly unlikely Very unlikely DK/NA
In most Member States, a very small (insignificant) increase or decrease was observed in the July 2009
and December 2009 results. There were, however, a few exceptions. As noted above, the proportion of
Latvians who rated it as being fairly or very likely that they would encounter problems meeting the
costs of their accommodation in the future decreased by 6 percentage points – from 20% in July 2009
to 14% in the current wave. The opposite tendency was observed when looking at the results for Italy:
in July, 90% of Italian residents said that it was very or fairly unlikely that they would have to leave
their accommodation for financial reasons; in the current survey, however, this dropped to 85% (-5
percentage points).
Socio-demographic considerations
In the socio-demographic breakdowns, there were hardly any differences in perceptions about the
affordability of accommodation; across all socio-demographic groups, 3%-8% of respondents said that
it was fairly or very likely that they would not be able to afford their current accommodation in the 12
months following the survey.
However, looking at the proportion of respondents who said it was very unlikely that they would not be
able to afford their accommodation in the near future, large variations were seen across socio-
demographic groups. While roughly 8 in 10 of over 54 year-olds, the self-employed and the most
educated respondents (80%-81%) felt that they would have no problems at all in meeting the costs of
their accommodation, this proportion dropped to 72% for 25-39 year-olds and 69% for manual
workers.
For further details, see annex table 17b.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 41
7. Views on the employment situation
Respondents in employment5 were asked how they felt about their chances of keeping their current job
or of finding a new position in case they were laid off. While 76% of these respondents were very or
fairly confident that they would be able to keep their job in the next 12 months, just 45% thought it
would be very or fairly likely that they would be able to find a new position within six months, in the
event that they were laid off.
7.1 Respondents’ confidence in the ability to keep their job
More than three-quarters of EU citizens in employment were optimistic about their job situation in the
near future: 46% were very confident that that they would not lose their job in the next 12 months, and
a further 31% were fairly confident. About one in six interviewees – in total – were either not very
(11%) or not at all confident (6%) that they would stay in their job in that timeframe.
Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months
6
12
33
43
6
Not at all confident
Not very confident
Fairly confident
Very confident
DK/NA
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months?Base: respondents with a professional activity, % EU27
6
11
31
46
5
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
Country variations
As in the previous wave of the survey, citizens of the Baltic states were the most pessimistic about
their ability to keep their current job in the next 12 months. More than 4 in 10 Lithuanians, Latvians
and Estonians (between 41% and 48%) were not confident that they would be able to keep their
current job in that timeframe. About a fifth of Lithuanians (19%) and slightly more than a tenth of
Latvians and Estonians (11%-12%) were not at all confident in this respect.
In comparison, less than 1 in 10 Finnish (6%), Austrian, Dutch, Danish and German (all 8%) residents
in employment were concerned about keeping their job. Moreover, about two-thirds of Austrians and
Germans (both 65%) and over half of Finnish (59%), Danish (57%), Dutch (56%), Swedish (55%) and
Luxembourgish (51%) respondents were very confident about their ability to keep their job in the
following 12 months.
The following map shows that pessimism about the ability of respondents to keep their current job in
the next 12 months was the highest in the Baltic states (as stated above), followed by some other
eastern and southern European countries (e.g. Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal and Poland). Interviewees in
northern and central European countries (e.g. Denmark, the UK and Germany) showed a lower level of
pessimism.
5 Respondents without a professional activity, i.e. full-time students, respondents looking after a home, retirees
and those looking for work were not asked the question.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 42
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months?Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months
1911 12 6 13 11 7 11 5 7 9 5 5 7 7 10 6 3 5 8 6 3 3 3 3 3 2 4
2933 29
29 2118 22 13
18 15 12 15 15 12 11 8 11 14 10 7 5 7 7 5 5 5 6 2
28 3633 41 38
3441
34 43
26 28 29 3530 31 31 31
42 3830 30 34 33
2432 26 19
30
1616
20 18 2334 24
4031
42 42 4439 47 50 45 46
3840
44 55 48 51 6557
56 6559
8 3 6 5 4 4 6 2 3 10 10 7 6 5 2 6 5 4 7 124 8 7 3 4 10 9 4
0
20
40
60
80
100L
T
LV
EE
SK
BG
ES
PL
EL
PT
RO
CY
HU IE IT FR
MT
EU
27
CZ SI
BE
SE
UK
LU
DE
DK
NL
AT FI
Not at all confident Not very confident Fairly confident Very confident DK/NA
Note: not confident = “not at all confident” + “not very confident”
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 43
EU citizens’ confidence in the ability to keep their job – a comparison between July and December
2009
In Italy, the proportion of respondents who were not very or not at all confident that that they would
keep their job in the next 12 months increased by six percentage points (19% in December 2009
compared to 13% in July 2009), while in Latvia, Slovenia, Romania, Germany and Finland, this
proportion dropped. Latvia saw the greatest reduction in pessimism: in July 2009, 54% of Latvians
were not very or not at all confident they would stay in their job in the next 12 months, while in
December, 44% lacked such confidence (-10 percentage points).
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months?Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 monthsComparison between waves
49
54
43
33
33
29
26
21
25
26
18 21
19 13 20
21
18 16 21
15 10 10 8 13 7 8 6 1148
44
41
36
35
29
29
24
23
22
21
20
20
19 18 18 17 16 15 14 11 10 9 8 8 7 7 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
LT
LV
EE
SK
BG
ES
PL
EL
PT
RO
CY
HU IE IT FR
MT
EU
27
CZ SI
BE
SE
UK
LU
DE
DK
NL
AT FI
Fl276 - % not confident = “not very confident” + “not at all confident”
Fl286
-2
-1
+3+0
+2+3
-10-1
-2+6
+1+3-4+2+3
+1-1
-6+0-1
-3
+1-1+1-5
+1+0-5
Links between households’ financial problems and respondents’ confidence in their ability to keep
their job
The following chart illustrates that respondents who had been unable to pay essential bills in the past
year were also the ones who were the most pessimistic about their ability to keep their current job in
the next 12 months: 30% of those who had had financial difficulties were not very or not at all
confident about this – compared to 14% of those who had not had such an experience.
Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months
12
4
18
10
29
32
32
50
9
4
Household had run out of money during the past 12 months
Household had not run out of money during the past 12 months
Not at all confident Not very confident Fairly confident
Very confident DK/NA
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items?
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months?
Base: all respondents, % EU27
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 44
Socio-demographic considerations
The survey results suggest a direct relationship between a respondent’s level of education and their
level of confidence in being able to keep their current job: the more educated the respondents were, the
more confident they were that they would not be laid off during the next 12 months. For example, the
proportion of those very confident that they would keep their job ranged from 42% of those with the
lowest level of education to 52% among the most educated. In addition, the proportion of those not
very or not at all confident in this respect varied from 21% to 13%, respectively, in these two groups.
Among occupational groups, manual workers were almost twice as likely as respondents in other
groups to lack confidence about their job situation in the next 12 months. Roughly 1 in 10 (9%)
manual workers were not at all confident that they could keep their job during this period, and a fifth
were not very confident, compared to proportions of only 5% “not at all confident” and 10%-11% “not
very confident” recorded among employees and the self-employed. In addition, only 35% of manual
workers were very sure they would keep their job, while half of employees and the self-employed
expressed this high level of confidence (50%-51%).
Gender, age and place of residence appeared to have a minor impact on respondents’ level of
confidence in their ability to keep their job in the next 12 months. For example, although the youngest
(under 25) and oldest respondents (over 54) were less likely than 25-54 year-olds to feel confident that
they would not be laid off during the next 12 months (74% vs. 78%-80%), only small differences were
observed in the proportion of “not very confident” and “not at all confident” respondents across age
groups (15%-18% across all age groups).
For further details, see annex table 18b.
7.2 Confidence in finding a job in the event of being laid off
Respondents in employment6 were asked to rate – on a scale from 1 to 10 – how they estimated their
chances of finding a new job within six months in the (hypothetical) event that they were laid off. To
make the responses as accessible as possible, answers (i.e. the grades on the scale) were grouped (see
following chart).
EU citizens’ views were varied as to the likelihood that they would find a new position in case they
were laid off: 45% thought that it would be very or fairly likely that they would find a new job within
six months (from “6” to “10” on the scale), while 48% estimated that this would be fairly unlikely or
not at all likely to happen (from “1” to “5” on the scale).
There were also comparable proportions feeling either very pessimistic (”1” or “2” on the scale – “not
at all likely”) or very optimistic (“9” or “10” on the scale – “very likely”) about the likelihood that
they would find a new job within six months of a potential lay-off (20% vs. 19%). In July 2009, the
proportion of “not at all likely” responses was somewhat higher than the proportion of “very likely”
responses (21% vs. 17%).
6 Please note that, as with the previous question, respondents without a professional activity (i.e. those in charge
of a household, full-time students, retirees and those looking for work) were excluded from this part of the
survey.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 45
Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months (after being laid off)
21
2826
17
8
Not at all likely (01-02)
Fairly unlikely (03-05)
Fairly likely (06-08)
Very likely (09-10)
DK/NA
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? ”1” means that it ”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”.
Base: respondents with a professional activity, % EU27
20
28
26
19
7
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
Country variations
In 16 Member States, the proportion of respondents who thought that it would be fairly unlikely or not
at all likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off (”1” to “5” on the scale)
was higher than the proportion who estimated that this would be very or fairly likely (“6” to “10” on
the scale). For example, 34% of Greeks thought that it would be very or fairly likely that they would
find a new job within six months of being laid off, while 59% estimated that this would be fairly
unlikely or not at all likely.
The most pessimistic respondents were Italian, Maltese, Lithuanian, Spanish, Irish, Portuguese and
Latvian citizens: 62%-66% of them felt that it would not be at all likely or fairly unlikely (“1” to “5”
on the scale) that they would find a new job within six months of a potential lay-off. Moreover, in
Italy, Spain, Latvia and Ireland, at least 3 in 10 respondents were extremely pessimistic about their
chances of finding a new job (“1” or “2” on the scale – between 30% and 34%).
Danish citizens were the least pessimistic: just 9% felt that it would not be at all likely that they would
find a new job within six months of being laid off and 18% considered it fairly unlikely. Denmark,
together with Austria, had the highest proportions of citizens who were very optimistic about their job
prospects in the event of being laid off: 35% of Danes and 34% of Austrians were almost sure that they
would find a new job within six months (“9” or “10” on the scale).
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next sixmonths? ”1” means that it ”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”.
Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months
(after being laid off)
3122
34 30 28 26 3022 24 29 26 26
15 17 17 20 1728
12 16 19 15 16 15 13 13 13 9
3542
29 33 34 35 3237 35 30 29 28
35 32 32 28 3020
34 29 2623 21 19 20 20 17 18
19 22 20 26 21 20 19 19 20 2020 23 23 26 25 26 26 22 28 25 27
32 28 34 3221
3732
10 11 118
11 15 10 17 14 14 19 13 18 19 19 19 2219
19 25 24 21 2527
17 3424 35
5 4 7 4 6 4 10 5 8 8 6 11 9 6 7 7 512 7 5 5 10 10 4
18 11 10 6
0
20
40
60
80
100
LV
PT IE ES
LT
MT IT BG
EE
EL
HU
CY
LU
FR
SK
EU
27 SI
RO PL
CZ
DE
UK
SE FI
BE
AT
NL
DK
Not at all likely (01-02) Fairly unlikely (03-05) Fairly likely (06-08) Very likely (09-10) DK/NA
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 46
The table and the map show the average score for respondents’ estimated chances of finding a new job
within six months of being laid off – for the EU overall and for each country. Respondents’ confidence
in finding a job in the event of being laid off was the highest in Denmark (average score of 7.2),
Austria (6.8), the Netherlands and Finland (both 6.4).
A detailed look at the countries where respondents had the lowest confidence that they would find a
job in the event of being laid off showed that this map is somewhat out of step with the others in this
report. It shows that respondents in all of the eastern European countries (with the exception of those
in the Baltic states) had more confidence in their ability to find another job in the next six months – if
they needed to – than interviewees in Member States such as Ireland (average score of 4.2), Spain
(4.4), Italy (4.5) and Greece (4.7).
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 47
EU citizens’ confidence in finding a new job (if they were laid off) – a comparison between July and
December 2009
At the EU level, very small differences were observed between July 2009 and December 2009 in the
proportions of citizens feeling either very pessimistic (“not at all likely”: 21% vs. 20%) or very
optimistic (“very likely”: 17% vs. 19%) about their likelihood of finding a new job within six months
in the event that they were laid off. Similarly, in most Member States, a very small (insignificant)
increase or decrease was observed between the July 2009 and December 2009 results.
There were, however, a few exceptions; for example, France saw a decrease of five percentage points
in the proportion of interviewees who thought that it would be not at all likely that they would find a
new job within six months in the event that they were laid off (from 22% in July to 17% in December
2009) and an increase of 10 percentage points in the proportion that thought they would be very likely
to find employment if that happened (from 9% to 19%). In Portugal, the proportion of “not at all
likely” responses dropped from 30% in July 2009 to 22% in December 2009 (-8 percentage points);
the proportion of “very likely” responses, however, remained more or less the same.
The opposite tendency was observed when looking at the results for Malta and Latvia: in July 2009,
19% of Maltese and 26% of Latvian respondents thought that it would not be at all likely that they
would find a new job within six months of being laid off; the corresponding proportions in the current
survey were 26% for Malta (+7 percentage points) and 31% for Latvia (+5 percentage points).
Although the proportion of “not at all likely” remained the same in Cyprus, Poland, Bulgaria and
Hungary, these countries did see a decrease in the proportion of “very likely” responses (between -5
and -7 percentage points).
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? ”1” means that it ”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”.
Base: respondents with a professional activity, % by country
Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months(after being laid off)Comparison between waves
36
26
32
33
31
25
26
27
26
19 25
22
30
21
19 22
21
14 13 13 17 14 17 13 10 16 11 834
31
30
30
29
28
28
26
26
26
24
22
22
20
19 17 17 17 16 16 15 15 15 13 13 13 12 9
7 11 11 7 13 7
20 18 26 17 12 23 12 17 22 9
23
20
28
24 16 29 18 19 26 31
24
3911 10 8 10 14 11 19 13 19 15 14 17 11 19 24 19 22 19 25
25
18 27
21
17 24
34 19 35
0
20
40
60
80
100
IE LV
ES IT EL
LT
RO
CY
HU
MT
EE
BG
PT
EU
27
DE
FR SI
SK
CZ
SE
LU FI
UK
BE
NL
AT
PL
DK
Fl276 - Not al all likely (01-02) - Fl286
Fl276 - Very likely (09-10) - Fl286
+1
-3
+3
-2
-3
+5
-1+4
-2
+0
-6
-1
-2
+7
-2
+0
-7
-1
-5
+2
-1
+3
+4
-2
+3
-2
+2+1
-3
-1-1
+10+2
+2
-1
-4
-5
+3
-2
-2
+1-2+3+3+3-4
-5+0-1
-8
+1+1
-3+3
+0-2
Ver
y l
ikel
yN
ot
at
all
lik
ely
The links between households’ financial problems and respondents’ confidence in finding a new job
In accordance with the results for respondents’ confidence in their ability to keep their job, those who
had been unable to pay essential bills in the past year were the most likely to think that it would be not
at all likely that they would find a new job within six months of being laid off (“1” or “2” on the scale
– 28%) and a similar proportion estimated that this would be fairly unlikely (“3” to “5” on the scale –
28%). The corresponding proportions for respondents who had not had difficulties in paying bills were
18% and 28%, respectively.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 48
Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months (after being laid off)
28
18
28
28
20
28
16
19
8
7
Household had run out of money during the past 12 months
Household had not run out of money during the past 12 months
Not at all likely (01-02) Fairly unlikely (03-05)
Fairly likely (06-08) Very likely (09-10)
DK/NA
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items?
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding a job in the next six months? ”1” means that it
”would not at all be likely” and 10 means that ”it would be very likely”. Base: all respondents, % EU27
Socio-demographic considerations
A focus on the socio-demographic breakdown of the results shows that women were less confident
than men that they would find a new job within six months if they were laid off (for example, “not at
all likely” – “1” or “2” on the scale: 22% vs. 18% of men; “very likely” – “9” or “10” on the scale:
16% vs. 20% of men).
The interviewees’ level of optimism regarding their chances of finding a new job largely decreased
with age – this was one of the biggest disparities observed among the various socio-demographic
groups. While slightly more than 1 in 10 respondents who were younger than 40 thought it was not at
all likely they would find a new job (“1” or “2” on the scale – 11%-12%), 21% of 40-54 year-olds and
43% of those aged over 54 were just as pessimistic. The overall proportion of those feeling rather
pessimistic (from “1” to “5” on the scale) increased progressively from 39%-40% for younger
respondents to 52%-63% for the older ones.
A considerable discrepancy was also observed between groups based on the level of education.
Generally, the lower the respondents’ educational achievements, the more pessimistic they were about
their likelihood of finding a new job within six months if they were laid off. While just 15% of
respondents with the highest level of education felt they had almost no chance of finding a new job in
such circumstances (“1” or “2” on the scale – “not at all likely”), the proportion of those being very
pessimistic among those with the lowest level of education was more than twice as high (34%).
Regarding variations based on occupational status, manual workers and the self-employed were more
likely than employees to anticipate that it was not at all likely they would be able to find a new job if
they were laid off (“1” or “2” on the scale – 23% vs. 18%). However, when looking at the overall
proportion of those feeling rather pessimistic (from “1” to “5” on the scale), just 43% of the self-
employed felt that way compared to 48% of employees and 56% of manual workers.
Finally, respondents living in metropolitan areas were less pessimistic than their counterparts in other
town/urban centres and rural areas. For example, 16% of the former believed that it was not at all likely
they would find a new job within six months of being laid off (“1” or “2” on the scale), compared to 20%
of those living in other town/urban centres and 21% of those living in rural areas.
For further details, see annex table 19b.
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 49
8. Concerns about future finances
When asked about the financial outlook for their old age, in terms of the impact on their future pension
entitlements, over two-thirds of EU citizens either explicitly anticipated lower pension benefits or
believed that they would have to save more money for when they reached old age or postpone their
retirement. Furthermore, asked about their (anticipated) income in old age, half of EU citizens were
very or fairly worried that it would not be sufficient to enable them to lead a dignified life.
8.1 The impact of changes in pension entitlements
Turning to EU citizens’ views about how their pension entitlements might change in the future, a quarter
of interviewees thought that they would have to save more for when they retired. A further one in four
(24%) thought that they would receive lower pension benefits than expected, while about one in five
(19%) said that they would have to retire later than planned.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, slightly more than 1 in 10 (12%) respondents believed that their
pension entitlements would not be affected by economic and financial events. Less than a tenth (8%)
gave other answers than they were presented with and 12% could not (or did not want to) say what the
outcome might be.
26
25
19
11
9
10
You will have to save more for when you are retired
You will receive lower pension benefits than what you expected
You will have to retire later than you had planned to
Your pension will not be affected by economic and financial events
Other
DK/NA
Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future?Base: all respondents, % EU27
Respondents’ feelings about the impact of the crisis on their future pension entitlements
25
24
19
12
8
12
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
Across all Member States (with the exception of Denmark), at least half of respondents either
explicitly anticipated lower pension benefits or believed that they would have to save more money for
when they reached old age or postpone their retirement. The proportion of interviewees who thought
that economic and financial events would not affect their pension remained below 20% in almost
all Member States, ranging from 5% in Lithuania and Latvia to 19% in Cyprus and 21% in Finland. In
Denmark, on the other hand, 38% of interviewees anticipated an “economic crisis-safe” pension.
In roughly a third of EU Member States, a relative majority of respondents expected that they would
have to save more for their retirement. Respondents in the Czech Republic (41%; +4 percentage points
compared to July 2009), Slovakia (35%, +7) and Belgium (32%) were the most likely to select this
response.
In another third of Member States, a relative majority demonstrated a less proactive attitude by mentioning
that they would receive lower pension benefits than expected – namely in Germany (37%), Latvia
(36%), Lithuania (35%; +6 percentage points compared to July 2009), Sweden (33%), Greece (29%),
Hungary (28%) and Poland (27%).
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 50
In Ireland, Malta, Spain, Cyprus and Finland, similar proportions either anticipated that they would
have to save more for their retirement or thought they would receive lower pension benefits (for
example, Ireland: 28% and 27%, respectively).
Relative majorities of French (30%), Austrian (26%; +5 percentage points compared to July 2009),
British (25%) and Dutch (24%, +7 percentage points compared to July 2009) citizens considered that
they would have to retire later than originally planned. In the UK, however, almost the same
proportion said that they would have to save more for their retirement (24%).
Finally, relative majorities of Romanians (29%), Luxembourgers (25%), Bulgarians (23%), Estonians
and Italians (both 21%) were unable to present a clear answer regarding their future pension
situation (or did not want to answer the question). In Italy, the percentage of respondents who did not
answer was almost the same as the proportion who anticipated that they would have to save more for
their retirement (20%, -5 percentage points compared to July 2009).
Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future?Base: all respondents, % by country
Respondents’ feelings about the impact of the crisis on future pension entitlements
30 26 25 3041
28 24 2112
3225 24 20 23 24
3526 24 20
28 25 23 19 20 1522 21 21
37
2235 23
17
2722 28
36
16 24 25 2933
18
1625 27
2017 24 22
19 1820
2011 15
16
3016
21 17 1926 22 22 21 19 20 18
12
2515 15 15
24 18 1212
19 1817
818 10
911
5 7 9 11 126 5 10 12 9 8
17 17 14 1811 16
619 21
136 11 13 16
38
44
6 611 3 7
13 14 9 8 10 175 2 8
68
1023 6 10
1017 14 8 10
8
3 7 13 115 11 9 11 12 12 12 13 7 10 13 12 9
169 8
14 1321 21 23 29 25
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
DE
FR
LT SI
CZ IE AT
HU
LV
BE
EU
27
MT
EL
SE
UK
SK
ES
PL
NL
PT
CY FI
EE IT BG
RO
LU
DK
You will have to save more for when you are retiredYou will receive lower pension benefits than what you expectedYou will have to retire later than you had planned toYour pension will not be affected by economic and financial eventsOtherDK/NA
Socio-demographic considerations
Given that it could be expected that those already retired or close to retirement would, in general, hold
rather different views on their future financial situation compared to younger people, results were
analysed separately for respondents who had retired and those who had not. Furthermore, as most of
EU citizens retire by the age of 65, results were also analysed separately for 55-64 year-olds and those
aged 65 and over.
The oldest respondents were the most confident that their pension would not be affected by economic
and financial events. Just over a fifth of those aged 65 and over (22%) and rather fewer of those aged
55 to 64 (17%) held this view, compared to 7%-8% of 15-54 year-olds. Roughly a quarter (23%) of
respondents likely to have already retired (aged 65+) expected lower pension benefits, and this
proportion was somewhat lower among 15-39 year-olds (17%-19%). However, respondents getting
closer to retirement age (aged 45-64) were the most likely to expect lower pension benefits (30%-
34%).
Younger respondents were feeling that they would either have to save more money for old age or
postpone their retirement. Few respondents aged 65 and over mentioned that they would have to retire
later than planned – namely 4% of them vs. 26% of younger respondents (below 40). In addition, those
aged 65 and over less frequently mentioned that they would need to save more for their retirement – only
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 51
12% of those aged 65 and over and 18% of 55-64 year-olds shared this opinion, compared to 25% of 40-
54 year-olds, 37% of 25-39 year-olds and 33% of 15-24 year-olds.
Focusing on respondents’ occupation, it should be mentioned that the distribution of answers for
retirees was the same as the one found for those aged 65 and over – this was as expected, given the
large overlap between the two groups. Focusing on those respondents who had not yet retired, it was
noted that those without a professional activity (e.g. unemployed respondents, students) were the least
likely to consider postponing their retirement or to anticipate lower pension benefits (19% and 21%,
respectively); manual workers and employees, however, were the most likely to expect these outcomes
(25%-29%).
As regards the variation of results by respondents’ educational achievements, those with the lowest
level of education less frequently commented that they would have to postpone their retirement (12%
vs. 20%-22% of the more educated) and that they would need to accumulate more savings for old age
(18% vs. 26%-28%). At the same time, they were slightly more confident than others that their
pension would not be affected by economic and financial events (15% vs. 10%-12%). Respondents
still in education were more “proactive” than others, as about a third of them thought of saving more
for when they retired (32% vs. 18%-29% of those who were no longer in education), and somewhat
less “passive”, that is, 18% simply anticipated lower pension benefits, vs. 24%-25% of those who were
no longer in education.
For further details, see annex table 9b.
8.2 Concerns regarding income in old age
Respondents were asked to rate – on a scale from “1” to “10” – how concerned they were, if at all, that
their income in old age would not be adequate enough to enable them to live a dignified life. For ease
of analysis, the answers were grouped as shown in the chart below.
Roughly one-fifth of EU citizens were very worried about the chances that their income in old age would
not be sufficient to allow them to live in dignity (19% mentioned “9” or “10” on the scale), and about
one-third were fairly worried by such an outlook (32% opted for a number between “6” and “8”).
Conversely, about 3 in 10 EU citizens were not very worried that they would lack a decent income in old
age (from “3” to “5”, 31%), and 15% were not worried at all (“1” or “2”).
Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity
18
3231
15
3
Very worried (09-10)
Fairly worried (06-08)
Not very worried (03-05)
Not worried at all (01-02)
DK/NA
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘Not worried at all’ and 10 means ‘Very worried’.
Base: all respondents, % EU27
19
3231
15
2
Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 52
Respondents in Italy and Portugal were the most likely to be very or fairly worried that their income in
old age would not be adequate to enable them to live in dignity (71% and 66%, respectively, indicated
from “6” to “10” on the scale). In 13 other Member States, at least half of respondents had rather
negative expectations regarding their income in old age (ranging from 51% in Slovakia to 64% in
Latvia).
Just considering those respondents who were very worried that their income in old age would not
support a dignified life (i.e. who indicated “9” or “10” on the scale), the largest proportions of these
extremely pessimistic citizens were seen in Latvia and Hungary (both 40%), Romania (38%) and
Bulgaria (36%).
On the other hand, in six Member States at least 6 in 10 citizens were not particularly worried that
their income in old age would be insufficient for them to live a decent life (from “1” to “5” on the
scale). The most optimistic were the Danes, with a large majority of 83% of citizens who expected an
income in old age that would make it possible for them to live in dignity. Next came the Swedes
(77%), Dutch and Luxembourgers (both 69%), Austrians (66%) and Finns (60%).
A focus on “extreme” views – this time those not at all worried about their income in old age
(answering “1” or “2”) – showed that almost half of respondents in Denmark (47%) held this opinion.
Other countries with a large proportion of extremely optimistic citizens were Sweden (38%) and the
Netherlands (34%).
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘Not worried at all’ and 10 means ‘Very worried’.
Base: all respondents, % by country
Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity
28 3240 40 34 28
36 3828 24 25 22 20 23 19 20 12
2313 12 14 12 7 7 5 4 5 3
43 34 24 23 29 3325 22
3232 29 31 32 28 32 31
3725
33 34 31 3227 23 23 25 16
12
19 2620 26 24 27 21 25 26
26 30 30 2836 31 32 36
31 36 32 36 37
34 42 41 3539
36
9 613 10 9 9
10 7 11 13 12 15 1510 15 13
1316
1613
18 1726 24 28 34 38
47
2 3 3 2 5 2 8 7 3 6 4 1 4 2 2 6 1 5 110
1 2 5 3 3 2 2 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
IT PT
LV
HU LT
EL
BG
RO PL
MT
CZ
ES
CY SI
EU
27
SK
FR
EE IE BE
UK
DE FI
AT
LU
NL
SE
DK
Very worried (09-10) Fairly worried (06-08) Not very worried (03-05) Not worried at all (01-02) DK/NA
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 53
The table next to the map shows the average rankings about respondents’ levels of concern about their
income in old age – for the EU overall and for each country. In terms of individual countries, it was
noted that respondents’ concern about their income in old age was lower in Denmark (average score
3.2), Sweden (3.8), the Netherlands (4.0), Luxembourg (4.3), Finland and Austria (both 4.6). One can
also see that respondents’ concerns were higher in eastern and southern European countries: for
example, Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria and Hungary had an average score of 7.0.
Analytical Report Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 54
EU citizens’ concerns about their income in old age – a comparison between July and December 2009
The following chart shows, for each country, the proportion of respondents who were very or fairly
worried that their income in old age would not allow them to live in dignity (“6” to “10” on the scale).
In most Member States, a very small (insignificant) increase or decrease was observed between the
July 2009 and December 2009 results. The most notable exception was Italy: in July 2009, 60% of
Italians were worried that their income in old age would not allow them to live in dignity; in
December, this proportion increased to 70% (+10 percentage points). The largest – but still relatively
small – decreases in the proportion of very or fairly worried respondents were measured in
Luxembourg and Sweden (Luxembourg: from 32% to 28%; Sweden: from 25% to 21%).
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means ‘Not worried at all’ and 10 means ‘Very worried’.
Base: all respondents, % by country
Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignityComparison between waves
60
61
66
66
59
59
62
61
58
53
50
53
49
53
50
50
52
46
41
45
47
42
32
32
28
32
25
1670
66
64
63
62
61
61
60
60
56
54
54
53
52
52
50
50
48
46
45
45
45
35
31
28
28
21
15
0
20
40
60
80
100
IT PT
LV
HU LT
BG
EL
RO PL
MT
CZ
ES
CY SI
EU
27
SK
FR
EE IE BE
UK
DE FI
AT
NL
LU SE
DK
Fl276 - % worried (score "6" to "10")
Fl286
-2
+1
-1+2+3
-3+5+10
+2-1+4+4+3
+2-1
-2+0+5
+2-2+0
-4-4
+0-1+3
+3
-1
Socio-demographic considerations
Women were more worried about the possibility that their income in old age would not enable them to
lead a dignified life. For example, 22% of women (vs. 16% of men) were very worried (“9” or “10” on
the scale) and 33% of women (vs. 31% of men) were fairly worried (from “6” to “8” on the scale).
As for the variation of results by respondents’ age, 25-54 year-olds were the most worried about the
possibility that their income in old age would be insufficient for them to live a decent life. Conversely,
the least worried about having insufficient funds were respondents who were likely to have already
retired (aged 65+) or at least to be close to retirement (55-64 year-olds), as well as members of the
youngest group, aged 15 to 24. For example, 57%-58% of respondents aged 25 to 54 were very or
fairly worried about having a low income in old age (from “6” to “10” on the scale), while 40% of
those who might have retired (aged 65+) had the same opinion. Among the youngest age group and
those aged 55 to 64, roughly half were worried (49%).
Over half of respondents with average or low levels of education were very or fairly worried about the
possibility of a low income in old age (54%-55%); 46% of respondents with the highest educational
achievements and 45% of those still in education were concerned about that matter. The proportion of
respondents who were very worried (“9” or “10” on the scale) that their income in old age would not
be sufficient for them to live a decent life progressively decreased with the increase in respondents’
educational achievements (from 26% among those with the lowest education to 13% among the most
educated respondents and full-time students).
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Analytical Report
page 55
Six in 10 manual workers and 58% of respondents without a professional activity (e.g. unemployed
respondents, students) were very or fairly worried about their future income in their old age (“6” to
“10” on the scale), compared to about half of the self-employed and employees (51%-52%), and 42%
of retirees.
Finally, those living in metropolitan zones were less likely to be very worried (“9” or “10” on the
scale) about their income in old age than those living in towns, other urban centres or in a rural area
(16% vs. 20%).
For further details, see annex table 10b.
Flash EB Series #286
Monitoring the social impact
of the crisis:
public perceptions
in the European Union
Wave 2
Annex tables and
survey details
THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 57
I. Annex tables
Table 1a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where
respondents live – by country ............................................................................................... 59
Table 1b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where
respondents live – by segment .............................................................................................. 60
Table 2a. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by country ....... 61
Table 2b. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by segment ..... 62
Table 3a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by country .... 63
Table 3b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by
segment ................................................................................................................................. 64
Table 4a. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by country .............. 65
Table 4b. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by segment ............. 66
Table 5a. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by
country ................................................................................................................................. 67
Table 5b. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by
segment ................................................................................................................................. 68
Table 6a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by country ............... 69
Table 6b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by segment .............. 70
Table 7a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by country ........................................ 71
Table 7b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by segment ....................................... 72
Table 8a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by country ........ 73
Table 8b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by segment ....... 74
Table 9a. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by
country ................................................................................................................................. 75
Table 9b. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by
segment ................................................................................................................................. 76
Table 10a. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be
sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by country ...................................................... 76
Table 10b. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be
sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by segment ..................................................... 78
Table 11a. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in
past 12 months? – by country ............................................................................................... 79
Table 11b. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in
past 12 months? – by segment .............................................................................................. 80
Table 12a. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12
months ... will it be? – by country ........................................................................................ 81
Table 12b. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12
months ... will it be? – by segment ....................................................................................... 82
Table 13a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over
the next 12 months – by country .......................................................................................... 83
Table 13b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over
the next 12 months – by segment ......................................................................................... 84
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 58
Table 14a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of
€1,000 over the next 12 months – by country ...................................................................... 85
Table 14b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of
€1,000 over the next 12 months – by segment ..................................................................... 86
Table 15a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy
electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by country ........................ 87
Table 15b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy
electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by segment ....................... 88
Table 16a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or
other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by country ...................................... 89
Table 16b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or
other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by segment ..................................... 90
Table 17a. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accomodation because they could
no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by country ............................................................. 91
Table 17b. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accomodation because they could
no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by segment ............................................................ 92
Table 18a. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months –
by country ............................................................................................................................. 93
Table 18b. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months –
by segment ............................................................................................................................ 94
Table 19a. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months
– by country .......................................................................................................................... 95
Table 19b. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months
– by segment ......................................................................................................................... 96
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 59
Table 1a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live – by country
QUESTION: Q1_A. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased,
slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? - The area where you live?
Total N
% Strongly
decreased % Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly
increased % Stayed the same % DK/NA
EU27 25630 2.1 9.1 36.5 24.5 23.6 4.2
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 0.1 7.2 40.6 22.3 21.5 8.3
Bulgaria 1001 1.6 7.3 27.1 52 8 4
Czech Rep. 1004 2 18.3 35.4 12 28.3 3.9
Denmark 1001 0.3 7.5 32 4.8 45.2 10.1
Germany 1005 1 6.6 46.5 11.8 29.6 4.5
Estonia 1011 1.2 5.5 36.4 36.3 14.4 6.2
Greece 1005 1.7 6.1 32.2 40.3 15.4 4.4
Spain 1000 1.1 6.8 39.5 29.5 20.9 2.2
France 1005 0.8 3.1 41.5 37.6 12.7 4.3
Ireland 1000 10 11.6 39.8 17.5 17 4.1
Italy 1007 1.6 8 34.4 38.2 15.9 1.9
Cyprus 504 2.4 9 36.5 19.2 23.5 9.5
Latvia 1011 0.8 1.6 31.2 58.3 5.7 2.4
Lithuania 1007 0.9 6.2 41.3 36.9 12.2 2.6
Luxembourg 507 0.2 7.7 51.1 9.3 28.4 3.3
Hungary 1009 1.2 6.8 29 46.9 12.9 3.1
Malta 500 3.2 6.6 37.2 14.7 26.2 12.1
Netherlands 1001 1.1 13.5 31.8 5.6 39.4 8.6
Austria 1006 0.1 4.9 38.2 10 39 7.7
Poland 1012 5 17 24.2 18.5 32.1 3.2
Portugal 1004 0.8 3.7 37.9 31.1 22.4 4.1
Romania 1012 6.9 8.7 29.1 41.8 10.9 2.6
Slovenia 1004 0.9 5.7 51.2 21.3 19.2 1.8
Slovakia 1006 2 11.6 33.3 24.7 25.2 3.2
Finland 1003 0.3 6.7 43.9 8.2 36 4.9
Sweden 1000 0.8 9.2 24.9 5 48.1 12
United Kingdom 1000 4.1 17.4 32 11.7 29.8 5.2
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 60
Table 1b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the area where respondents live – by segment
QUESTION: Q1_A. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased,
slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? - The area where you live?
Total N
% Strongly
decreased
% Slightly
decreased
% Slightly
increased
% Strongly
increased % Stayed the same
% DK/NA
EU27 25630 2.1 9.1 36.5 24.5 23.6 4.2
SEX
Male 12391 2.4 9.1 38 22.3 24.4 3.8
Female 13239 1.8 9 35.1 26.6 22.9 4.7
AGE
15 - 24 3648 3.1 14.7 39.3 13.3 25.2 4.5
25 - 39 6212 2.1 8.3 40.1 24 21.8 3.7
40 - 54 6782 1.7 7.7 37.7 27.2 21.8 3.9
55 + 8825 1.9 8.3 32 27.5 25.6 4.7
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 2.3 7.5 31.4 33.2 21.6 4
16 - 20 11214 2.1 9.5 36.1 25.3 23 4
20 + 6754 1.6 7 40.9 21.3 24.8 4.4
Still in education 2283 2.8 16.6 38.1 11 27.1 4.4
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 2.2 10.2 37.2 23.4 22.5 4.5
Urban 10960 2 8.7 36.8 25.7 22.3 4.6
Rural 10172 2.1 8.9 36 23.8 25.5 3.7
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 2.8 9.2 35.5 22.6 25.5 4.3
Employee 8359 1.5 7.9 42.2 20.4 23.9 4.1
Manual worker 2182 3 7.8 36.7 29.9 19 3.6
Not working 12853 2.2 10 32.9 26.6 23.9 4.4
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 2.2 8.6 33.7 25 24.6 5.9
2 10782 2 8.8 37.3 24.6 23.1 4.3
3 4363 1.6 9.3 39.2 23.4 23.3 3.2
4 3185 2.3 9.9 36 25.2 23.5 3
5+ 1369 2.9 10.4 34.7 24.1 25.2 2.7
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 2.1 8.9 35.5 24.6 24.5 4.4
1 4006 1.5 10.4 37.5 24.1 23.2 3.3
2 2733 1.9 8.2 42.6 22.1 20.9 4.2
3+ 919 3.6 6.5 36.6 29.8 18.7 4.9
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 2.3 8.6 33.9 25.1 24.2 5.8
2 7121 2.1 8.6 35.2 24.6 25.1 4.4
3-4 9469 1.7 10.1 38.6 23.8 22.3 3.5
5+ 3352 2.8 7.9 37.6 25.3 23.2 3.3
HH’S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 2.4 4.9 21.2 60.4 8.5 2.6
Fairly poor 11795 2.1 7.9 35.1 29.7 20.9 4.3
Fairly wealthy 11882 1.9 10.4 40 16 27.5 4.3
Very wealthy 522 3.9 17.2 28.9 16.1 30.4 3.6
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 61
Table 2a. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by country
QUESTION: Q1_B. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased,
slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – (OUR COUNTRY)?
Total N
% Strongly
decreased % Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly
increased % Stayed the same % DK/NA
EU27 25630 2.9 8 35.9 40.2 7.7 5.4
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 1.3 8.2 39.2 38.7 5.4 7.1
Bulgaria 1001 1.4 6.2 22 58.7 3.1 8.6
Czech Rep. 1004 2.1 20.9 38.8 15.8 15.8 6.6
Denmark 1001 0.8 9.7 51.5 12.6 18.2 7.1
Germany 1005 2.1 4.7 48 30.9 9.2 5
Estonia 1011 1 3.9 36.7 47.2 6.3 4.9
Greece 1005 1.9 4.6 23.1 63.2 3.4 3.8
Spain 1000 0.9 4.8 30.9 56.5 3.5 3.4
France 1005 0.8 2.8 32.7 57.8 3.6 2.4
Ireland 1000 15.6 9.6 26.5 41 4.1 3.1
Italy 1007 1.9 5.3 34.6 45.9 8 4.4
Cyprus 504 2.6 6.7 40.3 35.7 11.2 3.6
Latvia 1011 1 1 19.6 75.1 0.5 2.8
Lithuania 1007 1.3 3.2 31.9 58.3 2.5 2.8
Luxembourg 507 0.6 6.6 60.8 16.1 12.5 3.4
Hungary 1009 1.8 4.3 23.5 64 2.8 3.7
Malta 500 3.7 7.5 45.9 24.4 10.8 7.6
Netherlands 1001 2 14.9 50.1 16.6 9.2 7.2
Austria 1006 0.3 5.8 55.7 17 12.9 8.3
Poland 1012 2.9 17.2 32.4 22.9 15.6 9
Portugal 1004 0.6 1.8 28.7 61.7 3.4 3.9
Romania 1012 7.4 5.2 21.5 56.6 4.2 5.2
Slovenia 1004 1.2 3.8 39.3 48.6 4.5 2.6
Slovakia 1006 2.2 11.5 34.5 32 16.3 3.4
Finland 1003 0.3 6 58 21.4 9.7 4.5
Sweden 1000 1.2 11.7 49.2 13.7 14.6 9.5
United Kingdom 1000 8.9 16.6 30.3 27.9 7.9 8.4
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 62
Table 2b. Perceived changes in the level of national poverty in the past 12 months – by segment
QUESTION: Q1_B. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased,
slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – (OUR COUNTRY)?
Total N
% Strongly
decreased
% Slightly
decreased
% Slightly
increased
% Strongly
increased % Stayed the same
% DK/NA
EU27 25630 2.9 8 35.9 40.2 7.7 5.4
SEX
Male 12391 3.2 8.5 39.3 35.6 8.4 5.1
Female 13239 2.6 7.4 32.7 44.5 7.1 5.7
AGE
15 - 24 3648 3.5 12 39.3 32.7 7.9 4.7
25 - 39 6212 3 7.5 37.7 39.9 7 4.9
40 - 54 6782 2.9 6.7 36.1 42.9 6.8 4.6
55 + 8825 2.4 7.6 33.1 41.4 8.8 6.6
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 2.7 5.9 29.5 48.7 7.1 6.1
16 - 20 11214 3.6 7.8 33.5 41.8 8.2 5.1
20 + 6754 1.4 7.9 43.1 35.6 6.9 5
Still in education 2283 4.1 13.3 41.1 28.4 8.5 4.6
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 2.5 8.6 38 38 7.4 5.6
Urban 10960 3 8.2 35.2 40.9 7.1 5.6
Rural 10172 2.9 7.5 35.8 40.5 8.4 5
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 4.9 9 36.1 33.5 9.4 7.1
Employee 8359 2.2 8.1 39.3 39.1 7.3 3.9
Manual worker 2182 2.7 7.1 31.9 48.4 5.9 4.1
Not working 12853 2.9 7.8 34.2 40.7 8 6.3
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 3.6 8 32.7 39.5 9 7.1
2 10782 2.4 7.7 36.7 40.8 7.1 5.2
3 4363 2.5 6.8 38 40.2 8 4.5
4 3185 3.7 8.2 37.2 39.7 6.6 4.5
5+ 1369 2.4 11.6 33.2 39.7 8.3 4.8
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 2.9 7.6 35.8 39.9 8.1 5.7
1 4006 2.5 9.5 35.5 40.9 7.3 4.4
2 2733 2.8 7.8 39 40.2 5.5 4.6
3+ 919 3.6 5.8 34.7 42.3 7.7 6
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 3.4 8.2 32.7 39.5 9.2 6.9
2 7121 2.5 7.6 36.4 40.1 7.4 6
3-4 9469 2.8 7.7 37.2 40.9 7.3 4.1
5+ 3352 2.9 9 36.3 39.5 7 5.3
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 2.8 4.7 18.9 64.8 3.4 5.3
Fairly poor 11795 2.7 5.9 32.8 45.7 7.6 5.2
Fairly wealthy 11882 2.9 10.1 41.1 32.4 8.1 5.4
Very wealthy 522 3.5 13.5 30.4 34.1 11.6 7
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 63
Table 3a. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by country
QUESTION: Q1_C. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased,
slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – The European Union?
Total N
% Strongly
decreased % Slightly decreased
% Slightly increased
% Strongly
increased % Stayed the same % DK/NA
EU27 25630 2 7.8 31.1 23.1 9 27
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 1.4 4.8 33.2 35.7 6 18.9
Bulgaria 1001 2.6 10 23.5 8.6 10.9 44.3
Czech Rep. 1004 2.2 18.4 29.1 9.1 19.3 21.9
Denmark 1001 0.8 7.6 38.5 18 10.7 24.4
Germany 1005 1.4 4.8 38.7 23.6 9.8 21.6
Estonia 1011 1 4.9 32 11.7 14.8 35.5
Greece 1005 1.5 4.5 31 37.7 4.7 20.6
Spain 1000 1.1 7.2 36.8 23.5 6.6 24.9
France 1005 0.3 4 29.8 38.4 3.3 24.2
Ireland 1000 7.2 10 30.2 18.7 6.7 27.2
Italy 1007 1.4 4.4 31.3 30.1 8.8 23.9
Cyprus 504 1.7 3.1 22.4 45 2.1 25.6
Latvia 1011 0.3 7.2 38 5.9 15.3 33.2
Lithuania 1007 0.3 11.2 38.5 8.9 11.7 29.3
Luxembourg 507 1.2 6.5 40.8 38.9 3.8 8.7
Hungary 1009 0.4 7 31.4 13.4 14.8 33
Malta 500 2.4 6.9 33.5 14.9 9.3 32.9
Netherlands 1001 2.9 13.1 35.4 21.1 7.7 19.9
Austria 1006 0.8 6 40.7 24 8 20.6
Poland 1012 4.6 15.5 19.2 6.9 16.7 37.1
Portugal 1004 0.7 2.8 33.7 40.4 4.5 17.9
Romania 1012 3 9.3 25.4 15.6 9.4 37.2
Slovenia 1004 0.9 4.1 47.2 22.5 7 18.3
Slovakia 1006 2 9.9 31.1 18.3 21.2 17.6
Finland 1003 0.3 4.8 49 17.1 9.3 19.4
Sweden 1000 1 9.9 37.6 12.4 9.7 29.4
United Kingdom 1000 4.3 13.2 20.2 15.8 8.5 38.1
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 64
Table 3b. Perceived changes in the level of poverty in the past 12 months in the EU – by segment
QUESTION: Q1_C. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased,
slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in...? – The European Union?
Total N
% Strongly
decreased
% Slightly
decreased
% Slightly
increased
% Strongly
increased % Stayed the same
% DK/NA
EU27 25630 2 7.8 31.1 23.1 9 27
SEX
Male 12391 2.4 8.3 33.3 19.5 9.9 26.5
Female 13239 1.6 7.4 28.9 26.5 8.1 27.5
AGE
15 - 24 3648 3.6 11.8 34.7 20.2 9.1 20.7
25 - 39 6212 1.7 6.9 35.4 23.4 9.5 23.1
40 - 54 6782 2.2 7.4 30.8 26.2 8.4 25.1
55 + 8825 1.3 7.3 26.9 22.1 9.1 33.4
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 1.2 6.5 25 26.5 7.2 33.6
16 - 20 11214 2.2 7.6 28.7 23.7 9.8 28
20 + 6754 1.5 7.6 38.1 20.8 9 22.9
Still in education 2283 3.5 12.6 36.1 21.2 8.6 18
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 2.3 8.3 33.2 22.3 8.7 25.3
Urban 10960 2 7.9 31 22.3 8.5 28.3
Rural 10172 1.8 7.6 30.3 24.4 9.7 26.2
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 2.6 7.8 29.2 20.1 9.4 30.9
Employee 8359 1.4 7.8 35.7 23.4 9.3 22.5
Manual worker 2182 1.9 8.7 30.2 25 8 26.1
Not working 12853 2.2 7.7 28.5 23.2 8.9 29.5
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 2.2 7.5 27 22.5 8.5 32.4
2 10782 1.7 7.7 31.8 23.5 8.8 26.6
3 4363 1.5 8.4 32.7 23.5 10 23.8
4 3185 2.5 7.4 34.8 23.1 8.9 23.3
5+ 1369 3.5 9.6 29.2 21.1 10 26.6
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 2.1 7.4 31.2 22.7 8.6 28
1 4006 1.7 9.7 31.1 23.4 10.2 23.9
2 2733 1.7 7.1 32.7 25.9 9.7 22.8
3+ 919 1.1 7.6 27 22.2 8.8 33.2
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 1.9 7.7 27.4 22.3 8.8 31.9
2 7121 2.1 7.5 30.9 22.3 8.3 28.9
3-4 9469 1.7 8 33.6 24.5 9.3 22.8
5+ 3352 2.4 8.2 30.4 22.4 9.8 26.7
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 1.6 5.5 18.2 30.3 6.7 37.6
Fairly poor 11795 1.8 6.8 28.3 25 9.1 29
Fairly wealthy 11882 2.1 8.9 35.5 20.7 9.1 23.6
Very wealthy 522 4.7 12.7 24.9 19 9.6 29
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 65
Table 4a. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by country
QUESTION: Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that... ?
Total N
% 1 person out of 3 - or about 30% - is poor
in (OUR COUNTRY)
% 1 person
out of 5 - or 20%
% 1 person
out of 10 - or 10%
% 1 person
out of 20 - or 5%
% Less than 5%
% DK/NA
EU27 25630 29.5 30.5 22.3 8.6 4.1 5
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 20.3 41 24.5 5.9 3.7 4.6
Bulgaria 1001 66.6 16.2 7.7 3.5 0.7 5.1
Czech Rep. 1004 27.7 25.3 21.7 11.4 6.1 7.7
Denmark 1001 1.8 12.2 30.1 26.7 24.2 4.9
Germany 1005 23.6 34.2 29.2 7.6 2.9 2.5
Estonia 1011 38.2 30.2 18.3 6 1.2 6.1
Greece 1005 45 32.8 13.8 4.1 1.4 3
Spain 1000 25.4 29.5 23.1 9.1 4.2 8.7
France 1005 26.3 38.9 22.5 7.1 2.7 2.7
Ireland 1000 16.8 30.5 26.1 13.9 7.6 5.2
Italy 1007 34.2 33.4 16.7 7.6 3 5.1
Cyprus 504 23.4 28.5 20.3 13.9 9.7 4.3
Latvia 1011 47.7 28.3 13.4 3.6 1.1 5.9
Lithuania 1007 48.9 25.7 11.1 5.5 2.1 6.7
Luxembourg 507 9.4 32.1 34.9 14.3 4.3 4.9
Hungary 1009 64.3 22.9 7.9 2 0.3 2.7
Malta 500 25 22.2 19.4 9 8.2 16.2
Netherlands 1001 10.8 20.3 35.1 18.6 9.8 5.3
Austria 1006 14.8 32.1 30.4 12.7 5.6 4.5
Poland 1012 37.7 28.7 18.4 6.4 3 5.7
Portugal 1004 32.5 33.1 18.2 7.1 1.6 7.4
Romania 1012 61.7 14.7 10.3 3.6 1.5 8.3
Slovenia 1004 37.5 29.4 21.8 6.1 2.1 3.2
Slovakia 1006 38.6 27.8 18.7 5.2 2.1 7.6
Finland 1003 10.1 24 36.1 18.9 8.8 2.1
Sweden 1000 10.2 21.7 33.5 19.4 10.5 4.6
United Kingdom 1000 22.2 29.7 24 11.1 7 6
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 66
Table 4b. Estimate of the proportion of poor people in respondents’ countries – by segment
QUESTION: Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that... ?
Total N
% 1 person out of 3 - or about 30% - is poor in
(OUR COUNTRY)
% 1 person out of 5
- or 20%
% 1 person out of 10 - or 10%
% 1 person out of 20 - or
5% % Less
than 5% %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 29.5 30.5 22.3 8.6 4.1 5
SEX
Male 12391 26.8 30.3 23.6 10.2 5.2 3.9
Female 13239 32.1 30.7 21.1 7 3 6
AGE
15 - 24 3648 29.8 31.8 24.4 8.3 4.1 1.6
25 - 39 6212 32.1 31.3 21.2 8.7 3.6 3.1
40 - 54 6782 29.3 31.9 22.3 8.3 4 4.2
55 + 8825 27.8 28.5 22.4 8.8 4.2 8.2
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 34.2 26.9 20 6.7 3.6 8.7
16 - 20 11214 32.6 29.8 21 8.1 4.2 4.4
20 + 6754 22.3 33.3 25.9 10.3 4.2 3.9
Still in education 2283 24.4 35.7 25 9.4 4.2 1.3
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 30.1 29.4 23.1 8.5 4 4.8
Urban 10960 30.6 30.7 21.2 8.2 4.3 5
Rural 10172 27.9 30.9 23.3 9 4 5
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 28.2 29.2 21 9.7 6.4 5.4
Employee 8359 25.6 32.2 25.9 9.4 4 2.9
Manual worker 2182 36.1 34.1 17.8 6.9 2.2 3
Not working 12853 31.2 29.1 21 8.1 4.1 6.6
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 28.8 31 21.3 9.2 3.3 6.3
2 10782 27.5 30 24.1 8.6 4.7 5.2
3 4363 32.1 30 21.7 8.2 4 4
4 3185 32 32.4 20.1 8.6 2.9 4
5+ 1369 34.5 29.8 20.2 6.5 5.9 3.1
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 29.1 30.3 22 8.8 4.1 5.7
1 4006 30.2 33.2 22 8 3.7 2.9
2 2733 29.1 29.6 24.9 8.1 4.9 3.4
3+ 919 31.6 28.4 24.8 7.5 4.4 3.4
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 29.4 30.7 20.5 9.2 3.7 6.6
2 7121 27.5 29.4 23.3 9.3 4.4 6.1
3-4 9469 29.8 31.1 23.2 8 4.1 3.7
5+ 3352 33 30.8 20.8 7.7 4.2 3.4
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 56.1 20 10.5 4.6 1.7 7.1
Fairly poor 11795 34.9 30.2 19.6 6.5 3.1 5.7
Fairly wealthy 11882 21.5 32.3 26.7 10.8 5.1 3.6
Very wealthy 522 24.5 25.9 17.4 15.5 10.9 5.9
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 67
Table 5a. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by country
QUESTION: Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit
commitments at present?
T
ota
l N
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
kee
pin
g u
p w
ith
ou
t a
ny
dif
ficu
ltie
s
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
kee
pin
g u
p b
ut
stru
gg
le t
o d
o s
o f
rom
ti
me
to t
ime
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
kee
pin
g u
p b
ut
it i
s a
co
nst
an
t st
rug
gle
% I
am
/ w
e a
re f
all
ing
b
ehin
d w
ith
so
me
bil
ls
/ cr
edit
co
mm
itm
ents
% I
am
/ w
e a
re h
av
ing
re
al
fin
an
cia
l p
rob
lem
s a
nd
ha
ve
fall
en b
ehin
d
wit
h m
an
y b
ills
an
d
cred
it c
om
mit
men
ts
% D
K/N
A
EU27 25630 45.4 33.4 15.2 3.4 1.8 0.9
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 46 38.6 11.1 1.5 1.8 0.9
Bulgaria 1001 14.6 39.6 29.7 9 6.1 0.9
Czech Rep. 1004 43.3 30.5 19.7 3.8 1.4 1.3
Denmark 1001 81.5 14.5 2.1 0.4 0.2 1.2
Germany 1005 49.8 35.3 11 2 1 0.9
Estonia 1011 32 28.6 26.3 8.2 4.2 0.6
Greece 1005 20 22 43.5 7.9 5.7 1
Spain 1000 45.2 30.7 16.8 3.8 3.3 0.2
France 1005 41.8 40.2 15.5 1.4 0.6 0.5
Ireland 1000 43.4 38.9 11.3 3.3 2.1 0.9
Italy 1007 40 33.8 19.6 4.1 1.7 0.9
Cyprus 504 23.4 30.9 37.2 3.9 3.4 1.1
Latvia 1011 20.3 34.5 32 9.3 3.8 0.1
Lithuania 1007 35.3 24.2 26.1 9.5 3.2 1.5
Luxembourg 507 65.9 23.9 6.1 1.9 1.3 0.8
Hungary 1009 27.8 35.6 23.6 8.8 4.2 0.1
Malta 500 22.9 32.2 30.7 8.1 5.1 1.1
Netherlands 1001 76.2 19.8 1.9 1.1 0.1 0.9
Austria 1006 62.8 29.2 5.3 1 1.1 0.5
Poland 1012 50.4 34.8 9.4 3.3 1.6 0.5
Portugal 1004 24.5 34.1 34.9 4.3 1.2 1.1
Romania 1012 23 41.4 21.8 6.2 5.3 2.3
Slovenia 1004 50.8 34.9 9.8 2.7 1.4 0.4
Slovakia 1006 57 24.1 14.6 2.7 1 0.6
Finland 1003 65.6 25.3 7 1.2 0.7 0.2
Sweden 1000 74.8 18.1 3.9 1.2 0.3 1.8
United Kingdom 1000 50.1 31.6 11.5 3.7 1.4 1.5
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 68
Table 5b. Respondents’ ability to keep up with household bills and credit commitments – by segment
QUESTION: Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and credit
commitments at present?
To
tal
N
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
kee
pin
g u
p w
ith
ou
t a
ny
dif
ficu
ltie
s
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
kee
pin
g u
p b
ut
stru
gg
le t
o d
o s
o
fro
m t
ime
to t
ime
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
kee
pin
g u
p b
ut
it i
s a
co
nst
an
t st
rug
gle
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
fall
ing
beh
ind
wit
h
som
e b
ills
/ c
red
it
com
mit
men
ts
% I
am
/ w
e a
re
ha
vin
g r
eal
fin
an
cia
l p
rob
lem
s a
nd
ha
ve
fall
en
beh
ind
wit
h m
an
y
bil
ls a
nd
cre
dit
co
mm
itm
ents
% D
K/N
A
EU27 25630 45.4 33.4 15.2 3.4 1.8 0.9
SEX
Male 12391 49.1 31.6 13.4 3 1.8 1.1
Female 13239 41.8 35 16.9 3.7 1.8 0.7
AGE
15 - 24 3648 42.7 39.1 11.1 3.6 1.4 2.2
25 - 39 6212 39.8 38.1 14.9 4 2.4 0.7
40 - 54 6782 41.6 33.6 18.3 3.9 2.1 0.5
55 + 8825 53 27.6 14.9 2.4 1.3 0.7
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 37.7 31.6 21.3 5.7 2.4 1.3
16 - 20 11214 42.3 34.8 16.7 3.6 2 0.6
20 + 6754 55.7 31.1 10.1 1.5 1.1 0.6
Still in education 2283 45.2 37.8 10.1 3 1.5 2.4
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 49.4 30.7 14.2 2.8 2 0.8
Urban 10960 43.9 34.3 15 3.8 2 1
Rural 10172 45.2 33.4 15.9 3.1 1.5 0.8
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 43.8 34.3 14.7 4.4 2.1 0.8
Employee 8359 50.7 33.6 11.8 2.4 1 0.5
Manual worker 2182 31.9 39.2 20.6 4.8 2.4 1.2
Not working 12853 44.4 32 16.7 3.6 2.2 1.1
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 47.2 30.3 15.8 3.7 2.5 0.6
2 10782 47.9 32.1 14.6 3 1.8 0.7
3 4363 42.7 36.8 14.5 3.7 1.3 1
4 3185 41.3 36.8 16.3 3 1.1 1.5
5+ 1369 36.2 37.5 17.7 4.4 2.6 1.6
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 48.6 31.7 14.4 2.8 1.7 0.9
1 4006 38.9 37.9 16.7 4 1.6 0.8
2 2733 38.2 36.5 17.6 5.1 1.5 1.2
3+ 919 34.7 35.7 19 6.3 3.5 0.8
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 48 30.4 15.1 3.4 2.5 0.7
2 7121 51.5 29.7 13.8 2.6 1.6 0.7
3-4 9469 42.8 36.6 15 3.4 1.4 0.9
5+ 3352 35.2 37.3 18.9 4.7 2.2 1.7
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 9.8 23.5 39.2 12.9 12.7 1.9
Fairly poor 11795 33.1 38.3 21.5 4.5 2 0.6
Fairly wealthy 11882 59.7 30.7 6.9 1.3 0.5 0.9
Very wealthy 522 82.3 12.6 3.8 0.1 1.2 0
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 69
Table 6a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by country
QUESTION: Q4_A. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or
your relatives? - Healthcare for you or your relative
Total N
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewhat more
easy
% Yes, somewhat more difficult
% Yes, much more
difficult
% No, no
changes % Not
applicable %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 1.4 4.9 17.6 11.6 57.4 5.1 2
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 1.4 4.2 14.6 9.5 59.7 8.5 2.2
Bulgaria 1001 2 9.2 21.7 22.5 35.7 4.8 4.2
Czech Rep. 1004 2.2 6.6 11.2 5.9 71 2.4 0.8
Denmark 1001 1.4 1.7 4.1 0.6 84.8 5.1 2.2
Germany 1005 0.6 4.3 17.9 7 64.8 4.5 0.9
Estonia 1011 2.2 4 24.5 19 38.2 5.1 7
Greece 1005 2.2 6.4 24.3 15.2 46.6 3.6 1.8
Spain 1000 1.2 4.9 10.4 8.5 70.6 3.9 0.4
France 1005 1.2 5.3 26.6 8.7 56.5 0.9 0.9
Ireland 1000 2.4 5.8 27.8 14.9 43.7 3.7 1.7
Italy 1007 1 2.3 19.7 16.2 50.4 6.9 3.5
Cyprus 504 4.5 8.4 25.3 11.7 45.8 2.7 1.7
Latvia 1011 0.1 0.4 22.5 42.3 28.2 3.7 2.8
Lithuania 1007 1.6 5.5 22.8 22.8 37.9 2.8 6.7
Luxembourg 507 1.9 11.6 15.3 4.5 64.8 1.6 0.3
Hungary 1009 0.6 2.9 22.7 26 40.2 5.2 2.3
Malta 500 1.7 7.8 26.7 16.1 35.8 9.2 2.7
Netherlands 1001 3 5.5 12 3.8 68.5 6 1.3
Austria 1006 1.3 3 8.7 4.7 77 4.2 1.2
Poland 1012 1.8 6.1 22.9 25.2 38 2.9 3.1
Portugal 1004 1.3 3.9 18.7 17.1 55.2 3.1 0.8
Romania 1012 1.3 4.9 21.7 24 39.9 3.6 4.6
Slovenia 1004 0.7 5.7 23.2 8.1 58 1.6 2.8
Slovakia 1006 2.2 5.2 15.3 11 56.8 7.2 2.2
Finland 1003 0.3 2.2 7.3 2.3 78.9 7.8 1
Sweden 1000 1 2.5 6.3 1.7 78.9 4.8 4.9
United Kingdom 1000 2.8 7.7 10.3 5.8 59.6 11.5 2.2
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 70
Table 6b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford healthcare for the family – by segment
QUESTION: Q4_A. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or
your relatives? - Healthcare for you or your relative
To
tal
N
% Y
es,
mu
ch
mo
re e
asy
% Y
es,
som
ewh
at
mo
re e
asy
% Y
es,
som
ewh
at
mo
re
dif
ficu
lt
% Y
es,
mu
ch
mo
re
dif
ficu
lt
% N
o,
no
ch
an
ges
% N
ot
ap
pli
cab
le
% D
K/N
A
EU27 25630 1.4 4.9 17.6 11.6 57.4 5.1 2
SEX
Male 12391 1.6 5.2 15.9 10.2 60 4.9 2.3
Female 13239 1.3 4.6 19.2 13 54.9 5.2 1.7
AGE
15 - 24 3648 1.7 7.6 13.1 5 63.9 5.7 2.9
25 - 39 6212 1.3 5.5 17.7 9.2 59.3 4.8 2.2
40 - 54 6782 1.2 4.2 17.5 13.8 56 5.7 1.5
55 + 8825 1.6 3.9 19.5 14.4 54.5 4.4 1.8
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 1.4 3.9 20.2 17.4 50 4.9 2.1
16 - 20 11214 1.4 5.1 18.4 12.5 55.8 4.9 1.8
20 + 6754 1.3 4.4 16.8 8.2 62.8 4.9 1.7
Still in education 2283 2.2 7.6 10.6 4.4 65.3 6.8 3
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 1.2 4.9 15.4 11.8 60.1 4.4 2.1
Urban 10960 1.8 4.7 17.7 11.4 56.5 5.6 2.3
Rural 10172 1.1 5.1 18.4 11.8 57.1 4.8 1.6
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 1.5 4.1 16.9 10.2 58.9 5.7 2.7
Employee 8359 1.4 4.9 16.3 7.9 62.9 5 1.7
Manual worker 2182 1.7 6 19.1 13.3 53.5 4.3 2.2
Not working 12853 1.5 4.9 18.3 14 54.2 5.1 2
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 1.9 3.9 17.2 11.7 57.4 6.1 2
2 10782 1.3 5 18.2 11.7 57.6 4.4 1.6
3 4363 1.1 5.5 16.8 10.2 59.1 5 2.2
4 3185 1.3 5.2 16.4 12.5 56.9 5.6 2.1
5+ 1369 1.6 5.5 20.6 12.7 52.2 4.4 3
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 1.5 4.4 17.5 11.9 57.6 5.2 2
1 4006 1 6.6 18 10.9 56.9 4.9 1.7
2 2733 1.7 5.2 17.8 9.8 58.8 4.7 2
3+ 919 1.3 6.4 19.8 11.9 52.3 5 3.3
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 1.8 3.6 17.3 12.5 56.9 5.8 2.1
2 7121 1.6 5 18.4 12.1 56.9 4.2 1.9
3-4 9469 1.2 5.4 16.8 10.5 59 5.4 1.7
5+ 3352 1.4 5.7 18.7 12.3 54.5 4.6 2.7
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 1 4.4 17.9 34.7 32.4 7.1 2.5
Fairly poor 11795 1.1 4.3 21.4 15.3 51.5 4.6 1.7
Fairly wealthy 11882 1.8 5.3 14 5.9 65.7 5.3 2.1
Very wealthy 522 3.6 10.4 10.1 5 63.6 4.6 2.6
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 71
Table 7a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by country
QUESTION: Q4_B. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or
your relatives? – Childcare for your children
Total N
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewhat more
easy
% Yes, somewhat more difficult
% Yes, much more
difficult
% No, no
changes % Not
applicable %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 0.8 3 7.3 5.1 26.5 54 3.2
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 0.9 1.3 5.4 4.2 30.8 54 3.5
Bulgaria 1001 0.6 2.4 5.7 7.2 10.3 68.6 5.3
Czech Rep. 1004 1 4.7 4.9 3.4 48.2 34.6 3.2
Denmark 1001 0.4 0.2 2.6 0.2 32.1 63.1 1.5
Germany 1005 0.6 4.3 4.6 2.3 24.9 60.5 2.7
Estonia 1011 0.3 2.7 10.3 7.7 21.3 44.5 13.2
Greece 1005 0.9 2.3 17.7 10.3 16 51 1.8
Spain 1000 0.7 2 7.6 6.2 32.6 50.3 0.7
France 1005 0.2 2.8 9 1.9 24.4 59.9 1.9
Ireland 1000 0.9 2.4 7.4 6.3 16.1 65.7 1.1
Italy 1007 0.8 2.2 12.4 11 40.7 27.4 5.6
Cyprus 504 4.3 6.7 16.8 8.2 27.3 33.4 3.5
Latvia 1011 0 0.8 6.5 6.7 15.7 69 1.2
Lithuania 1007 0.5 2.2 9 7.1 17.7 54.6 8.9
Luxembourg 507 1.1 7.1 8.2 3.3 33.5 45.7 1.1
Hungary 1009 0.3 0.8 8.5 8.8 15 61.3 5.2
Malta 500 0.4 4.9 17.5 8.2 18.1 48.7 2.2
Netherlands 1001 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.1 17.8 75.2 1.1
Austria 1006 2.1 4.5 4.7 2 26.3 55.2 5.2
Poland 1012 1.2 3.6 12.3 7.1 20.8 51.6 3.4
Portugal 1004 0.3 1.6 4.4 3.7 9.3 78.2 2.6
Romania 1012 1.1 4.6 9.5 12.4 29.7 35.8 7
Slovenia 1004 0.7 3.2 9.1 2.8 18 63.8 2.5
Slovakia 1006 1.8 4.9 10.7 9.6 39.5 31.1 2.4
Finland 1003 0.1 0.9 1.9 0.3 14.1 81.5 1.3
Sweden 1000 0.7 1 0.8 0.3 26.1 55.6 15.6
United Kingdom 1000 1.2 3.6 2.4 3.1 23.2 64.9 1.6
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 72
Table 7b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford childcare – by segment
QUESTION: Q4_B. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or
your relatives? – Childcare for your children
To
tal
N
% Y
es,
mu
ch
mo
re e
asy
% Y
es,
som
ewh
at
mo
re e
asy
% Y
es,
som
ewh
at
mo
re
dif
ficu
lt
% Y
es,
mu
ch
mo
re
dif
ficu
lt
% N
o,
no
ch
an
ges
% N
ot
ap
pli
cab
le
% D
K/N
A
EU27 25630 0.8 3 7.3 5.1 26.5 54 3.2
SEX
Male 12391 0.7 2.8 6.6 4.1 27.3 54.8 3.7
Female 13239 0.9 3.2 8 6 25.8 53.3 2.8
AGE
15 - 24 3648 0.4 4.7 4.6 1.9 23.7 59.4 5.2
25 - 39 6212 1.3 4.5 10 6.1 35.7 39.9 2.4
40 - 54 6782 0.8 3 10.1 7.8 33.5 42.4 2.4
55 + 8825 0.5 1.2 4.6 3.8 16.1 70.3 3.6
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 0.6 1.5 6.1 7.3 21.7 59 3.9
16 - 20 11214 0.9 3.2 8.3 5.7 27.1 51.7 3.1
20 + 6754 0.9 3 7.3 3.5 29.3 53.6 2.5
Still in education 2283 0.7 5.4 4.5 2.3 26.1 56.4 4.7
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 0.6 2.8 6.7 4.8 26.2 54.7 4.1
Urban 10960 0.9 2.7 8 5.3 26.6 53.5 2.9
Rural 10172 0.7 3.4 6.9 5.1 26.6 54.2 3.1
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 1 3.5 8.4 5 34.4 44 3.8
Employee 8359 0.9 3.3 8.2 4.1 31.5 49.6 2.4
Manual worker 2182 1.1 3 10.1 7.2 32.4 43.3 3
Not working 12853 0.6 2.7 6.1 5.5 21 60.4 3.7
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 0.6 1.2 3.4 3.3 15.6 72.5 3.5
2 10782 0.8 3.3 7.7 4.4 27.8 53.1 2.8
3 4363 0.8 3.6 8.5 5.9 31.4 46.6 3.2
4 3185 1.1 3.9 9.8 8 32.9 41 3.3
5+ 1369 0.9 3.8 11.8 8.8 32.4 38 4.2
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 0.5 1.3 4.4 3.4 16.7 70.2 3.5
1 4006 1 6.7 13.6 7.6 47.6 20.9 2.5
2 2733 1.5 7.2 13.8 9.7 50.5 15 2.2
3+ 919 2.7 7.3 17 7.8 48.2 15.1 1.9
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 0.4 1 2.7 3.4 13.4 75.1 4
2 7121 0.6 1.1 4.1 2.7 15.3 72.9 3.3
3-4 9469 1 4.6 10.4 6.6 37.9 36.7 2.8
5+ 3352 1.3 5.9 13.5 8.9 40.6 26.9 2.9
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 0.9 2.1 7.2 15.4 16.7 54.5 3.3
Fairly poor 11795 0.7 2.8 8.6 6.4 23.3 54.9 3.2
Fairly wealthy 11882 0.7 3.2 6.2 2.8 30.6 53.3 3.1
Very wealthy 522 2.4 5.5 5.9 3.1 31.9 49.5 1.7
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 73
Table 8a. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by country
QUESTION: Q4_C. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or
your relatives? – Long-term care for you or your relatives
Total N
% Yes, much more easy
% Yes, somewhat more
easy
% Yes, somewhat more difficult
% Yes, much more
difficult
% No, no
changes % Not
applicable %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 1.3 4.1 13.1 10.7 35.1 30.6 5.2
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 1 3.4 9.8 6.7 50.4 26.3 2.4
Bulgaria 1001 1.4 4.6 19.3 21.8 25.3 22.1 5.7
Czech Rep. 1004 1.3 5.1 8.8 7.1 57.4 17.5 2.8
Denmark 1001 0.8 0.9 3 1 49.6 39.8 4.9
Germany 1005 1 2.6 10.8 7.7 24.2 49.3 4.4
Estonia 1011 0.3 2.3 8.3 9.3 22.1 44.1 13.5
Greece 1005 1.4 6.9 30.4 22 29.3 3.9 6.1
Spain 1000 1.5 5.2 17.2 15.4 43.3 10.5 6.8
France 1005 1.3 4.3 15.1 6.9 41.9 29.4 1.1
Ireland 1000 2.1 4 20.2 13.9 30.3 23.1 6.4
Italy 1007 0.7 2 12.6 15.5 44 19.7 5.5
Cyprus 504 3.4 6.3 25.1 12.6 31.1 13.9 7.6
Latvia 1011 0 0.4 7.4 15.9 7 67.8 1.4
Lithuania 1007 0.8 4 12.1 14.6 19.5 33.5 15.5
Luxembourg 507 1.4 10.4 12.8 5.2 52.8 16.9 0.6
Hungary 1009 0 0.7 5.9 10.4 7.6 70.8 4.6
Malta 500 0.9 5.8 24.3 13.4 22.4 28.2 4.9
Netherlands 1001 1.6 3.1 5.9 3.5 38.1 45.3 2.5
Austria 1006 1.4 2.5 8.2 5.7 29.4 48.5 4.3
Poland 1012 1.3 6.6 19.3 16.1 27.9 22.2 6.6
Portugal 1004 0.5 1.1 7.8 7.1 19 62.3 2.2
Romania 1012 1.5 6 15.5 22.1 35.9 8.8 10.3
Slovenia 1004 0.6 5.4 29.7 14.8 35.2 5.2 9.1
Slovakia 1006 2.2 4.4 13.5 14.1 45.4 16.1 4.3
Finland 1003 0.1 1 3.8 1.2 27.4 63.5 3
Sweden 1000 0.5 0.8 3.7 0.9 27.9 50.4 15.7
United Kingdom 1000 2.5 7 10.6 6 37.6 29.7 6.6
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 74
Table 8b. Perceived changes in the ability to afford long-term care for the family – by segment
QUESTION: Q4_C. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you or
your relatives? - Long-term care for you or your relatives
To
tal
N
% Y
es,
mu
ch
mo
re e
asy
% Y
es,
som
ewh
at
mo
re e
asy
% Y
es,
som
ewh
at
mo
re
dif
ficu
lt
% Y
es,
mu
ch
mo
re
dif
ficu
lt
% N
o,
no
ch
an
ges
% N
ot
ap
pli
cab
le
% D
K/N
A
EU27 25630 1.3 4.1 13.1 10.7 35.1 30.6 5.2
SEX
Male 12391 1.4 4.3 12.1 9.3 37 30.7 5.3
Female 13239 1.1 3.9 14 12 33.3 30.5 5.2
AGE
15 - 24 3648 1.7 7.4 11.2 5.3 38.8 30.5 5.2
25 - 39 6212 1.3 4.1 14.6 8.5 36.8 29.6 5.2
40 - 54 6782 1.1 3.7 12.1 12.2 33.9 31.9 5.1
55 + 8825 1.2 3.1 13.6 13.4 33.1 30.4 5.3
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 1.3 4.2 13.5 16.5 31.7 27.3 5.5
16 - 20 11214 1 4.3 13.5 11.2 34.9 30 5.2
20 + 6754 1.4 2.7 13.3 7.3 36.2 34.6 4.4
Still in education 2283 1.6 7.4 10.6 5.1 39.5 29.6 6.2
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 1.3 3.6 11.3 10.6 35 32.8 5.5
Urban 10960 1.3 4.2 14.2 10.2 35.9 28.8 5.4
Rural 10172 1.2 4.2 12.7 11.3 34.1 31.7 4.9
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 2.1 3.9 12.6 10.1 38.1 27.2 6
Employee 8359 1.1 3.7 12.4 7.5 37.3 33.2 4.8
Manual worker 2182 1.3 5 13.8 11.1 30.5 33.3 5
Not working 12853 1.3 4.2 13.4 12.8 33.8 29 5.4
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 1.7 3.2 11.1 9.9 33.9 33.6 6.6
2 10782 1.2 4.2 13.8 10.5 33.2 32.6 4.5
3 4363 0.7 4.9 12.7 11.4 38 27 5.3
4 3185 1 3.9 13.7 11.1 39.9 26.3 4.1
5+ 1369 1.7 4.6 16 11.9 33.4 25.3 7
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 1.3 3.6 12.9 10.9 33.9 32.3 5.1
1 4006 1.7 5.4 13.8 9.9 38.5 25.4 5.3
2 2733 0.5 4.9 13.3 9.5 37 29.4 5.3
3+ 919 1 5.6 15.3 10 31.1 31.3 5.7
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 1.5 3.2 10.8 10.8 34.2 33 6.5
2 7121 1.6 4 13.8 11 32 33.3 4.4
3-4 9469 1 4.3 13.4 10.2 37.4 28.6 5.1
5+ 3352 1.1 5.4 14.4 11.4 36.2 26.4 5.2
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 0.9 3.1 11.7 29 20.2 27.1 8
Fairly poor 11795 0.8 3.7 15 13.5 30.8 30.8 5.4
Fairly wealthy 11882 1.7 4.3 11.6 6.3 40.6 30.9 4.7
Very wealthy 522 4.2 9.9 6.3 5.2 43.3 26.4 4.7
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 75
Table 9a. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by country
QUESTION: Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future?
Total N
% Your pension will
not be affected by economic
and financial
events
% You will receive lower
pension benefits
than what you
expected
% You will have to retire
later than you had planned
to
% You will have to save
more for when you
are retired % Other
% DK/NA
EU27 25630 11.7 24.2 19.2 25.3 7.9 11.6
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 9.9 16 20.9 31.9 9.5 11.8
Bulgaria 1001 10.9 19.7 16.8 15 14.4 23.1
Czech Rep. 1004 9 16.5 16.9 41.3 10.8 5.5
Denmark 1001 38.4 14.7 10.3 20.6 7.6 8.5
Germany 1005 8.8 37.4 15.7 30.3 4.4 3.4
Estonia 1011 12.6 19 19 18.6 9.5 21.3
Greece 1005 7.6 29.3 18.4 20.1 17.1 7.4
Spain 1000 17.6 25.5 14.7 26.3 6.4 9.4
France 1005 11.1 21.5 30.2 26.3 3.7 7.2
Ireland 1000 11.4 27.4 18.8 28.3 3 11
Italy 1007 6 17.6 18.5 19.9 16.9 21
Cyprus 504 18.6 23.8 12.1 24.8 6.5 14.2
Latvia 1011 4.9 35.8 21.5 12.2 13.8 11.7
Lithuania 1007 5.2 35.2 15.5 24.9 6.4 12.7
Luxembourg 507 16 10.6 17.7 20.9 10.2 24.6
Hungary 1009 5.9 27.6 21.6 21.3 12.7 10.9
Malta 500 8.5 24.8 19.6 24.2 10.3 12.7
Netherlands 1001 15.8 20.2 24.1 20.5 10.4 9
Austria 1006 11.6 22.4 26 23.8 6.9 9.3
Poland 1012 10.6 27.2 14.7 24.1 7.9 15.5
Portugal 1004 5.8 16.8 18.3 27.7 23.3 8.1
Romania 1012 13.2 19.7 8.4 22.2 8 28.5
Slovenia 1004 7.1 23.4 21.4 30.4 6.4 11.3
Slovakia 1006 13.7 16.2 15 35.3 8 11.9
Finland 1003 20.6 22.3 11.8 23 9.7 12.7
Sweden 1000 17 32.6 11.5 23.5 5 10.4
United Kingdom 1000 16.8 17.8 25.1 24.3 2.4 13.5
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 76
Table 9b. Respondents’ feelings about the impact of their future pension entitlements – by segment
QUESTION: Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future?
To
tal
N
% Y
ou
r p
ensi
on
w
ill
no
t b
e a
ffec
ted
by
ec
on
om
ic a
nd
fi
na
nci
al
even
ts
% Y
ou
wil
l re
ceiv
e lo
wer
p
ensi
on
ben
efit
s th
an
wh
at
yo
u
exp
ecte
d
% Y
ou
wil
l h
av
e to
ret
ire
late
r th
an
yo
u h
ad
p
lan
ned
to
% Y
ou
wil
l h
av
e to
sa
ve
mo
re f
or
wh
en y
ou
are
re
tire
d
% O
ther
% D
K/N
A
EU27 25630 11.7 24.2 19.2 25.3 7.9 11.6
SEX
Male 12391 12.1 24.9 20.4 24.8 7.6 10.3
Female 13239 11.3 23.6 18.1 25.8 8.2 12.9
AGE
15 - 24 3648 8 18.5 26.2 32.5 2 12.8
25 - 39 6212 6.9 17.2 25.8 36.7 4.7 8.6
40 - 54 6782 7.4 29.9 25.5 25.2 5.4 6.6
55-64 3688 16.6 33.8 11.5 17.8 8.5 11.8
65 + 5137 22.2 22.6 3.5 12.2 18.8 20.8
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 14.7 24.7 11.6 17.6 13.7 17.7
16 - 20 11214 10 25.4 20.3 26.2 7 11
20 + 6754 12.2 24.4 21.8 27.8 6.6 7.3
Still in education 2283 10.5 18 24.2 32.2 2.2 12.9
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 12.4 24.3 18.9 26.3 7.8 10.3
Urban 10960 12.2 23.5 19.9 24.2 8.5 11.8
Rural 10172 10.8 25 18.6 26.2 7.4 11.9
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 10.5 22.6 22.6 30.2 6.2 7.9
Employee 8359 8.5 25.3 28.5 29.6 2.6 5.4
Manual worker 2182 6.3 25.5 27.1 29.8 3.7 7.7
Retired 6247 21.4 26.7 2.9 13.5 16.9 18.5
Other non-working 6606 8.7 20.6 19.1 27.9 8.1 15.5
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 15.7 24.9 14.8 21 10 13.5
2 10782 12 24.2 19.5 25.8 7.9 10.7
3 4363 9.2 25.8 20.1 27.4 6.4 11
4 3185 7.1 22.9 24.4 27.7 6.6 11.3
5+ 1369 10.7 20.1 20.9 28.7 6.6 13
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 13.6 25.6 16.7 22.6 9.1 12.5
1 4006 6.8 23.2 23.9 32.3 5 8.8
2 2733 8.1 21.1 24.7 31.7 5.2 9.2
3+ 919 7 18.1 31.6 29.3 5.5 8.4
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 15.6 24.6 14 20.2 10.7 14.9
2 7121 15.3 25.3 15.2 22.1 9.5 12.4
3-4 9469 7.8 24.5 23.7 29.2 5.7 9.2
5+ 3352 8.3 20.5 23.9 29.9 6 11.4
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 5.7 29.2 15 14.1 20.4 15.7
Fairly poor 11795 10 26.2 18 24.7 8.6 12.5
Fairly wealthy 11882 13.5 22.3 21.4 27.2 5.8 9.9
Very wealthy 522 21 15.4 13.3 26.9 10 13.4
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 77
Table 10a. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by country
QUESTION: Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable
you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means 'Not worried at all' and 10
means 'Very worried'.
T
ota
l N
% N
ot
wo
rrie
d a
t a
ll
% 2
% 3
% 4
% 5
% 6
% 7
% 8
% 9
% V
ery
wo
rrie
d
% D
K/N
A
EU27 25630 10.3 4.7 7.2 5.8 18.2 9.6 10.8 11.7 4.4 15 2.4
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 7 5.5 7.9 6.4 17.7 12.4 12.7 8.6 4.3 7.2 10.2
Bulgaria 1001 7.5 2.3 3.3 5.3 11.9 6.3 9.5 9.6 5.9 30.1 8.3
Czech Rep. 1004 8.4 3.4 6.6 4.4 19.2 6.7 9.5 13 6.6 18.1 4
Denmark 1001 32.1 15 16 7.2 12.4 4.8 3.8 3.5 1.1 1.9 2.3
Germany 1005 11.1 5.6 9.2 7.5 20.4 10.7 11.3 10.4 2.4 9.7 1.6
Estonia 1011 11.4 5 6.3 6.4 17.9 8.6 8.4 8.1 5.4 17.2 5.2
Greece 1005 6.9 2.6 4.5 3.9 19.1 7.2 13.2 12.9 5 23.1 1.6
Spain 1000 11.9 2.9 5.8 4.5 20 8.2 10.5 12.6 4.8 17.5 1.5
France 1005 9.4 3.7 5.3 6.4 24.2 11 15 11.4 2.4 10.1 1
Ireland 1000 11.2 4.8 9.7 5.8 21 9.6 10.4 12.8 3.3 10.1 1.2
Italy 1007 6 3.3 3.8 4.8 10.1 13.3 11.5 17.8 7.6 20 1.7
Cyprus 504 11.2 4.1 5.4 2.8 19.5 7.6 10.2 14.7 5.5 14.6 4.5
Latvia 1011 8.7 4.4 3.9 2.7 13.5 7.7 7.1 8.7 5.4 34.9 2.9
Lithuania 1007 6.6 2 5.9 5.5 13.1 5.2 11.2 12.4 9.4 24.2 4.6
Luxembourg 507 18.7 8.8 11.8 7.2 22.4 8.1 9.8 4.9 1.4 4 2.8
Hungary 1009 5.4 4.1 5.5 4.1 16.1 4.9 7.8 10 9 30.8 2
Malta 500 10.6 2.3 5.9 3.9 15.7 6.8 8.6 16.1 5.5 18.7 5.7
Netherlands 1001 21.4 13 12.3 8.6 14.1 9.2 8.8 6.6 1.4 2.2 2.5
Austria 1006 16.5 7.8 9.7 8.1 24.5 8.1 8.8 6.5 1.5 5.8 2.6
Poland 1012 8.2 2.4 4.3 4.9 16.9 9.9 9.8 11.9 5.7 22.5 3.4
Portugal 1004 4 1.7 4.4 2.3 19 6.5 11.8 15.5 7.9 24.1 2.8
Romania 1012 5.2 2 4.8 4.5 15.8 4.7 7.9 9.5 9.8 28.4 7.5
Slovenia 1004 7.6 2.3 7.4 6.7 22.1 5.1 10.5 12.8 3.5 20 2
Slovakia 1006 8.4 4.2 7 5.1 19.4 7.9 9 13.6 6.9 12.8 5.7
Finland 1003 17.3 9.1 12.1 8.1 14.3 8.6 10.9 7.9 2.7 4.5 4.6
Sweden 1000 26.9 10.8 14.5 6 18.2 5.2 6.1 4.9 1.4 3.7 2.3
United Kingdom 1000 11.9 6.6 11.1 6.1 18.9 9.6 9.4 11.8 2.8 11.1 1
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 78
Table 10b. Respondents’ level of concern about whether their income in old age would be sufficient to enable them to live in dignity – by segment
QUESTION: Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to enable
you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means 'Not worried at all' and 10
means 'Very worried'.
To
tal
N
% N
ot
wo
rrie
d
at
all
% 2
% 3
% 4
% 5
% 6
% 7
% 8
% 9
% V
ery
w
orr
ied
%
DK
/NA
EU27 25630 10.3 4.7 7.2 5.8 18.2 9.6 10.8 11.7 4.4 15 2.4
SEX
Male 12391 11.9 6.2 8.4 6.4 17.7 9.3 10.8 10.9 4.2 12.2 2
Female 13239 8.9 3.3 6 5.2 18.6 9.8 10.8 12.5 4.6 17.6 2.8
AGE
15 - 24 3648 11.1 5.9 7.3 6.9 17.4 12.8 11.2 11 3.6 10.2 2.6
25 - 39 6212 7.8 4.5 6.7 5.1 17.5 8.4 12 14.3 4.8 17.6 1.2
40 - 54 6782 6.7 3.7 6.8 5.5 18 9.5 12.2 13 5.5 17.3 1.8
55-64 3688 11.0 5.2 7.6 5.9 19.1 9.2 10.3 9.7 4.1 15.8 2.1
65 + 5137 16.9 5.1 7.8 6.3 19.1 9.0 7.5 8.7 3.4 11.6 4.7
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 10.1 3.2 5.6 5.1 18.4 8.2 8.7 11.6 5.5 20.4 3.4
16 - 20 11214 9 3.5 6.4 5.1 18.5 9.4 11.5 12.7 5.1 16.5 2.3
20 + 6754 11.4 7.2 9.6 6.9 17.8 9.5 11.6 11.3 2.9 10.3 1.6
Still in education 2283 13.5 6.7 7.5 7.4 17.2 13 10 9.4 3.7 9.1 2.6
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 11.6 6.5 8.3 6.8 16.8 10.1 10 11.4 3.4 12.9 2.2
Urban 10960 9.9 4.3 6.6 5 16.9 10 11.9 12.7 4.5 15.6 2.6
Rural 10172 10.2 4.3 7.3 6.2 19.9 8.9 10 10.8 4.8 15.2 2.4
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 13.4 4.6 7.8 5.7 17.1 8.6 10.1 11.5 4.3 16 1
Employee 8359 8 5.5 8.5 6 19.3 10 13.1 12.9 3.8 12 0.8
Manual worker 2182 5.8 3 4.8 4.7 20.1 7.6 12.8 10.4 6.4 22.8 1.6
Retired 6247 15.4 4.9 7.7 6.4 19.1 8.3 8.1 8.5 3.9 13.0 4.7
Other non-working 6606 8.9 4.1 5.5 5.4 15.6 11.1 10.0 13.8 5.1 17.6 2.9
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 13 5.6 6.7 4.9 17.7 9.2 10.1 11.6 3.8 14.4 2.8
2 10782 10 4.8 8.1 5.8 19.3 9.1 11 11.3 4.6 14.1 1.9
3 4363 9.7 4.3 6.4 6.8 16.4 10.8 10.5 12.2 4.8 15.1 2.9
4 3185 7.8 4 6.2 4.9 19.2 10.6 11.5 12.5 3.7 17.2 2.4
5+ 1369 8.7 3 5.9 7.8 14.2 8.5 12.3 12.7 6.4 18.5 2.1
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 11.4 5 7.5 6.1 18.1 9.4 10.6 11.2 4.2 14 2.4
1 4006 8.6 3.8 6.1 4.6 17.3 10.9 12.6 13.4 4.3 16.1 2.3
2 2733 5.4 3.9 7.8 5.9 20.3 8.9 10.9 12.1 6.7 16.5 1.5
3+ 919 11.4 4.3 6 4.9 18.3 7.9 8.6 10.9 3.7 22.1 1.9
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 12.7 5.8 6.6 4.9 17.9 9.9 9.7 11.2 3.6 14.5 3.3
2 7121 12.3 5 8.5 6.2 18.9 9.2 10.6 10.5 3.9 12.7 2.3
3-4 9469 7.7 4.4 6.9 6.1 18.1 9.8 11.7 13 5.1 15.3 1.9
5+ 3352 9.4 3.1 6.1 5.6 17.4 9.1 10.7 11.6 5 19.7 2.5
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 5.5 2.6 1.8 1.7 8.1 3.3 4.6 9 7.5 52.3 3.7
Fairly poor 11795 8 2.8 5.7 5.1 19.3 8.6 11.1 13.1 5.7 18 2.5
Fairly wealthy 11882 11.9 6.4 9.3 7 18.4 11.5 11.3 11.1 2.9 8.3 2
Very wealthy 522 35.1 12.2 5.3 4.1 12.8 5.5 7 4.4 1.3 10.3 2.2
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 79
Table 11a. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? – by country
QUESTION: Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or
buying food or other daily consumer items?
Total N % Yes % No % DK/NA
EU27 25630 18.8 80.8 0.4
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 18.9 80.3 0.7
Bulgaria 1001 36.3 63.1 0.6
Czech Rep. 1004 17.6 81.4 1.1
Denmark 1001 3.6 96.3 0.1
Germany 1005 11.8 87.6 0.6
Estonia 1011 26.4 72.3 1.2
Greece 1005 26.9 72.8 0.3
Spain 1000 20.1 79.8 0.1
France 1005 15.2 84.8 0
Ireland 1000 13.5 86.3 0.2
Italy 1007 23.9 75.8 0.3
Cyprus 504 25.5 74.5 0
Latvia 1011 38.7 61.2 0.2
Lithuania 1007 30 68.7 1.3
Luxembourg 507 11.5 88.1 0.5
Hungary 1009 32.1 67.4 0.5
Malta 500 21.7 77.1 1.1
Netherlands 1001 7 92.8 0.2
Austria 1006 10.2 89.5 0.3
Poland 1012 24.8 75 0.2
Portugal 1004 16.9 83 0.1
Romania 1012 40.2 59.2 0.5
Slovenia 1004 15.9 84.1 0
Slovakia 1006 21.6 77.5 0.9
Finland 1003 16.7 83 0.3
Sweden 1000 10.1 88.2 1.6
United Kingdom 1000 15.2 84.4 0.4
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 80
Table 11b. Has respondent’s household had no money to pay ordinary bills or to buy food in past 12 months? – by segment
QUESTION: Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills or
buying food or other daily consumer items?
Total N % Yes % No % DK/NA
EU27 25630 18.8 80.8 0.4
SEX
Male 12391 16.6 83 0.4
Female 13239 20.9 78.7 0.4
AGE
15 - 24 3648 16.1 82.7 1.2
25 - 39 6212 24.3 75.5 0.2
40 - 54 6782 22 77.8 0.3
55 + 8825 14 85.7 0.3
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 24.1 75.7 0.2
16 - 20 11214 20.5 79.1 0.3
20 + 6754 12.9 86.8 0.3
Still in education 2283 16.1 83 0.9
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 18.5 81.2 0.3
Urban 10960 19.7 79.8 0.5
Rural 10172 18.1 81.6 0.3
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 18.1 81.6 0.3
Employee 8359 14.4 85.3 0.3
Manual worker 2182 27.8 72 0.2
Not working 12853 20.3 79.2 0.5
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH
15+
1 5782 21.7 78.2 0.2
2 10782 17.5 82.2 0.3
3 4363 17.1 82.3 0.5
4 3185 18 81.7 0.3
5+ 1369 25.9 72.3 1.7
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 16.7 83 0.3
1 4006 23.2 76.1 0.8
2 2733 21.7 78.1 0.2
3+ 919 32.3 67.4 0.2
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 19.9 79.9 0.2
2 7121 16.1 83.6 0.4
3-4 9469 18 81.7 0.3
5+ 3352 25.4 73.7 1
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 63.8 36.1 0.1
Fairly poor 11795 24.2 75.4 0.4
Fairly wealthy 11882 9.2 90.4 0.3
Very wealthy 522 8.1 91.9 0
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 81
Table 12a. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? – by country
QUESTION: Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or
the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? The next 12 months will be...
Total N % Better % Worse % The same % DK/NA
EU27 25630 20.8 21.6 54.4 3.2
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 16.3 18.3 62.8 2.6
Bulgaria 1001 22.9 33.7 38.1 5.3
Czech Rep. 1004 16.1 28.5 52.6 2.8
Denmark 1001 26.4 9.3 64 0.3
Germany 1005 16.1 19 64.1 0.9
Estonia 1011 20.8 34 42 3.2
Greece 1005 17.5 35.6 43.6 3.3
Spain 1000 16.9 24 54.9 4.1
France 1005 19.9 14.4 63.6 2.1
Ireland 1000 12 47.7 38.9 1.4
Italy 1007 30 19.3 47.1 3.7
Cyprus 504 15.7 45.3 35 3.9
Latvia 1011 7.2 50.2 37.9 4.7
Lithuania 1007 13.5 56.4 25.4 4.7
Luxembourg 507 16.5 12.1 70 1.3
Hungary 1009 17.2 36.5 42.4 4
Malta 500 12.7 40.3 38.3 8.7
Netherlands 1001 11.5 18.9 66.9 2.7
Austria 1006 14.3 15.8 67.9 2
Poland 1012 22.2 27.5 44.8 5.5
Portugal 1004 18.4 23.6 52.2 5.9
Romania 1012 30.4 31 31.1 7.5
Slovenia 1004 15.2 31.8 51.6 1.4
Slovakia 1006 20.8 23.3 49.6 6.4
Finland 1003 20 10.2 69.4 0.4
Sweden 1000 28.3 14.5 54.8 2.4
United Kingdom 1000 24.7 16.5 55.6 3.1
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 82
Table 12b. Perceived view about respondents’ household financial situation in the next 12 months ... will it be? – by segment
QUESTION: Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or
the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household? The next 12 months will be...
Total N % Better % Worse % The same % DK/NA
EU27 25630 20.8 21.6 54.4 3.2
SEX
Male 12391 23.6 20.6 53.1 2.7
Female 13239 18.2 22.4 55.7 3.6
AGE
15 - 24 3648 32.3 11.8 54.1 1.8
25 - 39 6212 29.4 18.4 49.6 2.5
40 - 54 6782 21 22.9 53.1 3
55 + 8825 10.2 26.6 59 4.3
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 16.7 27.6 49.9 5.8
16 - 20 11214 21.4 22.2 53.4 2.9
20 + 6754 20.5 19.5 58.1 1.8
Still in education 2283 29.2 11 57.7 2.1
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 23 19.6 54.4 3
Urban 10960 22.9 21.7 52.4 3.1
Rural 10172 17.7 22.4 56.7 3.3
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 29.3 20.2 47.2 3.3
Employee 8359 20.6 18.9 58.6 1.9
Manual worker 2182 23.1 23 51.1 2.8
Not working 12853 19.1 23.3 53.5 4
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN
HH 15+
1 5782 18.6 21.5 56.2 3.7
2 10782 20.6 21.9 54.5 2.9
3 4363 21.1 19.5 56.1 3.3
4 3185 23.7 21.8 51.7 2.9
5+ 1369 23.7 24.8 48.2 3.3
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 19 22.7 55.1 3.3
1 4006 24.6 18.3 54.3 2.8
2 2733 26.8 18.9 51.8 2.5
3+ 919 24.3 21.3 50.1 4.3
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 17.1 22.5 56.6 3.8
2 7121 18.9 22.7 55.2 3.2
3-4 9469 23 20.3 54 2.7
5+ 3352 25.1 21.2 50.4 3.3
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 22.2 41.8 30.5 5.5
Fairly poor 11795 18.3 26.1 51.6 4
Fairly wealthy 11882 22.7 15.5 59.8 2
Very wealthy 522 30.6 9 58.7 1.7
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 83
Table 13a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months – by country
QUESTION: Q8_A. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying your rent or mortgage on time
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk % No risk
at all % Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27 25630 6.3 11.6 15.7 37.8 26.8 1.8
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 3.1 6.8 11.3 48.4 26.7 3.8
Bulgaria 1001 6.3 7.9 3.3 6.9 70.4 5.2
Czech Rep. 1004 7.1 23.2 24.2 28.6 15.2 1.8
Denmark 1001 0.5 2.5 11.7 81.4 3.1 0.8
Germany 1005 3.1 6.9 19.3 59.7 10.5 0.5
Estonia 1011 10.7 21.5 21.1 30.8 13.6 2.4
Greece 1005 9.6 13.2 5.9 18.1 51.7 1.5
Spain 1000 9.1 15 12.2 23.2 38.7 1.8
France 1005 3.2 12.1 13.8 44.2 26.1 0.7
Ireland 1000 8 18 20.8 34.1 18.5 0.6
Italy 1007 14 16.5 16.2 23.7 26.7 2.9
Cyprus 504 17 10.8 8.3 18.4 42.4 3.1
Latvia 1011 20 32.9 16.2 17.3 12.3 1.3
Lithuania 1007 16 22.1 17.7 18.1 21.6 4.5
Luxembourg 507 1.6 8.7 15 41.8 30.9 2
Hungary 1009 6.4 14.3 19.8 20.2 37.9 1.5
Malta 500 10 11.1 9.2 17.8 48.8 3
Netherlands 1001 2 5.6 13.1 70.5 7.7 1.2
Austria 1006 1.9 6 17 60.4 13.4 1.2
Poland 1012 9.4 11.4 12.6 16.2 48.8 1.7
Portugal 1004 6.5 20.4 15.1 20.9 34.8 2.3
Romania 1012 8.3 8.7 4.3 12.9 58.4 7.4
Slovenia 1004 7.1 11.3 11.4 22.1 46.6 1.4
Slovakia 1006 7.8 16.5 31.6 23.9 17.1 3.2
Finland 1003 0.6 2.9 14.2 52.6 28.7 0.9
Sweden 1000 0.9 3.5 12.3 79.1 2.5 1.9
United Kingdom 1000 3.1 11.2 22.8 43.4 18.5 1.1
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 84
Table 13b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with rent or mortgage payments over the next 12 months – by segment
QUESTION: Q8_A. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying your rent or mortgage on time
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk
% No risk at
all % Not
applicable %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 6.3 11.6 15.7 37.8 26.8 1.8
SEX
Male 12391 6 11.5 16.5 39.1 25.2 1.7
Female 13239 6.5 11.8 14.9 36.6 28.3 1.9
AGE
15 - 24 3648 6 13.7 21.4 35.7 19.3 3.8
25 - 39 6212 7.4 15.3 21.2 39.3 15.4 1.4
40 - 54 6782 7.9 13 16.7 39.9 21.3 1.2
55 + 8825 4.4 7.1 8.8 36 41.9 1.7
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 8.8 10.6 9.8 28.6 39.6 2.6
16 - 20 11214 7.2 12.9 16.2 37.1 25.1 1.4
20 + 6754 3.5 10.2 16.9 46.2 22.4 0.8
Still in education 2283 5.1 12.6 22.6 35.7 20 4.1
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 6.7 12.9 17.1 39.8 21.9 1.6
Urban 10960 7.3 12.8 15.6 36.5 26 1.8
Rural 10172 5.1 9.8 15.3 38.3 29.8 1.8
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 7.3 13.7 16.6 38.8 23 0.6
Employee 8359 4.1 12.5 18.8 46.6 17 1
Manual worker 2182 10 16.2 16.8 32.9 22.6 1.4
Not working 12853 6.9 9.9 13.3 32.8 34.5 2.6
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 5.3 11.2 14.7 40.3 27 1.6
2 10782 6 11.2 16 40.8 24.8 1.2
3 4363 7.1 11.3 15.7 33.9 30.4 1.7
4 3185 6.6 13.3 16.5 32.8 27.5 3.4
5+ 1369 9.2 13.8 15.5 27.7 30.2 3.7
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 5.5 10.4 13.8 37.6 31 1.8
1 4006 7.8 14.5 20.1 36.7 18.9 2
2 2733 7.6 15 21 40.2 15.3 0.8
3+ 919 9 10.1 18.4 43.3 17 2.2
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 5.8 10.3 14 39 28.8 2.1
2 7121 5.1 10.5 13.1 39.3 30.6 1.3
3-4 9469 6.8 12.5 17.9 37.6 23.6 1.7
5+ 3352 8.3 13.8 18 33 24.3 2.7
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 21.8 15 8.4 15.9 35 3.9
Fairly poor 11795 8.1 14 15.6 30.4 30 1.9
Fairly wealthy 11882 2.9 9.3 16.6 46.8 23 1.5
Very wealthy 522 3.6 3.8 17.1 55.7 19 0.8
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 85
Table 14a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months – by country
QUESTION: Q8_B. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of € 1,000
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk % No risk
at all % Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27 25630 24.7 19.7 17.2 33.8 2 2.6
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 14.1 12.3 14.1 45.4 9.1 5
Bulgaria 1001 49.6 19.1 10.2 12.1 5.5 3.5
Czech Rep. 1004 22.9 26 22 24.1 2.8 2.1
Denmark 1001 4.7 7.8 14.5 71.8 0.3 0.9
Germany 1005 14.2 19.2 20.1 44.6 0.8 1
Estonia 1011 40 19 13.7 16.6 6.9 3.8
Greece 1005 28.5 28.5 12.4 27.5 0.5 2.6
Spain 1000 28.9 19.5 14.5 33.4 1.3 2.4
France 1005 20.2 20.2 17.9 40.2 0.4 1.1
Ireland 1000 22.3 27 17.3 31.7 0.5 1.1
Italy 1007 25.9 23.5 18.3 27 1.7 3.6
Cyprus 504 29.1 23.1 14 30 1.3 2.4
Latvia 1011 63.6 21.7 6.5 5.1 1.4 1.7
Lithuania 1007 42.8 22 11.6 11.7 5.1 6.8
Luxembourg 507 6.8 14.2 25.7 51.1 0.8 1.4
Hungary 1009 45.6 19.1 11.8 17.3 4.3 1.9
Malta 500 29.7 24.7 16.1 21 2.6 5.9
Netherlands 1001 6.4 11.4 16.9 60.2 3.4 1.7
Austria 1006 11.5 14.6 15.5 53.7 4.1 0.6
Poland 1012 41.1 26 13.1 14 2.8 2.8
Portugal 1004 43.9 27.7 11.8 13.6 0.2 2.8
Romania 1012 44.2 14.6 9.1 12.9 9 10.3
Slovenia 1004 25.4 23.8 17.9 29.3 1.3 2.2
Slovakia 1006 23 21.4 25.3 21.4 4.3 4.6
Finland 1003 13.4 7.7 20.2 56.7 1 1
Sweden 1000 10.2 9.1 13.5 62.7 0.9 3.5
United Kingdom 1000 22.1 16.8 22.8 34.5 0.9 2.9
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 86
Table 14b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 over the next 12 months – by segment
QUESTION: Q8_B. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of € 1,000
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk
% No risk at
all % Not
applicable %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 24.7 19.7 17.2 33.8 2 2.6
SEX
Male 12391 20.4 19 18.3 37.9 1.8 2.6
Female 13239 28.7 20.3 16.1 30 2.2 2.7
AGE
15 - 24 3648 22.9 22.2 21.5 26.4 2.5 4.5
25 - 39 6212 25.7 23.1 19.9 28.5 1.2 1.5
40 - 54 6782 26.1 20.2 15.4 35 1.3 2
55 + 8825 23.6 15.9 14.8 39.7 2.9 3.1
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 33.9 17 14 27.7 3.1 4.4
16 - 20 11214 27.4 21.2 16.3 31.1 1.7 2.4
20 + 6754 15.4 18.3 19.3 44.4 1.5 1.1
Still in education 2283 19.5 22.3 22.1 30.4 2 3.6
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 24.2 16.8 18 38.1 1.3 1.6
Urban 10960 26.5 20.2 17.3 31.4 1.8 2.7
Rural 10172 22.9 20.3 16.8 34.6 2.5 2.9
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 19 19 19.7 39 1 2.4
Employee 8359 18.9 20.2 19.1 39.5 0.9 1.4
Manual worker 2182 30.7 24.3 16.8 22.7 2.5 2.9
Not working 12853 28.3 18.7 15.5 31.2 2.8 3.4
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 28.6 18 14.7 33.7 2 3
2 10782 22.9 18.2 17.7 37.5 1.6 2
3 4363 23.4 21.8 19.2 30.9 2 2.7
4 3185 24.1 21.3 17.7 30.5 2.7 3.7
5+ 1369 27.9 27.7 15.6 22.1 3.2 3.5
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 23.5 19 17.1 35.5 2.1 2.8
1 4006 27.5 19.5 18.8 30.4 1.7 2.1
2 2733 25.5 23.4 17.2 30.3 1 2.6
3+ 919 32.8 21 13.1 26.7 3.7 2.7
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 27.5 18.2 14.5 34.8 2.2 2.8
2 7121 22.3 17.1 17.2 39.2 2 2.1
3-4 9469 23.4 21 19.2 31.9 1.7 2.8
5+ 3352 28.5 24.1 15.8 26.1 2.7 2.8
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 67.3 10.4 6.1 6.6 5.3 4.3
Fairly poor 11795 33.3 23 14.7 24.4 1.8 2.8
Fairly wealthy 11882 12.4 17.8 20.8 45.1 1.7 2.1
Very wealthy 522 7.7 11.1 16.5 59.3 3.7 1.7
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 87
Table 15a. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by country
QUESTION: Q8_C. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Repaying consumer loans (such as loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture,
etc.) on time
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk % No risk
at all % Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27 25630 6.9 11.5 13.1 30.6 35.7 2.2
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 4.5 5.4 10.4 35.3 39.6 4.8
Bulgaria 1001 10.3 10 9.4 11.5 55 3.8
Czech Rep. 1004 5.2 19.2 20.3 25.1 28.1 2.1
Denmark 1001 0.2 3 7.6 47.8 40.1 1.2
Germany 1005 2.7 7.2 14.6 45.1 30 0.3
Estonia 1011 10.8 12.4 17.3 23 33 3.4
Greece 1005 11.6 13.8 7.2 14.7 51 1.6
Spain 1000 10.6 15.5 10.8 25 35.9 2.2
France 1005 3.2 8.3 9.8 27.9 50 0.8
Ireland 1000 10.1 18.6 15.9 37.9 16.4 1.1
Italy 1007 13.6 17.7 17.2 28.4 18.1 5.1
Cyprus 504 23.2 14.4 12 25.2 22.9 2.4
Latvia 1011 12.9 15.6 8.6 5.6 56.5 0.8
Lithuania 1007 15.9 13.6 8.5 9.1 47.1 5.9
Luxembourg 507 1.6 12.2 18.7 49.8 17.1 0.6
Hungary 1009 4.7 10 10.3 11.7 61.7 1.6
Malta 500 9.3 12.4 8.6 16.1 49.7 3.9
Netherlands 1001 1.4 3.3 7.3 34.7 51 2.3
Austria 1006 2 5.4 13.9 42.1 35.3 1.3
Poland 1012 10.3 18.9 14.5 19.7 35 1.6
Portugal 1004 7.9 12.4 8.2 15.4 53.8 2.3
Romania 1012 14.2 15.4 7.7 16.1 39.5 7.1
Slovenia 1004 7.7 15.2 12.1 28.5 35.4 1.2
Slovakia 1006 8.7 15.6 25.9 19.6 26.7 3.6
Finland 1003 0.6 2 9.3 31.6 55.3 1.3
Sweden 1000 0.8 2.1 8.4 58.8 24.7 5.2
United Kingdom 1000 4.6 9.4 17.5 37.6 29.6 1.2
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 88
Table 15b. Level of risk that respondents will fall behind with repaying loans (e.g. loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) over the next 12 months – by segment
QUESTION: Q8_C. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Repaying consumer loans (such as loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture,
etc.) on time
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk
% No risk at
all % Not
applicable %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 6.9 11.5 13.1 30.6 35.7 2.2
SEX
Male 12391 6.1 11 14.3 33.4 32.8 2.3
Female 13239 7.7 11.9 12 28 38.3 2.1
AGE
15 - 24 3648 5.7 14.1 19.7 33 22.7 4.7
25 - 39 6212 7.8 14.9 17.5 29.4 28.9 1.3
40 - 54 6782 8.5 12.7 12.9 32.8 31.8 1.4
55 + 8825 5.5 7.2 7.6 28.7 48.7 2.3
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 9.9 10.3 9.5 24.6 42.5 3.2
16 - 20 11214 7.9 13.3 14 29.3 34.1 1.5
20 + 6754 3.7 8.9 13.3 36.2 36.8 1.1
Still in education 2283 5 12.8 17.4 34.9 24.9 5
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 5.3 11.2 13.1 32 36.6 1.9
Urban 10960 8.1 12.7 13.4 29.3 34.1 2.4
Rural 10172 6.3 10.2 12.9 31.4 37 2.2
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 5.4 12.2 12.9 32.8 35.6 1.1
Employee 8359 5 11.3 15.1 37 30.2 1.3
Manual worker 2182 10.1 16.8 15.7 27.4 27.9 2
Not working 12853 7.9 10.5 11.4 26.6 40.6 3
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 6.3 9.2 9.9 27.2 45.8 1.7
2 10782 6.1 9.9 13.8 32.4 36.1 1.8
3 4363 7.6 13.7 14 31.6 30.6 2.6
4 3185 8.1 14.3 15 32.1 26.9 3.7
5+ 1369 10.1 20.1 14.9 23.5 28.1 3.3
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 6.1 10.2 11.4 30.6 39.3 2.4
1 4006 8.4 14.6 17.7 29.1 28.4 1.8
2 2733 8.4 12.6 16.2 32.3 29 1.5
3+ 919 7.2 17.6 16.8 32 24.3 2
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 7.2 8.9 9.9 27 45.2 1.9
2 7121 5.1 9.2 11.4 32.5 39.8 2
3-4 9469 7.4 12.6 15.7 32 30.1 2.3
5+ 3352 9 17.7 15.3 28.6 26.5 2.9
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 24.9 10.6 7.5 8.6 43.5 5
Fairly poor 11795 9.1 13.9 11.9 23 40.1 2
Fairly wealthy 11882 3 9.5 14.9 39.9 30.9 1.8
Very wealthy 522 4.4 3.6 15.4 46.7 25.5 4.4
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 89
Table 16a. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by country
QUESTION: Q8_D. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk % No risk
at all % Not
applicable % DK/NA
EU27 25630 6.5 17.8 21.4 51.6 1.4 1.4
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 4.2 11.4 16.9 55.2 9.1 3.1
Bulgaria 1001 15.5 26.8 24.5 29 1.4 2.8
Czech Rep. 1004 4.1 20.5 29.6 43.2 1.2 1.4
Denmark 1001 0.3 4.1 10.1 84.8 0.3 0.4
Germany 1005 2.9 11.7 19.3 64.8 1.2 0.2
Estonia 1011 8.1 23.6 24.9 37.9 2.7 2.9
Greece 1005 10 27.2 16.8 43.4 0.9 1.8
Spain 1000 8.1 19.2 17.9 52.5 1 1.2
France 1005 4.9 17.8 18.1 58.2 0.6 0.4
Ireland 1000 7.9 23.9 24.3 42.3 0.7 0.8
Italy 1007 11.5 19.2 23.7 41.4 1.6 2.6
Cyprus 504 14.1 24.2 18.5 40.2 1.3 1.7
Latvia 1011 16 33.6 23 24.8 0.5 2
Lithuania 1007 18.5 32.3 23 21.9 0.9 3.4
Luxembourg 507 1.8 12.1 19 65.8 0.8 0.5
Hungary 1009 5.3 25.5 30.3 34.7 2.3 1.9
Malta 500 17.6 20.7 20.1 32.8 5 3.9
Netherlands 1001 1.9 6.4 13.3 74.8 3 0.5
Austria 1006 2.1 7.8 19 65.7 4.5 0.8
Poland 1012 6.4 25.5 26.2 39.9 1.2 0.8
Portugal 1004 5.1 25.9 25.6 40.6 1.2 1.6
Romania 1012 14.3 26.1 20.2 31.8 2 5.5
Slovenia 1004 7.3 25.2 18.5 46.7 0.7 1.6
Slovakia 1006 7.5 17.3 37.9 31.1 2.8 3.4
Finland 1003 0.7 3.9 16.1 76.5 1.7 1.2
Sweden 1000 1.3 4.8 13.2 77.1 1.6 2
United Kingdom 1000 5.7 17.2 26.3 49.3 0.5 1
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 90
Table 16b. Level of risk that respondents will not be able to pay ordinary bills or buy food or other daily consumer items over the next 12 months – by segment
QUESTION: Q8_D. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with...? - Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items
Total N % High
risk
% Moderate
risk % Low
risk
% No risk at
all % Not
applicable %
DK/NA
EU27 25630 6.5 17.8 21.4 51.6 1.4 1.4
SEX
Male 12391 6.1 16.1 21.3 53.9 1.3 1.3
Female 13239 6.9 19.3 21.5 49.4 1.5 1.5
AGE
15 - 24 3648 4.5 16.1 25.7 49.8 1.8 2.1
25 - 39 6212 6.2 19 26.3 46.9 0.6 1
40 - 54 6782 8.2 19.7 20.6 49.5 1.1 0.9
55 + 8825 6.2 16.1 16.8 57.1 2 1.7
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 10.2 20.8 19 45 2.4 2.6
16 - 20 11214 7.1 19.4 23.3 48.3 0.9 1.1
20 + 6754 3.2 14.1 20 60.9 1.3 0.6
Still in education 2283 4.2 14.7 23.3 53 2.1 2.6
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 5.4 16.4 21.3 54.5 1.4 1.1
Urban 10960 7.8 18.2 21.7 50 1.1 1.3
Rural 10172 5.5 17.9 21.2 52.1 1.8 1.6
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 7.2 16.1 20.9 54.4 0.5 0.9
Employee 8359 3.8 16.1 22.3 56.1 1.1 0.6
Manual worker 2182 8.3 22.1 25.2 42.4 0.7 1.3
Not working 12853 7.8 18.4 20.2 49.8 1.9 2
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 7.1 16.8 20.3 53 1.4 1.4
2 10782 6 17 21.4 53.2 1.3 1.2
3 4363 5.6 19.2 21.2 51.2 1.3 1.5
4 3185 6.6 18.2 22.3 49.4 1.8 1.6
5+ 1369 9.6 22.7 24 40.1 1.8 1.8
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 6.3 17 20.1 53.7 1.5 1.4
1 4006 6.5 19.8 25 46.1 1.3 1.3
2 2733 6.7 17.9 23.1 50.6 0.7 1
3+ 919 7.2 21 24.6 44.8 0.7 1.6
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 7.4 16.9 19.6 52.8 1.7 1.5
2 7121 6 16.4 20 55 1.5 1.2
3-4 9469 5.9 18.1 22.8 50.7 1.2 1.4
5+ 3352 7.5 21.2 23.3 44.8 1.4 1.7
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 29.7 30.4 18.7 15.5 1.8 4
Fairly poor 11795 8.6 23.4 22.6 42.4 1.3 1.6
Fairly wealthy 11882 2.1 11.3 20.8 63.5 1.5 0.8
Very wealthy 522 1.8 7.3 14.8 73.2 1 1.8
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 91
Table 17a. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by country
QUESTION: Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12
months because you can no longer afford it? Is it...
Total N
% Very likely
% Fairly likely
% Fairly unlikely
% Very unlikely % DK/NA
EU27 25630 1.7 3.6 16.1 76.4 2.2
COUNTRY
Belgium 1005 2.5 4.7 13.4 76 3.3
Bulgaria 1001 1 3.5 8.8 82.9 3.8
Czech Rep. 1004 1.7 3.1 24.1 69.8 1.2
Denmark 1001 0.4 0.7 12.7 85.7 0.5
Germany 1005 1.7 1.4 21 75.2 0.7
Estonia 1011 1.5 4.7 24.4 65.6 3.8
Greece 1005 3.9 5.2 12 78 1
Spain 1000 3.4 5.3 19.6 70.5 1.1
France 1005 0.6 2.4 11.8 82.7 2.5
Ireland 1000 2.4 2 17.6 76.4 1.6
Italy 1007 2.6 8.6 12.6 71.8 4.4
Cyprus 504 1.9 3.7 9.5 84.3 0.6
Latvia 1011 3.7 10.3 30.4 51.4 4.2
Lithuania 1007 2.4 5.2 33.6 54.1 4.8
Luxembourg 507 0.3 2.4 13.6 63.5 20.1
Hungary 1009 1 3.5 16.2 77.7 1.6
Malta 500 1.1 2.4 7.5 82.8 6.3
Netherlands 1001 0.2 1.1 10.4 86.1 2.2
Austria 1006 1 0.8 9.8 86.9 1.4
Poland 1012 1.3 3.7 17.4 74.7 2.9
Portugal 1004 0.7 6 21 69.6 2.7
Romania 1012 1.9 1.4 5.4 86.2 5.1
Slovenia 1004 1.6 4.1 17.8 75.2 1.2
Slovakia 1006 1.1 3.1 21.8 70.7 3.3
Finland 1003 1.5 0.5 9.3 88 0.7
Sweden 1000 1.3 2.9 13.1 80.6 2.1
United Kingdom 1000 1.2 3.3 18.6 75.6 1.3
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 92
Table 17b. Likelihood that respondents would have to leave accommodation because they could no longer afford it, in next 12 months – by segment
QUESTION: Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the next 12
months because you can no longer afford it? Is it...
Total N
% Very likely
% Fairly likely
% Fairly unlikely
% Very unlikely % DK/NA
EU27 25630 1.7 3.6 16.1 76.4 2.2
SEX
Male 12391 1.4 3.6 15.3 77.5 2.2
Female 13239 1.9 3.7 16.8 75.4 2.3
AGE
15 - 24 3648 1.3 4.4 17.2 74.7 2.4
25 - 39 6212 2.8 5.3 18.3 72.2 1.3
40 - 54 6782 1.5 3.6 17.7 74.9 2.4
55 + 8825 1.2 2.3 12.8 81.1 2.6
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 4756 2 4.4 15 75.5 3
16 - 20 11214 1.7 3.9 17.8 74.5 2.2
20 + 6754 1.5 2.7 14.6 79.9 1.4
Still in education 2283 1.3 4.2 14.8 77.1 2.5
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 4446 1.9 3.2 16.8 75.6 2.4
Urban 10960 2 5.2 17.6 73.1 2.1
Rural 10172 1.2 2.1 14 80.3 2.3
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 1.3 2.4 14.4 81 0.9
Employee 8359 1.2 2.9 17.8 76.8 1.2
Manual worker 2182 3 4.2 21.1 68.8 2.9
Not working 12853 1.8 4.2 14.3 76.6 3
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 5782 1.7 4.7 17.2 74 2.4
2 10782 1.8 3.1 16.3 77.1 1.6
3 4363 1.1 3.9 14.6 78.1 2.1
4 3185 2.3 3.3 15.9 75.5 3
5+ 1369 1.4 3.1 14.8 76.6 4.1
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 17364 1.6 3.7 14.8 77.5 2.4
1 4006 1.6 4.3 18.9 73.7 1.4
2 2733 1.7 2.7 19.8 74.1 1.8
3+ 919 1.8 3.2 17.3 75.4 2.3
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 5687 1.8 4.5 16.1 74.6 2.9
2 7121 1.6 2.7 15.1 78.6 2
3-4 9469 1.8 4 16 76.4 1.8
5+ 3352 1.4 3 18.1 74.5 3
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 1273 7.2 9.2 17.4 59.2 7
Fairly poor 11795 2.2 4.5 19.6 71.3 2.4
Fairly wealthy 11882 0.7 2.3 12.8 82.7 1.5
Very wealthy 522 0.5 2 10.4 86.6 0.4
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 93
Table 18a. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months – by country
QUESTION: Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months?
Base: respondents with a professional activity
Total N
% Very confident
% Fairly confident
% Not very confident
% Not at all confident % DK/NA
EU27 13303 46.3 31.4 11.4 5.7 5.2
COUNTRY
Belgium 529 44.4 29.9 6.5 7.6 11.6
Bulgaria 398 23 38.4 21.4 13.2 4.1
Czech Rep. 608 38.2 41.6 13.5 2.9 3.8
Denmark 640 56.8 31.9 4.5 3.1 3.7
Germany 482 65 24 5.2 2.5 3.4
Estonia 671 19.7 33.3 28.9 12.2 5.9
Greece 450 40.2 33.5 13.2 10.9 2.2
Spain 525 33.8 33.9 17.6 11.3 3.5
France 604 49.5 30.6 11.1 6.9 2
Ireland 624 38.9 35.2 14.6 5.1 6.1
Italy 392 46.5 29.9 11.7 6.9 5
Cyprus 310 41.6 27.5 11.6 9.3 10
Latvia 590 16.2 36.4 32.8 11.4 3.2
Lithuania 485 15.9 27.9 29.4 18.8 8
Luxembourg 251 51.1 32.9 6.6 2.5 6.9
Hungary 478 43.8 28.8 14.9 5.1 7.4
Malta 241 44.9 31.3 8.2 9.5 6
Netherlands 517 56 26.4 4.8 2.6 10.2
Austria 568 64.6 19.4 5.7 1.7 8.6
Poland 465 24.1 41.3 22 6.8 5.9
Portugal 543 31.1 43 18 4.8 3
Romania 541 42.2 26 15.2 6.7 9.9
Slovenia 532 39.8 38 10.2 5 7
Slovakia 509 18.4 40.8 29.2 6.4 5.2
Finland 552 59.1 30.4 2.4 4 4.1
Sweden 586 54.9 29.9 5.2 5.9 4.1
United Kingdom 627 47.8 34.4 7 2.8 8.1
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 94
Table 18b. Level of confidence in respondents’ ability to keep their job in the next 12 months – by segment
QUESTION: Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months?
Base: respondents with a professional activity
Total N % Very
confident % Fairly
confident
% Not very
confident
% Not at all
confident % DK/NA
EU27 13303 46.3 31.4 11.4 5.7 5.2
SEX
Male 7442 46.6 30.6 11.8 5.5 5.5
Female 5861 45.9 32.4 10.9 6 4.8
AGE
15 - 24 1115 43.8 30.1 14.2 3.9 8.1
25 - 39 4872 46.8 32.7 10.4 6.7 3.3
40 - 54 5368 46.3 31.9 12.3 5.5 4.1
55 + 1840 46.8 27.2 10 5.1 11
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 1368 42.4 27.6 12.7 7.9 9.5
16 - 20 6833 43.6 32.2 13.6 5.8 4.9
20 + 4762 51.7 32.1 7.9 5.2 3.1
Still in education 170 43.8 20.9 10.9 1.6 22.8
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 2530 45.5 32.6 11 5.9 5
Urban 5521 45.1 32 11.7 6.4 4.8
Rural 5217 48.1 30.2 11.4 5 5.3
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 50 27.7 11.3 4.7 6.4
Employee 8359 50.7 32.7 9.5 5.1 1.9
Manual worker 2182 34.6 34.1 19.8 8.7 2.8
Not working 526 10.8 14.4 7 7.2 60.7
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN
HH 15+
1 2624 48.5 30.3 8 5.8 7.4
2 5814 46.6 32.5 10.2 5.8 4.9
3 2356 46.1 28.9 15.5 5.1 4.4
4 1747 45.3 31.9 12.9 4.8 5
5+ 685 38.5 34 15.8 9.1 2.6
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 7816 45.1 32.1 11.1 5.5 6.2
1 2610 48 30.7 12.2 5.9 3.1
2 2021 48.1 30.8 12.2 5.1 3.7
3+ 575 48.4 30.1 9.2 6.8 5.6
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 2432 47.1 29.9 8.9 6.2 7.9
2 3061 45 32.2 10.8 5.7 6.2
3-4 5843 47.3 31.9 12 5 3.8
5+ 1967 44.2 30.4 13.6 7.4 4.3
HH'S LIVING
STANDARDS
Very poor 411 24.3 22 15 22.2 16.5
Fairly poor 5672 38.5 32.9 15.5 7.5 5.6
Fairly wealthy 6904 53.5 31 8 3.4 4.1
Very wealthy 263 55 27.1 8.3 1.4 8.3
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 95
Table 19a. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months – by country
QUESTION: Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding
a job in the next six months? "1" means that it "would not at all be likely" and 10 means that "it would be very
likely"
Base: respondents with a professional activity
T
ota
l N
% N
ot
at
all
lik
ely
% 2
% 3
% 4
% 5
% 6
% 7
% 8
% 9
% V
ery
lik
ely
% D
K/N
A
EU27 13303 14.3 5.5 7.8 5.5 14.7 7 8.6 10.8 4.2 14.3 7.3
COUNTRY
Belgium 529 10.9 2.4 3.2 3.2 13.3 9.7 9.7 12.3 3.7 13.3 18.3
Bulgaria 398 16.1 5.9 9.1 8.7 19.2 5.1 6.1 7.7 3.1 14 5.1
Czech Rep. 608 10.4 5.9 8.1 4.8 15.6 7 7.8 10.5 7.1 18.2 4.5
Denmark 640 6.6 2.1 2.4 4 11.7 5.5 9.6 17 7.9 27 6.2
Germany 482 14.3 4.3 8.5 4.6 12.7 6.8 8.9 11.2 5.6 17.9 5.1
Estonia 671 15.9 8.3 11.1 6.5 17 5.8 6.4 7.3 3.2 10.6 7.9
Greece 450 24 4.5 8.6 6.2 15.4 4.6 7.5 7.5 3.4 10.4 8
Spain 525 23.4 6.5 10.1 6.8 15.7 9.5 9.7 6.6 2.5 5.6 3.7
France 604 12.9 4.4 7 8.2 16.6 6.2 7.9 12.3 3.6 15.2 5.7
Ireland 624 27.6 6.3 14.1 5.4 9.5 7.7 3.3 8.8 2.4 8.3 6.6
Italy 392 18.1 11.4 8 6.4 17.2 9.4 6.4 3.5 3 6.6 10.1
Cyprus 310 21.8 4.3 11.5 4.3 12 4.7 9.2 9 4 8.8 10.5
Latvia 590 20.5 10 11.6 8.8 14.2 5.9 6 7.4 2.8 7.4 5.3
Lithuania 485 17.4 10.4 9.9 8 16.1 7.9 5.4 7.8 3.9 6.8 6.4
Luxembourg 251 10.7 4.4 8.2 8.3 18.9 7.2 5.1 10.5 5.3 12.2 9.2
Hungary 478 20 6 10 3.2 15.5 4.4 6 9.9 4.6 14.6 5.8
Malta 241 17.9 8 10.6 9.7 15 4.9 4.5 10.8 4.3 10.3 4.1
Netherlands 517 9.7 2.9 5 3.4 8.2 11.9 9.3 16.1 8.4 15.5 9.6
Austria 568 8.7 3.8 4.4 2.1 13.9 2.2 8.2 10.9 9.6 24.7 11.4
Poland 465 6.7 5.3 7.6 6.1 20.3 8.1 7.6 11.8 2.9 16.5 7.1
Portugal 543 12.9 8.8 13.5 6.8 21.8 5.3 5.8 10.5 1.8 8.7 4
Romania 541 21.1 6.4 7.8 3.4 8.3 5.8 6.5 9.8 3.5 15 12.4
Slovenia 532 11.8 5.5 6.1 6.4 17.4 5.9 7.4 13.1 3.2 18.6 4.5
Slovakia 509 10.4 6.4 9 5.8 17.2 5.5 8.9 10.8 6.7 12.1 7.2
Finland 552 11.2 3.6 7 3.1 9.3 5.8 11.3 17.3 9.5 17.6 4.3
Sweden 586 10.3 5.9 5 3.5 12.4 4.6 8.8 14.4 5.3 19.4 10.3
United Kingdom 627 10.5 4 6.6 3.8 12.9 5.5 12.1 14.3 3.7 17.2 9.5
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 96
Table 19b. Hypothetical likelihood of respondents being able to find a job in the next six months – by segment QUESTION: Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding
a job in the next six months? "1" means that it "would not at all be likely" and 10 means that "it would be very
likely"
Base: respondents with a professional activity
To
tal
N
% N
ot
at
all
lik
ely
% 2
% 3
% 4
% 5
% 6
% 7
% 8
% 9
% V
ery
li
kel
y
%
DK
/NA
EU27 13303 14.3 5.5 7.8 5.5 14.7 7 8.6 10.8 4.2 14.3 7.3
SEX
Male 7442 13.2 5.2 7.6 5.2 13.9 6.5 8.6 11.8 4.4 16 7.6
Female 5861 15.8 5.9 8 5.8 15.6 7.6 8.5 9.5 4 12.2 7
AGE
15 - 24 1115 6.9 3.7 6.5 7.3 15.9 6.2 8.1 16.4 7 15.1 6.9
25 - 39 4872 8.2 3.5 7.2 5.6 14.8 9.1 12 13.2 5 16.9 4.4
40 - 54 5368 14.5 6.5 9 5.2 16.3 6.8 7.6 9.6 3.7 14.1 6.7
55 + 1840 33.7 9 6.8 4.7 9.2 2.5 2.9 4.5 1.8 8.2 16.7
EDUCATION (end of)
Until 15 years of age 1368 27.4 6.2 5.7 4.9 13.4 6.1 6 6.7 2.1 10.8 10.7
16 - 20 6833 14.4 6.4 8.3 6.2 15.2 6.1 8.6 9.6 4.1 14.3 6.9
20 + 4762 10.3 4.3 7.7 4.8 14.6 8.7 9.3 13.7 5 15.5 6
Still in education 170 13.8 3.1 4.3 1.9 17.2 2.1 7.7 13.3 3.5 13.4 19.7
URBANISATION
Metropolitan 2530 12.2 4.2 8.6 6.5 13.6 7 8.7 11.6 4.6 16 7
Urban 5521 14.5 5.8 7.2 4.9 16.6 7 8.4 10.5 4.5 13.8 6.9
Rural 5217 15.3 5.9 8 5.6 13.3 6.9 8.7 10.7 3.8 14.1 7.7
OCCUPATION
Self-employed 2212 17.4 5.6 5.6 3.5 11.1 6.2 6.7 6.8 3.4 17.9 15.9
Employee 8359 13.1 5.3 8.1 5.6 15.6 7.5 9.5 12.4 5.2 14.3 3.4
Manual worker 2182 16.2 6.5 9.1 7.8 15.9 5.6 8.5 11 2.2 13.3 3.8
Not working 526 12.9 5.5 6 1.4 9.8 7.4 3.1 2.4 1.2 3.3 46.9
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN HH 15+
1 2624 14.3 4.6 7.7 5.9 13.4 7.1 10 9.5 3.1 15.7 8.7
2 5814 13.6 5.4 7.8 4.9 14.2 7.4 8.8 12.1 4.7 14.2 6.8
3 2356 13.3 6 8.8 6.2 17.8 5.5 8.8 8.3 5 13.4 7.1
4 1747 17 6.2 6.5 6.2 14.8 6.9 6.3 11.8 3.8 12.8 7.7
5+ 685 17.6 6.3 5.9 4.9 13.5 7.7 7.2 11.2 2.7 17.3 5.9
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
0 7816 16.7 5.7 7.7 5.5 13.9 6.5 8.3 9.5 4.1 13.7 8.3
1 2610 10.4 4.8 9.1 5.9 15.5 7.7 9.3 12.6 4.6 15.1 5.1
2 2021 11.7 5.6 6.9 5.1 15.9 8.2 9.2 13 4.5 14.7 5.3
3+ 575 9 5.9 5.6 4.6 17.5 5.4 7.4 13.8 4 19 7.8
HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 2432 15.4 4.6 8.4 6 12 6.8 9.8 9.3 3 15.1 9.6
2 3061 17.7 5.5 7.8 4.5 13 6.9 8.1 10.1 4.9 13 8.5
3-4 5843 12.3 5.9 8.3 5.7 16.7 6.9 8.5 11.3 4.6 14.2 5.8
5+ 1967 13.7 5.7 5.4 5.7 14.7 7.5 8.1 12.4 3.4 16 7.5
HH'S LIVING STANDARDS
Very poor 411 33.1 7.8 7.5 5.6 8.2 1 4.1 6.3 3.1 12.5 10.7
Fairly poor 5672 18.8 6.4 9 6.1 16.6 5.8 7.3 8.4 2.7 12.3 6.4
Fairly wealthy 6904 9.6 4.8 7 5.1 13.8 8.5 10.1 13.1 5.3 15.4 7.3
Very wealthy 263 13.3 1.8 2.1 1.1 9.5 2.3 5.4 10.6 7.9 27.9 18.2
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 97
II. Survey details
This general population survey “Monitoring the social impact of the crisis: public perceptions in the
European Union – Wave 2” (Flash Eurobarometer No 286) was conducted for the European
Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities – Directorate E – Unit E 2
Inclusion, Social Policy Aspects of Migration, Streamlining of Social Policies.
The current Flash Eurobarometer is the second wave of a trend study to monitor the social impact of
the economic crisis in the EU. The first survey was conducted in July 2009 – Flash Eurobarometer
survey No 276 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_276_en.pdf).
Sample design
The implicit assumption inherent in fixed-line telephone surveys is that their sampling frame can
provide a reasonable coverage of the target population, i.e. in the case of this survey, the EU adult
population. However, with mobile phones replacing fixed-line telephones in certain societal segments
in several of the EU Member States, fixed-line telephone surveys can no longer reach a significant part
of the Union’s population.
In countries where mobile phone users could not – or could not easily – be reached via fixed-line
telephones, a mixed-mode methodology ensured that these individuals were contacted by face-to-face
(F2F) interviews or by including mobile phones in the sampling frame. This methodology ensured that
the reported results were representative of the EU27 population (for citizens above 15 years-of-age).
Group 1: countries with only fixed-line telephone interviews
In the countries of group 1 (such as Germany, Malta, the Netherlands and Sweden) a fixed-line
random digit dial (RDD) sample was used to represent the adult population. In most countries in
Group 1, fixed-line telephone coverage remains at levels well above 80%.
Note that even in the case of fixed-line RDD samples, a certain number of mobile phone numbers were
included in the sample as a consequence of call forwarding and number portability (see, for example,
Cyprus).
In most EU countries, the target sample size was 1,000 respondents; in Cyprus, Luxembourg and
Malta, however, just 500 interviews were conducted. The table below shows the achieved sample size
by mode of interviewing and country.
Country Fixed-line Mobile Total
DK 1,001 0 1,001
DE 1,005 0 1,005
EL 1,005 0 1,005
FR 1,005 0 1,005
IE 1,000 0 1,000
CY 483 21 504
LU 507 0 507
MT 500 0 500
NL 1,001 0 1,001
SI 1,004 0 1,004
SE 1,000 0 1,000
UK 1,000 0 1,000
Total 10,511 21 10,532
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 98
Group 2: countries with both fixed-line and mobile phone interviews
Combinations of fixed-line and mobile phone random digit dial (RDD) samples were used in Austria,
Belgium, Finland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Although these countries used to have fixed-line
telephone penetration rates close to saturation, the emergence of mobile phones has led to an increase
in the number of people who no longer have a fixed-line telephone – resulting in high proportions of
mobile-only individuals.
A full dual frame approach was used; mobile phone interviews were not limited to respondents who
were “mobile-only” but also included dual users – having both a fixed-line telephone and a mobile
phone. The RDD samples were developed by Gallup. The table below shows – once again – the
achieved sample size by mode of interviewing and country.
Country Fixed-line Mobile Total
BE 828 177 1,005
ES 608 392 1,000
IT 611 396 1,007
AT 684 322 1,006
PT 602 402 1,004
FI 110 893 1,003
Total 3,443 2,582 6,025
Group 3: countries with fixed-line, mobile phone and face-to-face interviews
In many eastern European countries, fixed-line telephone coverage never approached saturation – and
these countries always had a significant number of people without a fixed-line telephone. These
countries are now characterised by a high proportion of mobile-only households and an above average
proportion of households without any telephone (mobile or fixed).
In Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia
fixed-line and mobile phone RDD samples were combined with face-to-face interviewing. RDD
samples were developed by Gallup, and a random route method was used to select the face-to-face
segment of the sample.
Country Fixed-line Mobile Face-to-face Total
CZ 351 353 300 1,004
EE 398 313 300 1,011
LV 350 355 306 1,011
LT 352 355 300 1,007
HU 351 358 300 1,009
PL 357 355 300 1,012
SK 352 348 306 1,006
BG 350 351 300 1,001
RO 347 365 300 1,012
Total 3,208 3,153 2,712 9,073
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 99
Fieldwork
Interviews were conducted from November 30 to December 4, 2009 by Gallup’s network of fieldwork
organisations:
Belgium BE Gallup Europe (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Czech Republic CZ Focus Agency (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Denmark DK Hermelin (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Germany DE IFAK (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Estonia EE Saar Poll (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Greece EL Metroanalysis (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Spain ES Gallup Spain (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
France FR Efficience3 (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Ireland IE Gallup UK (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Italy IT Demoskopea (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Cyprus CY CYMAR (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Latvia LV Latvian Facts (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Lithuania LT Baltic Survey (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Luxembourg LU Gallup Europe (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Hungary HU Gallup Hungary (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Malta MT MISCO (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Netherlands NL MSR (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Austria AT Spectra (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Poland PL Gallup Poland (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Portugal PT Consulmark (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Slovenia SI Cati d.o.o (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Slovakia SK Focus Agency (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Finland FI Norstat Finland Oy (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Sweden SE Hermelin (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
United Kingdom UK Gallup UK (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Bulgaria BG Vitosha (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Romania RO Gallup Romania (Interviews: 30/11/2009 - 04/12/2009)
Contact procedures
As many as three attempts were made to contact every sampled telephone number (fixed-line or
mobile) or household in the face-to-face samples. Calls were staggered over times of day and days of
the week to maximise the chance of making contact with potential respondents.
For the fixed-line telephone sample and face-to-face sample, interviewers asked to speak to the person
with the most recent birthday. If this person was not available at the time of the call or visit, the
particular unit was re-contacted once or twice before being abandoned.
For the mobile sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone.
Interviewers verified that the person was an adult; if the person was not an adult, they were screened
out as ineligible.
Questionnaires
The questionnaire prepared for this survey, in English, is reproduced at the end of this annex. Gallup’s
network of fieldwork organisations translated the questionnaire in their respective national
language(s). Copies of each national questionnaire are annexed to the results (volume tables).
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 100
Weighting The purpose of weighting is to adjust the sample so that the sample profile on key variables reflects
that of the population. Data for this Flash No 286 were weighted to match national parameters on sex,
age, region and telephone ownership. The weighting of the dataset had the following steps:
In the first step, basic selection probability weights were applied. These weights correct for over-
coverage of households with multiple fixed telephone lines and under-coverage of persons living in
households with more than one eligible person. The selection probability of those from the mobile
RDD frames was assumed to be 1.
In the second step, on a country-by-country basis, a post-stratification (non-response) population
weighting was carried out. As non-response rates vary by societal segments, the sample characteristics
reflect these differences (e.g. there are usually fewer men and especially fewer young people in the
samples than in the universe or population). In the same step, weights were calculated that corrected
estimations based on the merged dual (or triple) frame samples, i.e. weights that deal with phone
ownership. The telephone ownership parameter was created with measures from the Special
Eurobarometer No 239 “E-communications household survey – 2007”. This survey was used to
estimate the percentage of adults who fall into each of four categories: those who have only a fixed-
line telephone, those who have both a fixed-line and mobile phone, those who have only a mobile
phone, and (only in countries with a face-to-face subsample) those who have no telephone at all.
The so-called Raking Adjustment for Non-response (raking) procedure was applied to weight the data
of the Flash No 286. The raking procedure performs iterative proportional fitting in contingency table
analysis. In addition, the procedure can be used to deal with the problem of large variability of weights
when weighting classes are formed based on a complete cross-classification of the auxiliary variables,
with a large number of weighting classes with unstable response rates as a result.
Frame membership was used as the first variable in the raking model, and socio-demographic
variables were imputed subsequently to the iteration. The following socio-demographic variables were
used in all national raking procedures (with categories levels used):
Sex &Age
Male, 15-29
Male, 30-49
Male, 50 -64
Male, 65+
Female, 15-29
Female, 30-49
Female, 50 -64
Female, 65+
Activity
Active worker
Retired
Other non-active worker
Regions ( NUTS2)
Note that levels might be collapsed
to achieve convergence due to too
many or too small classes.
In the last step, a weight variable was created that projected the individual weight to the relative size
of the country within the total geographical area covered. This weight was used for estimations based
on more than one country (e.g. joint Nordic countries estimations, or EU27 estimations).
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 101
The table below presents, for each of the countries: (1) the number of interviews actually carried out,
and (2) the population-weighted total number of interviews.
Total Interviews
Conducted % of Total
EU27
weighted
% of Total
(weighted)
Total 25630 100 25630 100
BE 1005 3.92 540 2.11
CZ 1004 3.92 541 2.11
DK 1001 3.91 273 1.06
DE 1005 3.92 4357 17.00
EE 1011 3.94 70 0.27
EL 1005 3.92 589 2.30
ES 1000 3.90 2337 9.12
FR 1005 3.92 3174 12.38
IE 1000 3.90 211 0.82
IT 1007 3.93 3123 12.19
CY 504 1.97 39 0.15
LV 1011 3.94 121 0.47
LT 1007 3.93 175 0.68
LU 507 1.98 24 0.09
HU 1009 3.94 525 2.05
MT 500 1.95 21 0.08
NL 1001 3.91 824 3.21
AT 1006 3.93 431 1.68
PL 1012 3.95 1974 7.70
PT 1004 3.92 551 2.15
SI 1004 3.92 106 0.41
SK 1006 3.93 278 1.08
FI 1003 3.91 269 1.05
SE 1000 3.90 465 1.81
UK 1000 3.90 3083 12.03
BG 1001 3.91 409 1.59
RO 1012 3.95 1122 4.38
Sampling error
Surveys are designed to provide an estimate of a true value of characteristics of a population at a given
time. An estimate of a survey is unlikely to be exactly equal to the true population quantity of interest
for a variety of reasons. For example, data in a survey are collected from only some – a sample of –
members of the population, this to make data collection cheaper and faster. The “margin of error” is a
common summary of sampling error, which quantifies uncertainty about (or confidence in) a survey
result.
As a general rule, the more interviews conducted (sample size), the smaller the margin of error. Larger
samples are more likely to give results closer to the true population quantity and thus have smaller
margins of error. For example, a sample of 500 will produce a margin of error of not more than about
4.5 percentage points, and a sample of 1,000 will produce a margin of error of no more than about 3.1
percentage points.
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 102
Margin of error – at 95% confidence level – for a given survey estimate and sample size
Survey
estimate
Sample size (n)
10 50 100 150 200 400 800 1000 2000 4000
5% 13.5% 6.0% 4.3% 3.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7%
10% 18.6% 8.3% 5.9% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9% 2.1% 1.9% 1.3% 0.9%
25% 26.8% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 3.0% 2.7% 1.9% 1.3%
50% 31.0% 13.9% 9.8% 8.0% 6.9% 4.9% 3.5% 3.1% 2.2% 1.5%
75% 26.8% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 3.0% 2.7% 1.9% 1.3%
90% 18.6% 8.3% 5.9% 4.8% 4.2% 2.9% 2.1% 1.9% 1.3% 0.9%
95% 13.5% 6.0% 4.3% 3.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.5% 1.4% 1.0% 0.7%
More details on calculating the margin of error for differences between surveys can be found in
Franklin’s 2007 paper: “The Margin of Error for Differences in Polls”7.
Please note that in addition to sampling errors, question wording and practical difficulties in
conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Tables of results
VOLUME A: COUNTRY BY COUNTRY
The VOLUME A tables present the EU27 results country by country.
VOLUME B: RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS
The VOLUME B tables present the EU27 results with the following socio-demographic characteristics
of respondents as breakdowns:
Volume B:
Sex (Male, Female)
Age (15-24, 25-39, 40-54, 55+)
Subjective urbanisation (Metropolitan zone, Other town/urban centre, Rural zone)
Occupation (Self-employed, Employee, Manual worker, Not working)
Education (-15, 16-20, +20, Still in full-time education)
Number of adults (15+) in the household ( 1,2,3,4,5+)
Number of children in the household (0,1,2 ,3+)
Total number of household members (1, 2, 3-4, 5+)
Household's living standards (Very poor, Fairly poor, Fairly wealthy, Very wealthy)
7 http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 103
III. Questionnaire
D1. Gender
[DO NOT ASK - MARK APPROPRIATE]
[1] Male
[2] Female
D2. How old are you?
[_][_] years old
[00] [REFUSAL/NO ANSWER]
D3. How old were you when you stopped full-time education?
[Write in THE AGE WHEN EDUCATION WAS TERMINATED]
[_][_] years old
[ 0 0 ] [STILL IN FULL TIME EDUCATION]
[ 0 1 ] [NEVER BEEN IN FULL TIME EDUCATION]
[ 9 9 ] [REFUSAL/NO ANSWER]
D4. As far as your current occupation is concerned, would you say you are self-employed, an employee, a
manual worker or would you say that you are without a professional activity? Does it mean that you are
a(n)...
[IF A RESPONSE TO THE MAIN CATEGORY IS GIVEN, READ OUT THE RESPECTIVE SUB-
CATEGORIES]
- Self-employed
i.e. : - farmer, forester, fisherman ................................................................................ 11
- owner of a shop, craftsman ................................................................................ 12
- professional (lawyer, medical practitioner, accountant, architect,...) ............... 13
- manager of a company ....................................................................................... 14
- other .................................................................................................................... 15
- Employee
i.e. : - professional (employed doctor, lawyer, accountant, architect) ........................ 21
- general management, director or top management ........................................... 22
- middle management ........................................................................................... 23
- Civil servant ....................................................................................................... 24
- office clerk ......................................................................................................... 25
- other employee (salesman, nurse, etc...) ............................................................ 26
- other .................................................................................................................... 27
- Manual worker
i.e. : - supervisor / foreman (team manager, etc...) ..................................................... 31
- Manual worker ................................................................................................... 32
- unskilled manual worker .................................................................................... 33
- other .................................................................................................................... 34
- Without a professional activity
i.e. : - looking after the home ....................................................................................... 41
- student (full time) ............................................................................................... 42
- retired ................................................................................................................ 43
- seeking a job ....................................................................................................... 44
- other .................................................................................................................... 45
- [Refusal] .............................................................................................................................. 99
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 104
D6. Would you say you live in a ...?
- metropolitan zone .............................................................................................. 1
- other town/urban centre ..................................................................................... 2
- rural zone ........................................................................................................... 3
- [Refusal] ............................................................................................................ 9
ASK ALL
D20. Including yourself, how many people who are residents of [COUNTRY], age 15 or over, currently live
in your household?
[DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 99
D21. How many children under 15 years of age are now living in your household?
[DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 99
D22. On a scale from 1 to 10, where would you place the current living standards of your household? Please
choose one number from 1 to 10, where “1” stands for “very poor”, and “10” stands for “very wealthy”,
while the remaining numbers indicates something in between these two positions.
(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)
01 Very poor 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Very wealthy DK/NA
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 99
Q1. Generally speaking, would you say that poverty has strongly decreased, slightly decreased,
slightly increased or strongly increased in the last 12 months in…?
(ONE ANSWER ONLY PER LINE)
- Strongly decreased ................................................................................. 1
- Slightly decreased .................................................................................. 2
- Slightly increased ................................................................................... 3
- Strongly increased ................................................................................. 4
- Stayed the same (SPONTANEOUS) ..................................................... 5
- [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 9
A. … The area where you live? ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 9
B. …( OUR COUNTRY)? ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 9
C. … The European Union? ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 9
Q2. If you were to say how many poor people there are in (OUR COUNTRY), would you say that… ?
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
- 1 person out of 3 - or about 30% - is poor in (OUR COUNTRY) ......... 1
- 1 person out of 5 - or 20%...................................................................... 2
- 1 person out of 10 - or 10% .................................................................... 3
- 1 person out of 20 - or 5%...................................................................... 4
- Less than 5% .......................................................................................... 5
- [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 9
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 105
Q3. Which of the following best describes how your household is keeping up with all its bills and
credit commitments at present?
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
- I am / we are keeping up without any difficulties ......................................... 1
- I am / we are keeping up but struggle to do so from time to time ................ 2
- I am / we are keeping up but it is a constant struggle ................................... 3
- I am / we are falling behind with some bills / credit commitments .............. 4
- I am / we are having real financial problems and have fallen behind with many bills and
credit commitments ......................................................................................... 5
- [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
Q4. a. In the last six months, have you noted any changes in your ability to afford healthcare for you
or your relatives?
(IF YES)
Has it become much more easy, somewhat more easy, somewhat more difficult, much more
difficult?
(ONE ANSWER ONLY PER LINE)
b. And your ability to afford childcare for your children?
c. And your ability to afford long-term care for you or your relatives?
- Yes, much more easy ............................................................................. 1
- Yes, somewhat more easy ...................................................................... 2
- Yes, somewhat more difficult ................................................................ 3
- Yes, much more difficult ....................................................................... 4
- No, no changes ....................................................................................... 5
- Not applicable ........................................................................................ 8
- [DK/NA] ................................................................................................ 9
A. Healthcare for you or your relative? ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 8 9
B. Childcare for your children? ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 8 9
C. Long-term care for you or your relatives? .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 8 9
Q5. From the following possible answers, how would you say your pension will fare in the future?
(READ OUT - ROTATE - ONE ANSWER ONLY)
- Your pension will not be affected by economic and financial events ........... 1
- You will receive lower pension benefits than what you expected ................ 2
- You will have to retire later than you had planned to ................................... 3
- You will have to save more for when you are retired ................................... 4
- Other(SPONTANEOUS) .............................................................................. 8
- [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
Annex Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2)
page 106
Q6. How worried are you, if at all, that your income in old age will not be adequate enough to
enable you to live in dignity. Please express your opinion on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means
„Not worried at all‟ and 10 means „Very worried‟.
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
01 Not worried
at all 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Very worried DK/NA
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 99
Q9. Has your household at any time during the past 12 months run out of money to pay ordinary bills
or buying food or other daily consumer items?
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
- Yes ................................................................................................................ 1
- No ................................................................................................................. 2
- [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
Q7. What are your expectations for the 12 months to come, will the next 12 months be better, worse or
the same when it comes to the financial situation of your household?
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
The next 12 months will be…
- … Better ........................................................................................................ 1
- … Worse ....................................................................................................... 2
- … The same .................................................................................................. 3
- [DK/NA] ....................................................................................................... 9
Q8. Looking at the next 12 months, would you say there is a high risk, a moderate risk, a low risk or
no risk at all of falling behind with…?
(ONE ANSWER PER LINE)
(READ OUT – ROTATE)
- High risk ...................................................................................................... 1
- Moderate risk ............................................................................................... 2
- Low risk ....................................................................................................... 3
- No risk at all ................................................................................................. 4
- Not applicable .............................................................................................. 8
- [DK/NA] ...................................................................................................... 9
A. … Paying your rent or mortgage on time .................................................................. 1 2 3 4 8 9
B. … Being able to cope with an unexpected expense of €1,000 .................................. 1 2 3 4 8 9
C. … Repaying consumer loans (such as loans to buy electrical appliances, furniture, etc.) on
time ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 8 9
D. … Paying ordinary bills or buying food or other daily consumer items ................... 1 2 3 4 8 9
Flash EB No 286 - Monitoring the social impact of the crisis (Wave 2) Annex
page 107
Q10. How likely do you think it is that you will need to leave your accommodation within the
next 12 months because you can no longer afford it?
Is it...
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
- Very likely ................................................................................................... 1
- Fairly likely .................................................................................................. 2
- Fairly unlikely .............................................................................................. 3
- Very unlikely ............................................................................................... 4
- [DK/NA] ...................................................................................................... 9
[Q11 AND Q12 NOT TO BE ASKED TO THOSE WHO ARE IN EDUCATION (D4 = 42 student) OR ARE
NO LONGER WORKING (D4 = 43 retired) OR ARE LOOKING FOR WORK (D4 = 44 seeking a job)
OR ARE LOOKING AFTER THE HOME (D4 = 41 looking after the home)]
Q11. How confident would you say you are in your ability to keep your job in the next 12 months?
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
- Very confident ............................................................................................. 1
- Fairly confident ............................................................................................ 2
- Not very confident ....................................................................................... 3
- Not at all confident ...................................................................................... 4
- [DK/NA] ...................................................................................................... 9
Q12. If you were to be laid-off, how would you rate on a scale from 1 to 10, the likelihood of you finding
a job in the next six months? “1” means that it “would not at all be likely” and 10 means that “it
would be very likely”
(ONE ANSWER ONLY)
01 Not at all
likely 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Very likely DK/NA
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 99