Annexes to COM(2013)801 - Draft joint employment report accompanying the Communication from the Commission on Annual Growth Survey 2014 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2013)801 - Draft joint employment report accompanying the Communication from the Commission on Annual Growth Survey 2014. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2013)801  |
| date | November 13, 2013 |
Many Member States took tax measures to promote job creation. Several countries (CZ, DK, LV, MT, NL, RO, SK and UK) continue to promote public investment programmes and/or investment incentives to help create jobs, even though fiscal constraints are tight. Tax measures have been taken in various countries (BE, ES, FI, FR, HU, LV, MT and UK) to promote job creation. Nearly all Member States introduced new measures or initiatives (or strengthened existing ones) to stimulate private investment in R&D and innovation. At the same time a vast majority of Member States introduced grants for SMEs or intermediate sized enterprises.
The tax wedge is still quite high in many Member States, but only a few countries have taken steps to address this problem, also in light of the limited fiscal margin. In order to support labour demand, EE and HR decreased rates of social security contributions paid by employees and employers while BE, HU and PT cut rates for special groups. In PT financial support is given to employers who hire older unemployed people (45+ years) by reimbursement of 75% to 100% of the social security contribution paid by the employer. FR introduced a new tax credit for competitiveness and employment that will allow a labour cost reduction. On the labour supply side, LV reduced its personal income tax rate to 24%. In BE, the ‘workbonus’ is designed to increase the take-home salary of the low-paid, thus reducing unemployment and low-wage traps. In general CSRs issued this year focused on lowering the tax burden on low-wage earners (AT, DE, HU, LV and HU) and lowering tax burden and social contributions on all workers (BE, CZ, DE, FR, IT, NL).
A number of Member States have continued to support initiatives exploring job-rich sectors (CZ, FI, LU, MT, NL, RO). The government in LU continues with its strategy of investing in promising new economic sectors and has set up a committee for identifying new niche sectors with job growth potential. In CZ, a major ESF-funded programme ‘New Green for Savings’ opened its first call in mid-2013. RO is planning to cover more of the IT sector with fiscal incentives (i.e. tax exemptions). Nevertheless, integrated policy frameworks linking green growth and employment exist in only a small number of countries (EL, FR, AT, PT, FI), while in others progress is being made towards the introduction of a more comprehensive policy response (BG, IE, ES, LU, MT, HR). There are still many Member States which continue to address green growth with a range of separate instruments and policies (eg. CZ, LT, LT, SI)[24].
Some Member States used employer subsidies and promoted entrepreneurship. Employer subsidies were often used to create labour demand (LV, ES at regional level, NL and SI). Member States took some further measures to promote business creation and self-employment. Some countries continued or started to offer subsidies to start up entrepreneurship by the unemployed (BG, CZ, PL, SI) while ES offered reductions in social security contributions reductions for boosting self-employment and also supported the hiring of certain groups, such as persons with disabilities and young people. AT improved the social security system for the self-employed. PT introduced a measure supporting hiring by start-up enterprises. Some Member States (IT, LT, PL, SI) focused on boosting entrepreneurship among young people. IT supports self-employment projects developed by young people in the Southern regions, especially in the non-profit sector. Other countries (AT, PL and LT) are focusing on reducing red tape and improving the business environment to strengthen job creation. CY provides assistance to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises by supplying them with technical support. To attract foreign investment, CZ prepared a ‘Welcome Package’ aimied at easing and speeding up the entry and employment of non-EU nationals involved in major investments.
Additional measures are taken to address the issue of undeclared work. In the area of undeclared work, some Member States strengthened their punitive measures (BE, CZ, EL, ES, FR, LV, NL, SK), while others offered some incentives to declare employment (EL, HR, LT, SI). BE and CZ focused on combating false self-employment while FR and SK put more emphasis on the inspection of illicit work. LT introduced service cheques to facilitate a simplified, flexible form of employment in agriculture and forestry. EL promoted the use of the ‘'labour voucher’', i.e. an employment coupon with an alternative type of insurance mainly for domestic staff and people employed in agriculture and healthcare. LV strengthened legislation to combat tax fraud and pressed ahead with the implementation of its Plan of Measures to Combat the Grey Economy and Ensure Fair Competition.
Many Member States continued to introduce changes to their employment protection legislation (EPL). In FR the law on securing employment, adopted in June 2013, introduced a wider access to complementary health insurance, creation of an individual training account, rights for securing mobility and for career guidance, simplification of collective dismissal and more flexibility in difficult economic situation through agreements to maintain employment. In SI the new reform envisages the simplification of procedures and reducing administrative barriers, increasing flexibility in the labour market, incentives for indefinite period contracts and disincentives for fixed-term contracts. BE is harmonising EPL for blue and white-collar workers and increased flexibility of the working time regulation. In HR, the first phase of the Labour Law changes, completed in June 2013 focused, inter alia, on harmonisation with the Directive on the establishment of a European Works Council and on some elements of fixed-term contracts. In EE, the civil service reform brought considerable changes to the employment relations and working conditions in the public sector, bringing them more into line with those in the private sector. Several Member States took measures to increase labour code flexibility, through the use of fixed-term contracts (CZ, for seasonal jobs in agriculture and construction), extension of short-term work (DE, from six to 12 months), shortening the mandatory time breaks between fixed-term contracts with the same employer (IT), extending working time periods and using flexible working hours (PL). Some countries made changes to pay or allowances for flexible contracts (DE for temporary agency workers in several new sectors, AT for short-term work). Thus, the balance between flexibility and security has been shifted in several Member States.. In total, five out of seven countries that received a CSR to reform EPL in 2013 were recommended to tackle segmentation (ES, IT, SI, FR, and PL). In LT and NL, relaxing legislation on fixed-term contracts and dismissal protection would favour higher employment participation and labour market fluidity.
2.2 Employment Guideline 8: Developing a skilled workforce
Improving skills supply and promoting adult learning became a priority in several Member States. Many Member States introduced measures aimed at improving skills supply and promoting adult learning. MT and BG enhanced the employability of unemployed or low-paid persons through training while AT focused on the low and medium qualified by introducing favourable changes to the system of education. PL adopted its Human Capital Strategy 2020. In LV, a new re-immigration plan, aimed at encouraging the return of skilled workers and professionals, will offer labour market information, Latvian language courses, and support for children of returnees to participate in the education system.
In some countries (CZ, IE, MT, NL), the new measures have focused on specific sectors with high job-rich potential or particularly hit by the crisis. MT supports graduates with skills for which there is a lack of supply by reimbursing education expenses and IE focused on reskilling graduates to take advantage of expanding job opportunities in the ICT sector. To enrich the labour pool with required skills, two Member States (AT and DE) amended regulations concerning the access of third-country nationals to employment. A great number of Member States have introduced or plan to introduce in 2013 new or strengthened measures to maintain or increase human resources in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics).
Many Member States introduced measures that facilitate school to work transitions. A considerable number of Member States (AT, BE, CZ, ES, FI, IT, PT, RO, SE, UK) sought to improve school-to-work transitions by developing traineeships and apprenticeships and by strengthening relevant institutions. PT reformed its dual apprenticeship system, extended the length of the traineeship and broadened access to all qualification levels. RO promoted professional training for higher education graduates. In the UK employers will be able to design their own apprenticeships according to their specific needs and a new traineeships programme was introduced to provide young people lacking the skills and experience required by the labour market with a tailor-made package of support to enable them to take up apprenticeships or other jobs. In BE, unskilled young people can do a full-time three to six month internship in a company, non-profit organisation or public service. As part of the Youth Guarantee, FI is making apprenticeship training more accessible and attractive both for trainees and employers. IT simplified the employer's duties regarding the provision of training for apprentices and earmarked resources to activate traineeships for NEETs living in disadvantaged areas as well as for tertiary students. SE is rolling out ‘vocational introduction jobs’ for young people aged 15-24 who lack previous experience of the specific profession, with 15-25% of their working time being devoted to unpaid education and training. ES developed a training and apprenticeship contract and established the basis for dual vocational training. CZ created a National Catalogue of Internships.
2.3 Employment Guideline 9: Improving quality of education and training systems
Several Member States focused on improving vocational education and training systems (VET) to better reflect the needs of the labour market (DK, EE, EL, ES, HU, IE, LV, PL, SE, SK). Some countries laid foundations or revised their dual vocational education systems accordingly (EE, EL, ES, HU, SK). In EE, the new Vocational Education Institutions Act will apply a new structure of VET study programmes. In EL, the Secondary Education Restructuring Act lays the foundations for changes in vocational education such as restructuring curricula and upgrading the role of the Labour Force Employment Organisation in setting up apprenticeship schemes. SE strengthened its system by increasing the allowances paid to employers for taking on apprentices. DK introduced apprenticeship-centres to their vocational schools and IE established a new education and training authority (SOLAS). CY established post-secondary VET institutes as well as an evening technical and vocational school of secondary education.
Member States have implemented qualification frameworks, to better link general education, vocational education and training, and higher education, and to improve the transparency of qualifications across borders. Since late 2012, five more countries (BG, DE, IT, PL, SI) have not only developed a national qualifications framework but also linked it to the European Qualifications framework, bringing the overall number of Member States who have done so to 20. CZ, DK, EE, FR, IE, LT started issuing qualifications with explicit references to an EQF level.
Relevant changes were introduced to tertiary education systems in many Member States. Reforms of the higher education system are taking place in AT, EE, EL, FR, HU, PL, PT and LV. The reform in AT is aimed at increasing the proportion of active students and the rate of completion of studies, reducing dropouts and shortening average course duration. In EE, a reform gives the higher education institution more guidance on the basis of the needs of the labour market and in close cooperation with employers and related ministries, as to how many study places to make available in various study fields. EL consolidated the network of technical institutes and universities. PL guaranteed financial support for realising innovative university curricula in strategic sectors and LV proposed several reforms for increasing the quality and competitiveness of its higher education. Broadening access to professional and technical bachelor qualifications, reducing dropouts at the bachelor level, reinforcing practical experience in the curricula, reforming teachers training and boosting strategic development towards digital modes of learning are key objectives of the recent FR reform. Several Member States changed the system of grants and/or tuitions (DE, DK, EE, FR, HU, PL).
Several Member States took measures to improve their primary and secondary education system (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK). A few addressed the challenges with more comprehensive reforms while others focused on the quality of teaching and curricula or on early school leavers. In EE, the recently adopted Basic School and Upper Secondary School Act clarifies the responsibilities of the state and local municipalities in the organisation of general education and seeks to improve the upper secondary school network. MT continued to strengthen general education by the introduction of the new National Curriculum Framework. DK agreed a reform of primary and secondary education, to be implemented as of the 2014-15 school year, which involves more hours for core subjects (e.g. Danish, Maths and English) and more emphasis on practical training. Once finally adopted, the new secondary education reform in LU will seek to deliver a system that is more competence-orientated, dynamic and flexible. CZ and SK introduced new measures in relation to school inspections and school performance. PT is developing a comprehensive monitoring tool to evaluate the results and impact of education policies. In order to improve the performance of schools and teachers PL is introducing changes to the Teacher's Charter as of 2014: shortening paid holidays and long-term sick leave, and focusing training resources on courses directly addressing schools’ needs. PL also lowered its official school entry age from seven to six; school attendance at this age will be compulsory as from 2014.
BG and MT set up measures aimed at reducing the numbers of early-school leavers while AT focused on tackling unexcused school absenteeism as a means of eventually improving educational outcomes, especially for disadvantaged young people. To speed up the integration of low educated persons into the labour market, SE introduced three-month study motivation courses, to be delivered by high schools.
2.4 Employment Guideline 10: Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty
While some Member States have improved benefits addressing child poverty, others have restricted access to or reduced benefits. In response to growing concerns about the effects of increasing numbers of children affected by poverty, measures to address child poverty have been stepped up in some Member States, including through a comprehensive national action plan in BE. In EE, the needs-based family allowance reform was partly implemented from July 2013 (with increased allowances planned for 2015). In LV, in order to support poorer families, minimum monthly parental benefits, childcare benefits and childcare benefit supplements for children born in multiple births were increased, including for parents without social insurance, and the personal income tax allowance for dependents was increased. Recent trends of increased conditionality or cuts to benefits have also continued, for example in countries implementing a tightening of eligibility or freezing or reducing the level of income support measures (EL, ES, SI, UK). This has contributed to the weakening of the stabilising effect of social spending on household incomes.
Similarly mixed signs are found in access to early childhood education and care. Some Member States (DE, FR, HU, LV, PL, UK) took initiatives aimed at extending child enrolment in ECEC as part of their strategies to improve opportunities for children. DE introduced the right to childcare for the under threes, FR’s reform aims, by means of an appropriate pedagogical approach, to raise the participation rate of two to three year old and PL plans to expand the list of companies able to apply for funding from the state budget for the establishment and operation costs of care institutions. In addition PL adopted a new regulation in July 2013 under which as of September 2015 every four- year-old will have a right to participate in pre-school education and as of September 2017 every three-year-old will have a guaranteed place in pre-school education. Other countries (HR, LV and UK) took steps to improve the affordability of ECEC services. In LV, local governments now co-finance the cost of the enrolment in private facilities of children from one to four years in cases where there is a waiting list for public facilities. HR introduced a law on nannies which aims to improve access to childcare. Various Member States have also taken measures to strengthen child protection in their welfare systems (DK, ES, FI, PL, SE).
Rebalancing time in work and retirement is a key theme in pension initiatives as almost everywhere the pensionable age is being raised and gender equalised. Responding to the demographic challenges for pension provision, Member States increasingly recognise the need to ensure longer working lives to offset longevity growth. Over the past year, various Member States adopted or accelerated an increase of the pensionable age for women and/or men. In total, 23 of 28 MS have now legislated current or future increases of the pensionable age. In many cases, the increase is accompanied by a (gradual) equalisation of pensionable ages for men and women (CZ, EE, EL, HR, IT, LT, MT, PL, SI, SK, UK). However, more efforts are warranted to tackle other main drivers of the gender pension gap, in particular career interruptions and low-work intensity.
More countries are also taking the crucial step of linking pension age to longevity growth. Having first raised the pensionable age to cover earlier increases in longevity a growing number of countries have opted to introduce an explicit link between the pensionable age and future gains in life expectancy (CY, DK, EL, IT, NL, SK). Yet several Member States have serious reservations about this idea. Some argue that first they need to reduce the current gap between the effective and the pensionable age. Others see the idea of a pensionable age that automatically moves upward with the rise in life expectancy as too novel.
In order to curb early exit, most Member States have taken steps to restrict access to early retirement. The main reform measures in this respect are stricter eligibility conditions for early pensions (minimum age, contribution record and benefit level), increased penalties for early exit and stronger focus on activation measures. In particular, many countries are restricting access to widely-used pathways to early retirement such as prolonged unemployment benefits (e.g. ES) or invalidity benefits (e.g. AT, BE, DK). Still in some Member States (AT, BE, BG, HR, LU, MT, RO, SI) early exit options still tend to undermine the adequacy and sustainability of pensions and reduce employment and growth.
Many Member States are opening routes for people to prolong their working lives and improve pension entitlements by deferring retirement. In 2012, BG and the UK abolished provisions on default retirement. In FR, the age at which private employers can send a worker into retirement without his/her consent has been raised from 65 to 70. Many pension systems include incentives for working beyond pensionable age (ES), such as higher pension accrual rates or a pension bonus in the event of delayed retirement (FI and FR). More countries are relaxing rules to allow pension benefits to be combined with work-related income (BE, ES, NL and SI). Importantly, some countries are increasingly underpinning pension reforms with active ageing measures in work places and labour markets (e.g. BE, FR, SI, SK). However, in this area efforts in this area are still far too limited and uncoordinated. If pension reforms are to succeed Member States will need to greatly expand and intensify measures to enable and encourage women and men to work to higher ages.
In response to fiscal pressures, countries are reviewing healthcare expenditure and seeking ways to improve value for money while better instruments for cost containment are introduced. Several Member States have undertaken or launched structural reforms of their healthcare systems (AT, BG, CY, EL, ES, FI, HR, HU, LT, UK). BG is in the process of introducing a new hospital care pricing model based on the use of diagnosis-related groups. The new Health and Social Care Act will bring major changes to the NHS in the UK (England) with effects on who makes decisions about the commissioning of services and the way money is spent. A number of Member States introduced or are planning to introduce measures to contain the rising costs of health expenditure (AT, BE, CY, DE, EL, ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, NL, PT). AT, BE and FR focused on capping the overall level of healthcare expenditure growth. PT introduced new rules for pricing generics and for prescription by International Non-proprietary Name (INN), thereby promoting the use of generic medicines and the least costly available products. A variety of measures have been taken to improve health service delivery, many of them further developing e-Health (AT, BE, BG, DK, ES, HU, LT, LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK). ES is introducing a new legal framework defining clinical management models applicable to all centres of the National Health System. AT adopted an Electronic Health Record Act aimed at improving the continuum of care and the information flow of healthcare providers. Given the important challenge they face regarding health-care, some Member States have stepped up their efforts yet it is still too early to assess whether these have been effective.
It remains necessary to find new ways of tackling staff shortages and securing access to healthcare for all calls for further measures. Some Member States are substantially investing in the healthcare workforce (BG, DE, HU, MT, PL, SK). HU increased the wages of 90,000 health professionals. DE aims to address the lack of healthcare professionals in rural areas. Enhancing access to healthcare services remained a priority for several Member States (DK, EL, FI, FR, LU, LV). LU introduced a 'third party payer' system for insured persons officially declared to be in an economically vulnerable situation by the competent Social Office. EL is setting-up a temporary system of health vouchers ensuring that uninsured citizens have access to primary healthcare services.
Whilst long-term care services are often affected by budget constraints countries are also taking steps to secure a better organisation of such social services. Some Member States (BG, SI) adopted national strategies based on an integrated approach and enhancing the provision of quality social services, including long-term care. In SI, the National Programme of Social Protection (2013-20) defines qualitative and quantitative goals for the development of social systems in general and social services in particular. FI adopted a reform of its long-term care system strengthening the role of rehabilitation services and giving a clear priority to home care over residential services. In several Member States underdevelopment of formal LTC provisions remains a major impediment to female employment and growth as well as protection against dependency in old age.
Increased efforts to contain or reduce adult poverty include major overhauls of social assistance systems. A number of Member States are introducing or strengthening activating measures as part of their policy to better address adult poverty (see section on labour market participation). Reforms of the social assistance system are planned or in progress in a number of MSs (LT, CY, DK, EL, HR, IT, PL and RO). In 2012, LT launched the cash social assistance reform to increase work incentives, strengthen the links between social assistance and activation measures and better targeting and enhance the cooperation between local employment offices and municipalities. IT is implementing a reform of the main means-testing mechanism. The provision is intended to increase the targeting ability of the instrument and the fair distribution of fiscal relief and social benefits. IT also launched a ‘new social card’ pilot project- a minimum income scheme to be connected later to activation policies. As part of its reforms of the social assistance system, CY is also planning to introduce a guaranteed minimum income scheme (GMI) (which will actually replace the existing public assistance scheme). EL is planning to launch a pilot programme to introduce a minimum income scheme in the country. Some Member States (BE, EE, ES, HU, MT, UK) have taken steps towards administrative simplification. Despite the efforts, much remains to be done at Member States level to reach the right mix of adequate income support, inclusive labour markets and access to services.
Member States introduced special inclusion programmes for people in situations of particular disadvantages and for people affected by homelessness and housing exclusion. Many Member States have rethought or developed their National Roma Integration Strategies or integrated sets of policy measures in concrete terms, in particular by seeking to organise dialogue (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LV, NL, RO, SE, SI, UK). To efficiently confront homelessness, LU launched an integrated, non-criminalising, housing-led homelessness strategy with a focus on prevention, reducing long-term homelessness and improving access to housing and quality social services by homeless people. Several Member States (ES, FR, SK) have introduced measures to increase affordable social and rental housing for low-income households or fight segregation (HU). NL introduced income-dependent rent increases in the social housing sector, and in BE rent subsidies are offered to those who have been on the social housing waiting list for a long time.
3. SCOREBOARD OF KEY EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INDICATORS
In the Communication on Strengthening the Social Dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)[25] the Commission proposed a scoreboard of key employment and social indicators to be used in the draft Joint Employment Report. The scoreboard consists of five headline indicators: the unemployment rate (15-74 age group); the NEET rate in conjunction with the youth unemployment rate (15-24 age group); real gross household disposable income; the at-risk-of-poverty rate (15-64 age group) and income inequalities (S80/S20 ratio). The scoreboard ensures greater visibility and makes it easier to identify of major employment and social trends [26] that may affect the good functioning of the EMU and may warrant a closer follow-up within the European Semester[27]. The October 2013 European Council concluded that the use of an employment and social scoreboard in the Joint Employment Report and of employment and social indicators along the lines proposed by the Commission should be pursued, following appropriate work in the relevant Committees, for decision by the Council in December with the objective of using these new instruments as early as the 2014 European Semester[28].
In the event of an economic shock, there is a risk of employment and social problems developing within the monetary union in the absence of implementation of effective policy responses and thereby resulting in persistent disparities and deterioration in the economic fundamentals of the European Union as a whole. The main channels through which severe employment and social problems spill over on other Member States are internal trade, erosion of human capital resulting in deterioration of long-term international competitiveness conditions.. It is hence in the interest of all Member States to ensure that employment and social challenges are addressed in a timely and effective manner[29].
The analysis in this section is based on five headline indicators introduced in the above Communication[30]. The reading of the scoreboard should not be mechanical and a more detailed interpretation of it should build on existing tools (the Employment Performance Monitor (EPM), the Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM), the Joint Assessment Framework (JAF) and agreed datasets like the European Labour Force Survey and EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions[31].
The divergences highlighted by this new scoreboard and the ways to tackle negative trends and disturbing levels of employment and social problems will be further analysed during the 2014 European Semester through an even more detailed application of additional indicators, including in the multilateral surveillance process and during the preparation of country-specific recommendations.
What follows in the subsequent subsections is an overview of recent divergent socio-economic trends within the European Union, identifying the most noteworthy developments in individual countries per each of the five indicators. Finally, tables are provided in Annex with an overview of the situation per indicator in all EU Member States as well as an overview of the key employment challenges as identified in the EPM and the social trends to watch from the SPPM.
Potentially worrying key employment and social developments and levels leading to divergences across the EU and warranting further analysis and possibly stronger policy response could be detected along three dimensions:
· For each Member State, the change in the indicator in a certain year as compared with earlier periods in time (historical trend);
· For each Member State, the difference from the EU and the euro zone average rates in the same year (providing a snapshot of existing employment and social disparities);
· The change in the indicator between two consecutive years in each Member State relative to the change at the EU and euro zone levels (indicative of the dynamics of socio-economic convergence/divergence).
3.1. Unemployment rate - change and level
The gap that appeared between the unemployment rates for the 'North and core' and the 'South and periphery' of the euro area[32], has been growing at an alarming pace since 2008, and now reaches 10.2 percentage points (pp), against 1.7 pp between the North and periphery of non-EA countries. In the mid-2000s, the currency union indirectly contributed to convergence in unemployment rates across its Member States, notably due to the increases in demand associated with the large capital inflows into the 'peripheral' countries after the introduction of the euro. However, the financial and economic crisis has unleashed divergence in unemployment rates on a much larger scale, partly due to the slow deleveraging process and the uncertainty around the recovery prospects of the 'periphery' which also translated into high borrowing costs within these countries.
Figure I: Unemployment rates (15-74 age group) by groups of euro area (EA) and non-EA Member States since 2000
Source: Eurostat (LFS), DG EMPL calculations; weighted averages
As seen from figures in the tables in annex, there are five Member States (HR, CY, EL, PT and ES) where the unemployment situation is most alarming. In these countries the unemployment rate is far above the EU and EA averages. Also the increase in unemployment has been relatively fast, as compared with historical trends and with other Member States (i.e. divergence). Departing from different starting points, IT, the NL and SI are experiencing unemployment rates that are not extreme in terms of their levels but have increased significantly in recent years.
3.2. Youth unemployment rate and NEET rate (young people not in education, employment or training) - change and level
In the South and periphery of the euro area youth unemployment increased substantially from 2008 onwards, to reach a rate of over 40% in 2012. In contrast, in the North/core of the EA rates have remained more or less stable, so that by 2012 the gap between the two groups of Member States had grown to more than 25 percentage points. Developments in the remaining Member States have also been negative, but less so than in the South/periphery. The average rate of people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) aged 15-24 reached 19% in the South and periphery of the euro area, against 9.2% in the North/core, and the gap between these two groups of countries keeps increasing, following a similar pattern to that of unemployment trends. Youth unemployment and inactivity are of particular concern given their scarring effects on the future employability and productivity of the people in question. The present divergence in youth unemployment and NEET rates threatens to fuel an even greater divergence in socio-economic fundamentals across the currency union and the EU over the longer term.
Figure IIa: Youth unemployment rates (age group 15-24 age group) by groups of euro area (EA) and non-EA Member States since 2007
Source: Eurostat, statistics on education and training, DG EMPL calculations; weighted averages
Figure IIb: NEET rates (age group 15-24) by groups of euro area (EA) and non-EA Member States since 2007
Source: Eurostat, statistics on education and training, DG EMPL calculations; weighted averages
Reading the figures from the scoreboard (tables in annex), the situation for young people is alarming in several Member States. As for youth unemployment, both levels and trends are worrying in CY, EL, ES, IT, PT and HR. In SI and to a lesser extent BE, it is the trends rather than the levels that give rise to concern while the opposite holds for SK (high youth unemployment rate). As regards the NEET rates both the level and trends are worrisome in EL and IT. In BG, IE and ES it is the level that stands out, while for CY, LU, HU, PT and SI it is the recent trend.
3.3. Real change in gross disposable income of households
During the crisis years, household incomes (as measured by the growth rate of real gross household disposable income) in the North and central part of the euro area kept increasing, though at a reduced pace (except for the year 2010), while in the peripheral countries stagnated in real terms or declined after 2009. Household incomes have primarily been affected by the reduction of market incomes and the weakening of automatic stabilisers over time. In addition, fiscal tightening - concentrated in Southern/peripheral EA countries - has affected employment and changes to the tax and benefits systems and cuts in public sector wages have led to significant reductions in the level of real household incomes. This may have contributed to the widening divergence within the euro area.
Figure III: Real change in gross household disposable income (GHDI) by groups of EA and non-EA Member States since 2002
Source: Eurostat, National accounts, DG EMPL calculations; weighted averages
There is both a wide dispersion and growing divergence between Member States in the evolution of gross household disposable income in real terms. Looking at 2012 data no less than 11 Member States have experienced significant negative developments in gross household disposable incomes: EL has experienced a year-on-year decrease of nearly 10% and CY one of more than 8%. The declines in IT, HU, NL, PT, RO (data for 2011), SI, and ES, hover between 3% and 5% while DK and SK experienced a drop of around 1-2%. Such year-on-year decreases are particularly noteworthy, given that for several decades, real GHDI used to steadily if mildly rise across Europe due to economic growth or short-term automatic stabilisation in the event of downturns, with any year-on-year decreases thus being rather exceptional.
3.4 At-risk-of-poverty rate of working age population – change and level;
At-risk of poverty rates (AROP) are on the rise in many Member States. They have increased significantly since 2008 in the South and periphery of the EU, both in EA and non-EA countries. This increase came on top of already high poverty risk levels. Since 2009 AROP rates have also increased in Member States in the North and core of the euro area, albeit from a much lower level. The extended period of negative or close to zero GDP growth, rising long-term unemployment and the weakening over time of automatic stabilisers have now impacted on poverty risks in these countries as well.
Figure IV: At-risk-of-poverty rates in working age (15-64) by groups of EA and non-EA Member States since 2004[33]
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC, DG EMPL calculations; weighted averages - years refer to income year
Member States experiencing trends of increasing at-risk-of-poverty rates between 2010 and 2011 include BG, EE, ES, FR, IT, HU, RO and SK. EL, LV and LT have very high levels of people at-risk-of-poverty as compared with the EMU average, without significantly increasing trends during this time period. Particularly worrisome are developments in ES and RO as they display both high poverty levels and a trend of significant increases of poverty over a short period of time.
3.5. Inequalities (S80/S20 ratio) – change and level[34]
Income inequality is growing across and within Member States,pParticularly in the South and periphery of the EU. These are also the Member States that witnessed the largest increases in unemployment. In many countries, the crisis has intensified the long-term trends of wage polarisation and labour market segmentation, which together with less redistributive tax and benefit systems have fuelled rising inequalities. High levels of unemployment (with the largest increases at the bottom of the labour market) and in some cases the impact of fiscal consolidation[35] also explain the significant increases in inequalities observed in the countries most affected by the jobs crisis.
Figure V: Inequality (S80/S20 measure) by groups of EA and non-EA Member States since 2005
Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC, DG EMPL calculations; weighted averages - years refer to income year
There is a wide dispersion and growing divergence in inequality (S80/S20 ratio) between Member States. Looking at 2011 data, BG figures along all three dimensions: year-on-year change, distance from EMU average and the change between two consecutive years in a Member State relative to the change at EU/EA level. EE, EL, IT and HU stand out for the annual change (deterioration of the inequality ratio between 0,3 and 0,5 points) while RO, LV and ES stand out for their divergence from the EA average (increase of the inequality ratio by 1,2 point or more).
Annex 1: Scoreboard of key employment and social indicators with EU and Eurozone averages as reference points
|| Unemployment rate || Youth unemployment || Real growth in gross household disposable income || At-risk-of-poverty rate || Inequalities - S80/S20
|| Youth UR || NEETs
|| Y-Y change (S1/2012-S1/2013) || Distance from EU average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EU || Y-Y change (S1/2012-S1/2013) || Distance from EU average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EU || Y-Y change (2011-2012) || Distance from EU average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EU || Y-Y change (2011-2012) || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EU || Y-Y change (2010-2011) || Distance from EU average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EU || Y-Y change (2010-2011) || Distance from EU average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EU
EU-27 || 0,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,3 || 0,0 || 0,0 || -0,9 || 0,0 || 0,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0
EA-17 || 0,9 || 1,2 || 0,4 || 1,4 || 0,6 || 0,7 || 0,6 || 0,0 || 0,3 || -1,7 || -0,7 || 1,0 || 0,2 || 0,2 || 0,1 || 0,0 || 0,1
BE || 1,0 || -2,5 || 0,4 || 3,3 || 0,0 || 2,6 || 0,5 || -0,9 || 0,2 || -0,4 || 0,5 || 0,8 || -3,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || -1,1 || 0,0
BG || 0,8 || 2,0 || 0,2 || -0,1 || 5,1 || -0,8 || -0,3 || 8,3 || -0,6 || : || : || 2,2 || 2,2 || 1,4 || 0,6 || 1,5 || 0,6
CZ || 0,3 || -3,8 || -0,4 || -0,6 || -4,4 || -1,3 || 0,6 || -4,3 || 0,3 || 0,3 || 1,2 || 1,0 || -6,9 || 0,2 || 0,0 || -1,5 || 0,0
DK || -0,8 || -4,0 || -1,4 || -2,3 || -10,9 || -3,0 || 0,3 || -6,6 || 0,0 || -0,9 || 0,0 || 0,2 || -2,9 || -0,6 || 0,0 || -0,6 || 0,0
DE || -0,2 || -5,6 || -0,8 || -0,3 || -15,5 || -0,9 || 0,2 || -5,5 || -0,1 || 0,7 || 1,6 || 0,8 || 0,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || -0,5 || 0,0
EE || -1,7 || -2,2 || -2,3 || -4,0 || -5,3 || -4,7 || 0,7 || -0,7 || 0,4 || 2,4 || 3,3 || 2,4 || 2,0 || 1,6 || 0,3 || 0,3 || 0,3
IE || -1,2 || 2,9 || -1,8 || -3,2 || 4,9 || -3,8 || -0,1 || 5,5 || -0,4 || 5,7 || 6,7 || 0,5 || -0,9 || -0,3 || -0,1 || -0,4 || -0,1
EL || 4,1 || 16,1 || 3,5 || 6,1 || 36,1 || 5,5 || 2,9 || 7,1 || 2,6 || -9,6 || -8,7 || 1,0 || 4,0 || 0,2 || 0,4 || 1,0 || 0,4
ES || 2,2 || 15,5 || 1,6 || 3,9 || 32,2 || 3,3 || 0,3 || 5,6 || 0,0 || -5,2 || -4,2 || 1,5 || 4,5 || 0,7 || -0,1 || 2,1 || -0,1
FR || 0,8 || -0,1 || 0,2 || 2,1 || 2,4 || 1,4 || 0,2 || -1,0 || -0,1 || -0,3 || 0,6 || 1,1 || -2,5 || 0,3 || 0,1 || -0,4 || 0,1
HR || 1,9 || 6,1 || 1,3 || 12,2 || 28,1 || 11,5 || 1 || 3,5 || 0,7 || : || : || 0,7 || 3,1 || -0,1 || -0,2 || 0,4 || -0,2
IT || 1,7 || 1,1 || 1,1 || 4,5 || 15,6 || 3,8 || 1,3 || 7,9 || 1,0 || -4,5 || -3,6 || 1,6 || 2,5 || 0,8 || 0,4 || 0,6 || 0,4
CY || 4,3 || 4,3 || 3,7 || 11,2 || 13,8 || 10,5 || 1,4 || 2,8 || 1,1 || -8,0 || -7,0 || -0,4 || -4,5 || -1,2 || -0,2 || -0,7 || -0,2
LV || -3,6 || 1,1 || -4,2 || -8,2 || -2,2 || -8,9 || -1,1 || 1,7 || -1,4 || 4,9 || 5,8 || -0,3 || 4,2 || -1,1 || -0,3 || 1,6 || -0,3
LT || -1,5 || 1,4 || -2,1 || -5,5 || -0,6 || -6,1 || -0,4 || -2,1 || -0,7 || : || : || -1,6 || 4,2 || -2,4 || -1,5 || 0,8 || -1,5
LU || 0,6 || -5,3 || 0,0 || 0,2 || -4,7 || -0,4 || 1,2 || -7,3 || 0,9 || : || : || -0,8 || -2,9 || -1,6 || -0,1 || -1,0 || -0,1
HU || -0,4 || -0,3 || -1,0 || 0,5 || 4,9 || -0,1 || 1,4 || 1,5 || 1,1 || -3,0 || -2,0 || 1,7 || -2,4 || 0,9 || 0,5 || -1,1 || 0,5
MT || 0,1 || -4,4 || -0,5 || -0,5 || -9,5 || -1,2 || 0,5 || -2,1 || 0,2 || : || : || 0,2 || -2,9 || -0,6 || -0,2 || -0,9 || -0,2
NL || 1,4 || -4,5 || 0,8 || 1,4 || -12,7 || 0,7 || 0,5 || -8,9 || 0,2 || -3,1 || -2,2 || 0,4 || -5,5 || -0,4 || 0,1 || -1,2 || 0,1
AT || 0,6 || -6,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || -14,6 || -0,6 || -0,4 || -6,7 || -0,7 || 1,4 || 2,3 || 0,3 || -5,0 || -0,5 || 0,1 || -1,2 || 0,1
PL || 0,6 || -0,4 || 0,0 || 1,1 || 3,8 || 0,4 || 0,2 || -1,4 || -0,1 || 0,4 || 1,4 || 0,2 || 1,1 || -0,6 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,0
PT || 2,1 || 6,4 || 1,5 || 3,6 || 16,6 || 3,0 || 1,4 || 0,9 || 1,1 || -3,0 || -2,1 || 0,5 || 0,2 || -0,3 || 0,1 || 0,7 || 0,1
RO || 0,1 || -3,7 || -0,5 || -0,3 || -0,1 || -0,9 || -0,6 || 3,6 || -0,9 || -4,3* || -4,2* || 1,8 || 5,0 || 1,0 || 0,2 || 1,2 || 0,2
SI || 2,3 || -0,3 || 1,7 || 5,3 || 0,1 || 4,6 || 2,2 || -3,9 || 1,9 || -3,8 || -2,9 || 0,7 || -4,3 || -0,1 || 0,1 || -1,5 || 0,1
SK || 0,4 || 3,3 || -0,2 || 0,4 || 10,5 || -0,3 || 0 || 0,6 || -0,3 || -2,3 || -1,4 || 1,2 || -3,6 || 0,4 || 0,0 || -1,2 || 0,0
FI || 0,4 || -2,8 || -0,2 || 1,1 || -3,3 || 0,4 || 0,2 || -4,6 || -0,1 || 0,3 || 1,2 || 0,5 || -3,2 || -0,3 || 0,1 || -1,3 || 0,1
SE || 0,3 || -2,9 || -0,4 || 1,1 || 0,8 || 0,4 || 0,3 || -5,4 || 0,0 || 2,9 || 3,9 || 0,6 || -3,5 || -0,2 || 0,1 || -1,4 || 0,1
UK || -0,3 || -3,2 || -0,9 || -0,6 || -2,5 || -1,3 || -0,3 || 0,8 || -0,6 || 2,2 || 3,1 || -0,8 || -1,9 || -1,6 || -0,1 || 0,3 || -0,1
* The latest data for RO for real growth in GHDI available for 2010-11
|| Unemployment Rate || Youth unemployment || Real growth in gross household disposable income || At-risk-of-poverty rate || Inequalities - S80/S20
|| Youth UR || NEETs
|| Y-Y change (S1/2012-S1/2013) || Distance from EA average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EA || Y-Y change (S1/2012-S1/2013) || Distance from EA average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EA || Y-Y change (2011-2012) || Distance from EA average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EA || Y-Y change (2011-2012) || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EA || Y-Y change (2010-2011) || Distance from EA average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EA || Y-Y change (2010-2011) || Distance from EA average || Y-Y for MS to Y-Y for EA
EU-27 || 0,6 || -1,2 || -0,4 || 0,6 || -0,6 || -0,7 || 0,3 || 0 || -0,3 || -0,9 || 0,7 || 0,8 || -0,2 || -0,2 || 0,0 || 0,0 || -0,1
EA- 17 || 0,9 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 1,4 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,6 || 0 || 0 || -1,7 || 0,0 || 1,0 || 0,0 || 0,0 || 0,1 || 0,0 || 0,0
BE || 1,0 || -3,7 || 0,0 || 3,3 || -0,7 || 1,9 || 0,5 || -0,9 || -0,1 || -0,4 || 1,3 || 0,8 || -3,3 || -0,2 || 0,0 || -1,1 || -0,1
BG || 0,8 || 0,9 || -0,1 || -0,1 || 4,5 || -1,5 || -0,3 || 8,3 || -0,9 || : || : || 2,2 || 2,0 || 1,2 || 0,6 || 1,5 || 0,5
CZ || 0,3 || -5,0 || -0,7 || -0,6 || -5,0 || -2,0 || 0,6 || -4,3 || 0 || 0,3 || 2,0 || 1,0 || -7,1 || 0,0 || 0,0 || -1,5 || -0,1
DK || -0,8 || -5,1 || -1,7 || -2,3 || -11,6 || -3,7 || 0,3 || -6,6 || -0,3 || -0,9 || 0,7 || 0,2 || -3,1 || -0,8 || 0,0 || -0,6 || -0,1
DE || -0,2 || -6,7 || -1,1 || -0,3 || -16,2 || -1,7 || 0,2 || -5,5 || -0,4 || 0,7 || 2,3 || 0,8 || 0,2 || -0,2 || 0,0 || -0,5 || -0,1
EE || -1,7 || -3,4 || -2,6 || -4,0 || -5,9 || -5,4 || 0,7 || -0,7 || 0,1 || 2,4 || 4,0 || 2,4 || 1,8 || 1,4 || 0,3 || 0,3 || 0,2
IE || -1,2 || 1,7 || -2,2 || -3,2 || 4,2 || -4,5 || -0,1 || 5,5 || -0,7 || 5,7 || 7,4 || 0,5 || -1,1 || -0,5 || -0,1 || -0,4 || -0,2
EL || 4,1 || 15,0 || 3,2 || 6,1 || 35,4 || 4,7 || 2,9 || 7,1 || 2,3 || -9,6 || -7,9 || 1,0 || 3,8 || 0,0 || 0,4 || 1,0 || 0,3
ES || 2,2 || 14,4 || 1,2 || 3,9 || 31,6 || 2,6 || 0,3 || 5,6 || -0,3 || -5,2 || -3,5 || 1,5 || 4,3 || 0,5 || -0,1 || 1,8 || -0,2
FR || 0,8 || -1,3 || -0,2 || 2,1 || 1,8 || 0,7 || 0,2 || -1 || -0,4 || -0,3 || 1,3 || 1,1 || -2,7 || 0,1 || 0,1 || -0,4 || 0,0
HR || 1,9 || 4,9 || 0,9 || 12,2 || 27,5 || 10,8 || 1 || 3,5 || 0,4 || : || : || 0,7 || 2,9 || -0,3 || -0,2 || 0,4 || -0,3
IT || 1,7 || -0,1 || 0,8 || 4,5 || 14,9 || 3,1 || 1,3 || 7,9 || 0,7 || -4,5 || -2,8 || 1,6 || 2,3 || 0,6 || 0,4 || 0,6 || 0,3
CY || 4,3 || 3,2 || 3,4 || 11,2 || 13,1 || 9,8 || 1,4 || 2,8 || 0,8 || -8,0 || -6,3 || -0,4 || -4,7 || -1,4 || -0,2 || -0,7 || -0,3
LV || -3,6 || -0,1 || -4,5 || -8,2 || -2,8 || -9,6 || -1,1 || 1,7 || -1,7 || 4,9 || 6,6 || -0,3 || 4,0 || -1,3 || -0,3 || 1,6 || -0,4
LT || -1,5 || 0,2 || -2,5 || -5,5 || -1,3 || -6,8 || -0,4 || -2,1 || -1 || : || : || -1,6 || 4,0 || -2,6 || -1,5 || 0,8 || -1,6
LU || 0,6 || -6,5 || -0,4 || 0,2 || -5,4 || -1,2 || 1,2 || -7,3 || 0,6 || : || : || -0,8 || -3,1 || -1,8 || -0,1 || -1,0 || -0,2
HU || -0,4 || -1,4 || -1,4 || 0,5 || 4,3 || -0,9 || 1,4 || 1,5 || 0,8 || -3,0 || -1,3 || 1,7 || -2,6 || 0,7 || 0,5 || -1,1 || 0,4
MT || 0,1 || -5,6 || -0,9 || -0,5 || -10,1 || -1,9 || 0,5 || -2,1 || -0,1 || : || : || 0,2 || -3,1 || -0,8 || -0,2 || -0,9 || -0,3
NL || 1,4 || -5,6 || 0,4 || 1,4 || -13,3 || 0,0 || 0,5 || -8,9 || -0,1 || -3,1 || -1,4 || 0,4 || -5,7 || -0,6 || 0,1 || -1,2 || 0,0
AT || 0,6 || -7,3 || -0,4 || 0,0 || -15,2 || -1,4 || -0,4 || -6,7 || -1 || 1,4 || 3,1 || 0,3 || -5,2 || -0,7 || 0,1 || -1,2 || 0,0
PL || 0,6 || -1,5 || -0,3 || 1,1 || 3,2 || -0,3 || 0,2 || -1,4 || -0,4 || 0,4 || 2,1 || 0,2 || 0,9 || -0,8 || 0,0 || 0,0 || -0,1
PT || 2,1 || 5,3 || 1,2 || 3,6 || 16,0 || 2,3 || 1,4 || 0,9 || 0,8 || -3,0 || -1,3 || 0,5 || 0,0 || -0,5 || 0,1 || 0,7 || 0,0
RO || 0,1 || -4,8 || -0,9 || -0,3 || -0,8 || -1,6 || -0,6 || 3,6 || -1,2 || -4,3* || -4,0* || 1,8 || 4,8 || 0,8 || 0,2 || 1,2 || 0,1
SI || 2,3 || -1,5 || 1,4 || 5,3 || -0,5 || 3,9 || 2,2 || -3,9 || 1,6 || -3,8 || -2,2 || 0,7 || -4,5 || -0,3 || 0,1 || -1,5 || 0,0
SK || 0,4 || 2,1 || -0,6 || 0,4 || 9,9 || -1,0 || 0 || 0,6 || -0,6 || -2,3 || -0,6 || 1,2 || -3,8 || 0,2 || 0,0 || -1,2 || -0,1
FI || 0,4 || -4,0 || -0,5 || 1,1 || -3,9 || -0,3 || 0,2 || -4,6 || -0,4 || 0,3 || 2,0 || 0,5 || -3,4 || -0,5 || 0,1 || -1,3 || 0,0
SE || 0,3 || -4,0 || -0,7 || 1,1 || 0,1 || -0,3 || 0,3 || -5,4 || -0,3 || 2,9 || 4,6 || 0,6 || -3,7 || -0,4 || 0,1 || -1,4 || 0,0
UK || -0,3 || -4,3 || -1,3 || -0,6 || -3,1 || -2,0 || -0,3 || 0,8 || -0,9 || 2,2 || 3,9 || -0,8 || -2,1 || -1,8 || -0,1 || 0,3 || -0,2
* The latest data for RO for real growth in GHDI available for 2010-11
Annex 2: Summary overview of Key Employment Challenges and particularly good labour market outcomes according to the Employment Performance Monitor (C=challenge; G=good labour market outcome) – adopted in June 2013[36].
Annex 3: Summary overview of the ‘social trends to watch’ as identified by the Social Protection Performance Monitor[37] - adopted in Jan 2013.
||
Note: The social trends to watch for 2010-11, identified by deterioration in more than 1/3 of MS, are highlighted in red in the table to the right.
[1] This section partly builds on the detailed analysis presented in "EU Employment and Social Situation, Quarterly Review", March 2013. For details in the area of education, training and skills, cf the 2013 edition of the Education and Training Monitor.
[2] The unemployment rate of third-country nationals reached 21.3% in 2012 compared to 20.0% in 2011 - and 14.4% 2008.
[3] Data for EL only available until July.
[4] According to the latest Vacancy Monitor, the professions with the highest growth in employees after personal care workers in health services were software applications developers and analysts, administrative and specialised secretaries, mining, manufacturing and construction supervisors, and primary school and early childhood teachers.
[5] The job finding rate is defined as the ratio between the number of people starting new jobs and those who are unemployed. The job separation rate is the ratio of the number of people who left their jobs to the number of people in employment.
[6] "Labour Market Developments in Europe, 2013", European Commission.
[7] For instance "Future Skills Supply and Demand in Europe", Cedefop.
[8] In October 2013, the OECD and Commission released the outcome of a new Survey on Adult Skills (PIAAC), European Commission, OECD.
[9] See e.g. "Is Aggregate Demand Wage-Led or Profit-Led? National and Global Effects", International Labour Office, Conditions of Work and Employment Series No. 40, Geneva, 2012.
[10] See Quarterly Report on the Euro Area, European Commission, Volume 12, No. 3, 2013.
[11] Source: Garnier et al. (2103): Recent Reforms of Tax Systems in the EU: Good and Bad News. Taxation paper, 39. European Commission
[12] See e.g. Eurofound (2013), Tackling Undeclared Work in 27 European Union Member States and Norway: Approaches and Measures Since 2008, Eurofound, Dublin; Hazans, M. (2011), Informal Workers Across Europe, Research Paper 5912, World Bank, Washington DC.
[13] The income quintile share ratio or the S80/S20 ratio is a measure of the inequality of income distribution. It is calculated as the ratio of total income received by the 20 % of the population with the highest income (the top quintile) to that received by the 20 % of the population with the lowest income (the bottom quintile). All incomes are compiled as equivalised disposable incomes.
[14] The latest EU-SILC figures include Eurostat estimates for the EU-28 and EU-27 for 2012 (results for AT, BE, IE and UK are missing). The SILC reference data 2012 refer to the income year 2011.
[15] See Employment and social developments in Europe 2012, European Commission
[16] Ibid
[17] See EUROMOD Working Paper 2/13 Avram, Figari, Leventi, Levy, Navicke, Matsaganis, Militaru, Paulus, Rastringina, Sutherland: The Distributional Effects of Fiscal Consolidation in Nine Countries. A new version of the paper is to be presented soon. In the nine countries reviewed by the study, the impact of household income-based measures (e.g. changes to the tax and benefits systems and cuts in wages taken between 2007 and mid-2012) varied from 1.6% of pre-crisis disposable income in IT and 1.9% in UK to 9.1% in LV and 11.6% in EL.
[18] See EU Employment and social situation, Quarterly Review March 2013. Analysis shows that the downwards adjustment of social expenditure observed since 2011 appears more pronounced in comparison to similar episodes of recession over the past three decades.
[19] 2011 data available soon
[20] This section gives an update of the situation as presented in the previous Joint Employment Report and due to space limitations, is not exhaustive and does not aim to report on all reforms and policy measures.
[21] Council Decision 2010/707/EU of 21 October 2012 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.
[22] The term early childhood education and care refers to all forms of care and education from birth to the start of primary schooling.
[23] See additional reporting on this issue in the section on social inclusion.
[24] Promoting green jobs throughout the crisis: a handbook of best practices in Europe, European Employment Observatory 2013
[25] COM(2013) 690.
[26] The scoreboard as included in this version of the draft Joint Employment Report may be updated in December 2013 once the new wave of annual social data is available.
[27] As part of the draft Joint Employment Report, based on Article 148 TFEU and feeding into the European Semester process, the scoreboard covers all EU Member States and comparisons are thus made with the EU average. In some cases, statistical deviations from the EA average might also be relevant. As set out in the Commission’s Blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union, coordination and surveillance of employment and social policies should be reinforced within the EMU governance, and convergence in these areas should be promoted.
[28] Conclusions of the European Council, 24/25 October 2013.
[29] For the detailed overview of spill-over effects of employment and social developments beyond border see: EU Employment and Social Situation. Quarterly Review, September 2013, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1974&furtherNews=yes
[30] The Commission is open to considering possible refinements of the scoreboard in future editions, based on on-going technical discussions in the Employment and Social Protection Committees and reactions from the European Parliament, social partners and other stakeholders.
[31] COM(2013) 690, page 6.
[32] Definition of areas: North and core of EA: AT, BE, DE, FI, FR, LU, NL; South and periphery of EA: EE, EL, ES, IE, IT, CY, MT, PT, SI, SK; Non EA – North: CZ, DK, PL, SE, UK; Non EA - South and periphery: BG, HR, LV, LT, HU, RO.
[33] For the at-risk-of poverty rate, the income reference year is the calendar year prior to the survey year (i.e. 2010) except for UK (survey year) and IE (12 months preceding the survey). The same applies to the inequalities (S80/S20 ratio) indicator.
[34] The ratio between the incomes of the 20% of the population with the highest incomes and the incomes of the 20% with lowest incomes.
[35] See EUROMOD Working Paper 2/13.
[36] http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st10/st10373-re01.en13.pdf
[37] ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=9235&langId=en