Publication: Wave 2 Fieldwork: June...

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

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=637

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=422&furtherNews=yes


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.


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.


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.


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).


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%).


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,


page 10

nonetheless, had the most positive view – at least a fifth said the level of poverty around them was

decreasing (21%-22%).



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


Note: increased = “strongly increased” + “slightly increased”


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


Base: all respondents


% 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


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


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%



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.


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


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


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.


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.


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”


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%).



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).



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


page 19


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?


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”


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%.



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.


page 21


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).



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?


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


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.



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


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%).


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






% 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



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.


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






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



DK/NA


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.


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




11 18 59 41 5 2all respondents


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.


page 27


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.


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?


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.


page 29



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


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.



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


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).


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)




32

19

37

59

27

19

4

3

Fl286 (12/2009)

Worse The same Better DK/NA


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%).



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…?


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,


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.



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


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%.


page 35



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


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%).


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




% 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


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.


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




% 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


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


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.


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.


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?


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).


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?


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).


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.



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.


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


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”


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.


12

4

18

10

29

32

32

50

9

4



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?



page 44


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).


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.


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


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).


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.


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



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: all respondents, % EU27


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.



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%).


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


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


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.


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’.


19

3231

15

2

Fl276 (07/2009) Fl286 (12/2009)


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%).



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


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.


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%).



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


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).


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%).


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


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


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


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



% Strongly


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


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


% 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


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


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



% Strongly


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


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


% 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



easy


% 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


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


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


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


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



easy


% 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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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?


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


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"


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


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"


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


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


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


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

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_276_en.pdf


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


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).


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).


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.


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

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/MOEFranklin.pdf


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


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


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


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


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

Publication: Wave 2 Fieldwork: June...

Documents

Transcript of Publication: Wave 2 Fieldwork: June...