Archive:Sustainable development - social inclusion

This Statistics Explained article is outdated and has been archived - for recent articles on sustainable development indicators see here.

Data from July 2015. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Database.

This article provides an overview of statistical data on sustainable development in the area of socioeconomic development. It is based on the set of sustainable development indicators the European Union (EU) agreed upon for monitoring its sustainable development strategy. This article is part of a set of statistical articles for monitoring sustainable development, which are based on the Eurostat publication 'Sustainable development in the European Union - 2015 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy'. The report is published every two years and provides an overview of progress towards the goals and objectives set in the EU sustainable development strategy.

Table 1 summarises the state of affairs in the area of socioeconomic development. Quantitative rules, applied consistently across indicators and visualised through weather symbols, provide a relative assessment of whether Europe is moving in the right direction and at a sufficient pace, given the objectives and targets defined in the strategy.

Table 1: Evaluation of changes in the social includion theme (EU-28)

Overview of the main changes

Until 2009, the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion had been falling steadily. However, in that year the trend reversed following the onset of the economic crisis. This unfavourable short-term trend has pushed the EU off its path to meeting the Europe 2020 Strategy’s target of lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2020. The economic crisis has also influenced many of the other indicators in the social inclusion theme. Trends have deteriorated in the short term, in particular after 2009, with an increasing number of people being affected by one or more forms of poverty, namely monetary poverty, severe material deprivation and very low work intensity. The same holds true for long-term unemployment. In contrast, trends have been favourable for most of the education indicators, in particular regarding early school leavers and tertiary education. However, trends in adult education, as monitored through participation in lifelong learning, are less encouraging.

Key trends in social inclusion

Almost every fourth person at risk of poverty or social exclusion

Between 2005 and 2013, 2.7 million people were lifted out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU-27. This number fell consistently between 2005 and 2009 but started to rise again with the onset of the economic crisis. In 2012, the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU-28 peaked at more than 124 million, before falling back by more than one million in 2013. Still almost one in four people in the EU were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013. The overall slow progress endangers the Europe 2020 strategy’s target of lifting at least 20 million people out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2020.

Monetary poverty increasing and living conditions deteriorating

Monetary poverty remains the most prevalent form of poverty in the EU, with 16.6 % of the total population affected. The number of people at risk of poverty after social transfers in the EU-28 has risen by 1.8 % since 2010. The number of people affected by severe material deprivation fell overall between 2005 and 2013. However, the favourable trend had started to reverse in 2009 with the onset of the economic crisis. In 2013, 48.3 million people in the EU-28 were living in conditions severely constrained by a lack of resources. This was equal to 9.6 % of the total EU population. Income inequality barely changed between 2008 and 2013. In 2013, the richest 20 % of the population earned about five times as much as the poorest 20 %.

Labour market has experienced less inclusive development

The number of people affected by very low work intensity increased by 5.3 % in the EU-28 between 2010 and 2013. Economic inactivity substantially increases the risk of being poor. Poverty and social exclusion do not only affect economically inactive or unemployed people. The share of working poor increased between 2005 and 2013 by 8.5 %. In general, men were more at risk of in-work poverty than women. The EU-28’s long-term unemployment rate fell between 2004 and 2008. However, this favourable trend was reversed with the onset of the economic crisis from 2008 onwards. Until 2013 the long-term unemployment rate climbed to a high of 5.1 % and remained at this level in 2014. The hourly gross earnings of women are slowly catching up with those of men. Between 2006 and 2013, there was a 1.3 percentage point drop in the gender pay gap.

Improvements in education

The share of early leavers from education and training has fallen steadily since 2003, reaching 11.1 % in 2014. If this trend can be sustained, the target to reduce early school leaving rates to less than 10 % by 2020 appears in reach. The share of the population aged 30 to 34 with tertiary educational attainment has been continuously increasing since 2002. The trend suggests the Europe 2020 target of increasing this share to at least 40 % by 2020 will be reached. Participation in lifelong learning increased by 27.4 % between 2003 and 2014. Nevertheless, progress is slow and the EU benchmark of at least 15 % of adults participating in lifelong learning in 2020 may be difficult to reach.

Main statistical findings

Headline indicator

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion

About 2.7 million people in the EU-27 were lifted out of the risk of poverty or social exclusion in the long-term period between 2005 and 2013. However, the situation has deteriorated in the shorter term, since 2008, pushing the EU off its path to meeting the Europe 2020 strategy’s poverty target.

Figure 1: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, 2005–13 (million people) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc100))

Figure 2: Aggregation of sub-indicators of ‘people at risk of poverty or social exclusion’, EU-28, 2013 (million people) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (ilc_pees01))

Figure 3: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by sex and age group, EU-28, 2010 and 2013 (% of population) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (ilc_peps01))

Figure 4: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by household type, EU-28, 2010 and 2013 (% of population) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (ilc_peps03))

Figure 5: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by education level, EU-28, 2010 and 2013 (% of population aged 18 and over) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (ilc_peps04))

Figure 6: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion, by country, 2008 and 2013 (% of population) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc100))

The headline indicator ‘people at risk of poverty or social exclusion’ shows the number of people affected by at least one of three forms of poverty: monetary poverty, material deprivation or very low work intensity. People can suffer from more than one dimension of poverty at a time.

The number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU-27 had been decreasing steadily before the economic crisis. It reached its lowest level in 2009, with about 114.5 million people at risk in the EU-27. However, the impact of the economic crisis on Member States’ financial and labour markets led to a considerable worsening of the situation in the following years. The number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion reached a peak in 2012, with about 122.6 million people affected in the EU 27. It fell slightly in 2013 to 121.6 million people. The EU-28, for which data are available from 2010 onwards only, followed a similar trend as the EU-27 but at a slightly higher level.

The steep increase between 2009 and 2012 and the slight reduction in 2013 translated into a gap of 25.0 million people being more at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU-27 compared with the target set for 2020.

• The three dimensions of poverty

The 122.9 million people who were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the 28 in 2013 were affected by one or more dimensions of poverty. As shown in Figure 2, monetary poverty was the most widespread form of poverty in 2013, with 83.4 million people living at risk of poverty after Member States social transfers. This was followed by material deprivation, affecting 48.3 million people, and very low work intensity, affecting 40.7 million people.

Of all the people at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013, 40.3 million people, or almost one-third (32.7 %), were affected by more than one dimension of poverty. Of these, 13.5 million people suffered from monetary poverty and material deprivation, 3.8 million were both materially deprived and living in households with very low work intensity, and 13.7 million were affected by low work intensity and monetary poverty. Another 9.3 million people were affected by all three forms (see Figure 2).

The three sub-indicators — monetary poverty, material deprivation and very low work intensity — have developed quite unevenly over the past few years. As a result they have had a similarly uneven effect on the changes in the overall ‘people at risk of poverty or social exclusion’ headline indicator. The sub-indicators and their trends are analysed in more detail in the following sections of this chapter.

• Women are more likely to live in poverty and social exclusion than men

In 2013, 25.4 % of women were at risk of poverty or social exclusion across the EU compared with 23.6 % of men. This put the EU-wide gender gap at 1.8 percentage points. Women were worse off in all countries except Spain and Portugal where the risk of poverty or social exclusion was slightly lower for women than for men in 2013. The gaps were highest in Lithuania (4.7 percentage points), Germany (3.1 percentage points), the Czech Republic and Sweden (3 percentage points each), and Bulgaria (2.9 percentage points). Portugal, Finland and Denmark were the most egalitarian countries in terms of risk of poverty or social exclusion with gender gaps of less than or about 0.5 percentage points. The gender gap narrowed in most countries between 2008 and 2013, except in the Netherlands, Lithuania and Sweden. The disparities between women and men become more distinct when looking at age groups. Among men, young people aged 18 to 24 were most at risk (31.1 %) in 2013 compared with older people aged 65 or over (15.3 %). In contrast, women were more likely to be at risk of poverty or social exclusion in all age groups. The risk was most unequal between men and women among the older people aged 65 or over. In this age group the gender gap was 5.2 percentage points in 2013.

• Young people aged 18 to 24 are more at risk than other age groups

For both men and women, young people aged 18 to 24 are most likely to be at risk of poverty or social exclusion. More than 30 % were at risk in 2013 (31.1 % for men and 32.7 % for women). People younger than 18 years of age were the next high-risk group, at 27.7 %. Moreover, the situation of young people aged 18 to 24 has not improved compared with 2010. Although their risk of poverty or social exclusion had been falling until 2009, it climbed back in the following years.

In contrast, older people aged 65 or over showed the lowest rates of 18.2 % (15.3 % for men and 20.5 % for women) in 2013. The rates of this age group have shown a steady decline over the period 2010 to 2013 (see Figure 3). As a result the differences of the at-risk-of-poverty rate between young and older people have increased. This indicates that the burden of the financial crisis has fallen more heavily on those already belonging to the most vulnerable groups of society. The widening of the gap between young people aged 18 to 24 and older people aged 65 or over can also be seen in most Member States. The gap increased in almost all countries, in some cases massively, between 2008 and 2013. In Denmark, the differences increased by about 18 percentage points. This was due to the number of young people at risk of poverty or social exclusion rising by 11 percentage points and the number of elderly at risk falling by about seven percentage points.

• Single parents face the highest risk of poverty or social exclusion

Almost 50 % of single people with one or more dependent children were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013. This was double the average and higher than in any other household type or group analysed. Figure 4 shows that the situation for single parents at the EU level has improved only marginally since 2010 when 52.0 % of single-parent households were at risk of poverty or social exclusion. It should be however noted that single-parent households only account for 4.6 % of all households. The group with the lowest poverty rate in 2013, and showing the most improvement since 2005, were households with two adults where at least one person was aged 65 years or over.

• People with low educational attainment are more likely to be at risk

In 2013, 34.8 % of people with at most lower secondary educational attainment were at risk of poverty or social exclusion (see Figure 5). In comparison, only 11.9 % of people with tertiary education were in the same situation. This indicates that the least educated people were about three times more likely to be at risk than those with the highest education levels.

• How risk of poverty and social exclusion varies across Member States

Overall, 24.5 % of the EU population was at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013. However, this conceals considerable variations among Member States in both the level and dynamics of this indicator (see Figure 6). In Bulgaria almost half of the population (48.0 %) was at risk in 2013. In the Czech Republic (14.6 %), the Netherlands (15.9 %) and Finland (16.0 %) the rate was about three times lower. In the EU as a whole, and in most Member States, the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion reached its lowest level in 2009 before rising again. Significant differences between Member States could be seen during the period 2008 to 2013. Some countries made clear progress in integrating their most vulnerable members into society. Reductions in the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion ranged from 2 % to 15 % in Poland (– 15 %), Romania (–9 %), Austria (– 9 %), Finland (– 8 %), Slovakia (– 4 %), Czech Republic (– 5 %) and France (– 2 %). A number of countries, however, experienced an increase in the number of people at risk. In Cyprus, Greece, Malta and Luxembourg the number increased by more than 20 % or even more than 30 %.

One reason for the disparity in poverty rates across the EU is the uneven impact of the economic crisis on Member States. Differences in the structure of labour markets, welfare systems, the fiscal position and fiscal consolidation measures have also played a role (European Commission, 2013, p.18).

• Relative and absolute measures of poverty

The three forms of poverty developed quite distinctly between 2005 and 2013. One possible explanation for the divergence of monetary poverty on the one hand and material deprivation and very low work intensity on the other is the different structure of the indicators. While monetary poverty is measured in relative terms, material deprivation and very low work intensity are absolute measures. The relativity of monetary poverty means the at-risk rate may remain stable or even increase even if a country’s average or median disposable income increases. Absolute poverty measures, however, are likely to decrease during economic recoveries. For further details see the following sections on risk of poverty after social transfers, on severe material deprivation and on very low work intensity.

Monetary poverty and living conditions

Risk of poverty after social transfers

There were 83.4 million people in the EU-28 at risk of poverty after social transfers in 2013. In the EU-27, an increase of 4 % has been observed over the long term since 2005, as well as a short-term increase of 1 % since 2008. Monetary poverty remains the most prevalent form of poverty in the EU.

Figure 7: People at risk of poverty after social transfers, 2005–13 (million people) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc280))

Figure 8: People at risk of poverty after social transfers, by country, 2008 and 2013 (% of population) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc280))

People are considered to be at risk of monetary poverty when their equivalised disposable income (after social transfers) is below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income after social transfers. To support people at risk of poverty, governments provide social security in the form of social transfers, such as benefits relating to education, housing, pensions or unemployment. The number of people at risk of poverty after social transfers in the EU-27 has increased by about 4.0 % over the long term, from 79.3 million in 2005 to 82.5 million in 2013. However, the rate of increase has slowed in the short term, rising by just 1.3 % between 2008 and 2013. The EU-28 has shown a similar tendency since 2010 but on a slightly higher level. In contrast to other poverty-related indicators in this chapter, the number of people at risk of poverty after social transfers had already increased before the economic crisis began.

• Social transfers alleviate the prevalence of monetary poverty

The 83.4 million people being at risk of poverty after social transfers in 2013 translate into a share of 16.6 % of the total EU population. Without the cushioning effect of social transfers, the share of people at risk of poverty would be even higher: in 2013, the share of the EU-28 population at risk of poverty before social transfers was 24.5 %. There is a wide gap in performance between the welfare systems in different EU countries. Some countries have managed to reduce the risk of poverty by more than 50 % and some by less than 20 % (EU average 32 %).

• How the share of people at risk of poverty after social transfers varies across Member States

Across the EU, Greece (23.1 %), Romania (22.4 %) and Bulgaria (21.0 %) reported the highest rates of people at risk of poverty after social transfers in 2013. On the other side of the spectrum, the Czech Republic (8.6 %), the Netherlands (10.4 %) and Finland (11.8 %) performed best in terms of the percentage of population living in monetary poverty in 2013.

Severe material deprivation

The number of people affected by severe material deprivation has fallen by 8.5 % in the EU-27 over the long term since 2005. However, the economic crisis reversed this favourable trend in the short term, resulting in a 13.8 % rise in the number of people affected between 2008 and 2013. Severe material deprivation remains the second most prevalent form of poverty in the EU.

Figure 9: Severely materially deprived people, EU-27 and EU-28, 2005–13 (million people) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc270))

Figure 10: Severely materially deprived people, by country, 2008 and 2013 (% of population) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc270))

Material deprivation covers issues relating to economic strain, durables and housing, and the environment of dwellings. Severely materially deprived people have living conditions greatly constrained by a lack of resources. In 2013, 48.3 million people in the EU-28 were living in such conditions. This was equal to 9.6 % of the total EU population or every tenth person, making severe material deprivation the second most common form of poverty in the EU. Between 2005 and 2009 the number of people living in conditions of severe material deprivation in the EU-27 fell gradually by 22.7 %. This favourable trend was reversed with the start of the economic crisis in late 2008. Between 2009 and 2012 the number of affected people rose by 21.9 % before falling back 2.8 % in 2013. As a result of the gradual fall before the crisis, the trend has developed favourably over the long term since 2005, but has been clearly unfavourable in the short term since 2008 due to the steep increase after the onset of the crisis.

• How the share of severely materially deprived persons varies across Member States

In 2013, the levels of severe material deprivation differed widely across the EU, from 43 % in Bulgaria to as low as 1.8 % in Luxembourg and 1.4 % Sweden. A combination of factors is likely to cause these persistent disparities between Member States. Differences in living standards, levels of development and social policies all play a part (European Commission, 2013,  p.27). In a few Member States the share of people living in poor conditions is much higher than the share of people at risk of monetary poverty. For example, in Bulgaria the proportion of people living in severely deprived conditions is almost twice as high as the share of the population living in monetary poverty. On the other hand, in a number of countries with higher standards of living, such as Sweden, Luxembourg and Denmark, monetary poverty appears more prevalent that severe material deprivation. Since 2008 the number of people living in severe material deprivation has increased in the majority of Member States. The rate has decreased in nine countries and remained stable in two. In general, these were countries with initially low rates, below or around 5.9 %, such as Austria, Finland, Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden. In Romania the rate also decreased by 4.4 percentage points, from 32.9 % in 2008. The most distinct improvement, however, took place in Poland, which reduced its share of severely materially deprived people by 5.8 percentage points, from 17.7 % in 2008.

Income inequalities

Inequality of income distribution remained unchanged in the EU between 2005 and 2013. The richest 20 % of the population still earn about five times as much as the poorest 20 %.

Figure 11: Inequality of income distribution, 2005–13 (income quintile share ratio) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc260))

Figure 12: Inequality of income distribution, by country, 2008 and 2013 (income quintile share ratio) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc260))

The income quintile share ratio compares the income received by the 20 % of the population with the highest disposable income to that received by the 20 % of the population with the lowest disposable income. Between 2008 and 2013, income inequality has remained stable in the EU, with the richest 20 % of the population earning about five times as much as the poorest 20 %.

• How income inequalities varies across Member States

There are considerable differences among Member States in terms of income inequality. In 2013, Romania, Greece and Bulgaria recorded the highest inequality in income distribution. In all three of these Member States the total income of the richest 20 % of the population was almost seven times as high as the income of the poorest 20 %. On the other hand the Czech Republic and the EFTA countries Norway and Iceland recorded the most equal distribution of income across Europe, with income quintile share ratios below 3.5.

• EU trends in income inequality compared with other countries in the world based on the Gini coefficient

The Gini coefficient is another commonly used measure for monitoring trends in income inequality. A coefficient of 100 expresses total inequality (meaning all the income is earned by one person) and a coefficient of 0 expresses perfect equality (meaning everyone earns the same income). In 2013 the Gini coefficient for the EU-28 stood at 30.5, a level similar to previous years . Income inequality according to this measure was lowest in Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Sweden, with coefficients of less than 25. On the other hand, in Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania the index exceeded the EU average by four points, indicating relatively high income inequality in these countries. At the global level, income is far more unequally distributed than within the EU. According to OECD data from 2012, the Gini coefficient, and therefore income inequality, was highest in Mexico (48.2) and the United States (38.9) and lowest in Iceland (25.2) .

Access to labour market

Very low work intensity

The number of people affected by very low work intensity in the EU 27 has increased by 16.8 % over the short term since 2008. However, a smaller increase of 2.3 % was recorded over the longer term since 2005. Lack of employment is a major driver of monetary poverty and material deprivation.

Figure 13: People living in households with very low work intensity, EU-28 and EU-27, 2005–13 (million people) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc310))

Figure 14: People living in households with very low work intensity, by country, 2008 and 2013 (% of population aged less than 60) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc310))

In 2013, 10.8 % (or 40.2 million) of the EU-27 population aged 0 to 59 were living in households with very low work intensity. This means the working age members of the household worked less than 20 % of their potential during the previous year. Very low work intensity increased between 2005 and 2006 before declining until 2008. It then remained stable for one year before increasing gradually again in parallel with the rising unemployment levels as a result of the crisis. The EU-28 trend has followed a similar path since 2010.

• How very low work intensity varies across Member States

Across Europe, the share of people living in households with very low work intensity has ranged from 6.4 % in Romania and 6.6 % in Luxembourg to 23.9 % in Ireland (see Figure 3). Between 2008 and 2013 Greece, Ireland and Spain reported the highest increases in the amount of households with very low work intensity, by 10.7, 10.2 and 9.1 percentage points respectively. On the other side of the spectrum, improvements were observed in Romania (1.9 percentage points), Germany (1.8 percentage points), France (0.9 percentage points), Poland (0.8 percentage points) and the Czech Republic (0.3 percentage points).

In some countries the share of people living in households with very low work intensity has increased by an amount similar to the decrease in their employment rate. In some cases such as Greece and Spain the increase has been even stronger. This indicates that the most vulnerable households have been hit the hardest by falling employment rates (European Commission, 2013, p.28). However, in many countries the lack of access to labour does not seem to correspond to the prevalence of other forms of poverty or social exclusion: material deprivation and monetary poverty. Ireland, for example, in 2013 had a high proportion of households with very low work intensity (23.9 %) despite its risk of monetary poverty (14.1 %) being below the EU average. In contrast, Romania had one of the highest proportions of its population living at risk of monetary poverty in 2013 (22.4 %) and at the same time one of the lowest shares of households with very low work intensity (6.4 %).

Working poor

In 2013, 8.9 % of employed people in the EU-28 were considered to be working poor. The share of working poor in the EU-27 increased by 0.7 percentage points in the long-term period between 2005 and 2013 and by 0.3 percentage points in the shorter term between 2008 and 2013, mostly as a result of a strong increase since 2010. Men are more at risk of in-work poverty than women.

Figure 15: In work at-risk-of-poverty rate, by sex, EU-28, 2005–13 (% of employed people aged 18 or over) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc320))

Poverty and social exclusion do not only affect those who are economically inactive or unemployed. Between 2005 and 2013, the share of so-called ‘working poor’ in the EU-27 increased by 0.7 percentage points. The strongest increase was recorded between 2010 and 2012. In 2013, the in-work poverty rate fell back slightly by 0.1 percentage points.

• Who is most at risk of in-work poverty?

Certain groups among the working population face high risks of being poor. Factors affecting in-work poverty rates include household type, type of contract, working time and hourly wages, among others. Multi-person adult households without dependent children are much less at risk of in-work poverty than households with dependent children and single-person households. Single parents are the most at risk, with one out of five affected in 2013. Part-time employment can also lead to this form of poverty. In general men were more affected by in-work poverty than women (9.3 % compared with 8.4 %) in 2013. The situation was the opposite for young workers aged 18 to 24 years. In this case women were more affected with 12.5 % at risk of in-work poverty compared with 10.6 % for men. Of all age groups, young workers have shown the highest in-work at-risk-of-poverty rates.

Long-term unemployment

The EU’s long-term unemployment rate has risen by 24 % in the long-term period since 2002. The trend tended to be favourable until 2008, but then worsened considerably with the onset of the economic crisis.

Figure 16: Long-term unemployment rate, by sex, EU-28, 2002-14 (%) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc330))

Long-term unemployment describes people aged 15 or over who have been unemployed for longer than a year. These people usually find it harder to obtain a job than people who have been unemployed for shorter periods, thus they face a higher risk of social exclusion. The generally favourable trend of falling long-term unemployment in the early 2000s reversed after the onset of the economic crisis. From 2009 to 2014 the share of long-term unemployed in the EU increased considerably, by 2.1 percentage points. In 2014, 5.1 % of the economically active population had been unemployed for longer than a year. Differences between men and women have disappeared over the past five years.

Gender pay gap

The gap between women’s and men’s earnings fell by 1.3 percentage points in the EU-27 between 2006 and 2013. This means the hourly gross earnings of women are catching up with those of men.

Figure 17: Gender pay gap in unadjusted form, 2008–13 (%) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc340))

The gap between women’s and men’s earnings decreased in the EU-27 between 2006 and 2010, and was rather stable between 2010 and 2013. In 2013, women’s hourly gross earnings were 16.4 % lower than those of men. The development in the EU-28 was very similar for the period for which data are available.

Education

Early leavers from education and training

The share of early leavers from education and training fell by 5.3 percentage points in the EU-28 between 2003 and 2014. If this trend can be sustained, the Europe 2020 target to reduce the rate of early leavers from education and training to less than 10 % by 2020 should be within reach.

Figure 18: Early leavers from education and training, by sex, EU-28, 2002–14 (% of the population aged 18 to 24) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc410))

Figure 19: Early leavers from education and training, by country, 2009 and 2014 (% of the population aged 18 to 24) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc410))

Since 2003 the share of the population aged 18 to 24 with at most lower secondary education and not in further education or training has fallen continuously in the EU-28. This trend mirrors reductions in almost all Member States for both men and women. If these dynamics can be sustained, the Europe 2020 targets of reducing the share of early leavers from education and training to less than 10 % should be within reach. In the EU-28 as a whole, rates of early leavers from education and training are about three percentage points higher for men than for women. Since 2002, this gap has closed only slightly.

• How the share of early leavers from education and training varies across Member States

In 2014, rates of early leavers from education and training varied by a factor of eight across Member States, from 2.7 % in Croatia to 21.9 % in Spain. The lowest proportions of early leavers were observed in Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Lithuania with rates of less than 6 %. The share was highest in Spain, Malta, Romania and Portugal, with 17 % or more.

Between 2009 and 2014 strong falls in rates of early leavers from education and training took place in southern European countries, especially Portugal (from 30.9 % to 17.4 %), Spain (from 30.9 % to 21.9 %), Malta (from 25.7 % to 20.4 %) and Cyprus (from 11.7 % to 6.8 %), as well as in Latvia (from 14.3 % to 8.5 %). In 2014, 19 Member States had early school leaving rates below the 11.1 % EU average and have met the overall EU target of 10 %.

Tertiary education

Tertiary educational attainment has risen by more than 60 % in the EU over the long term since 2002. The EU seems to be on track to meeting its target of increasing the share of 30 to 34 year olds having completed tertiary education to at least 40 % by 2020.

Figure 20: Tertiary educational attainment, by sex, EU-28, 2002–14 (% of the population aged 30 to 34) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc480))

Figure 21: Tertiary educational attainment, by country, 2009 and 2014 (% of the population aged 30 to 34) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc480))

The share of 30 to 34 year olds who have attained tertiary education has increased continuously in the long term, from 23.6 % in 2002 to 37.9 % in 2014. Short-term developments have also been positive, with tertiary educational attainment increasing by more than five percentage points between 2009 and 2014. Disaggregated by gender, the data reveal that growth in the share of tertiary graduates has been considerably faster for women, who have already met the Europe 2020 target eight years early and continue to show improvements. Progress has been slower for men: by 2014, only 33.6 % of 30 to 34 year old men had attained tertiary education. Provided these positive trends continue, the EU seems to be on track to meeting its target of increasing the share of the population aged 30 to 34 that have completed tertiary education to at least 40 % by 2020.

• How tertiary educational attainment varies across Member States

Between 2002 and 2014, the tertiary educational attainment rates of 30 to 34 year olds increased in all Member States. In 2014, 16 Member States already exceeded the Europe 2020 target of 40 %, the majority of them being countries from northern and central Europe. On the other end of the scale, the lowest tertiary educational attainment rates — of less than 30 % — have been observed in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Malta, Romania and Italy.

Lifelong learning

A 27.4 % increase has been recorded in lifelong learning in the EU since 2003. Nevertheless, progress is slow and the EU benchmark of at least 15 % of adults participating in lifelong learning in 2020 may be difficult to reach.

Figure 22: Lifelong learning, by sex, EU-28, 2002–14 (% of population aged 25 to 64) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc440))

Between 2003 and 2009 the share of the EU adult working population participating in continued education and training increased from 8.4 % to 9.3 %. Between 2009 and 2012, participation in lifelong learning declined from 9.3 % to 9.0 %. This slowed progress towards the benchmark set in the EU’s Strategic Framework for Education and Training (ET 2020), which aims to increase the share of adults participating in lifelong learning to at least 15 % by 2020. However, between 2012 and 2014, the ratio of adults involved in lifelong learning increased again to 10.7 %. This rise is mainly influenced by a methodological change to the French Labour Force Survey . There is still a 4.3 percentage point gap to overcome to reach the 2020 target, which might be difficult to achieve without further measures.

Education expenditure

Expenditure on education has increased by 0.34 percentage points in the EU-28 since 2006. Investment in education is essential for addressing the long-term impacts on unemployment.

Figure 25: Public expenditure on education, 1999–2011 (% of GDP) - Source: Eurostat (online data code: (tsdsc510))

Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP slightly increased in the EU-27, from 4.91 % in 2000 to 5.25 % in 2011. This average figure conceals considerable cross-country variations in the allocation of public resources for education, ranging from 2.53 % in Lithuania to 8.75 % in Denmark in 2011. The EU 28, for which data are available from 2002 onwards only, has followed a similar trend as the EU 27.

Context

Why do we focus on social inclusion?

In line with the sustainable development agenda, the EU aims to actively include every citizen, notably the most disadvantaged, fully in society, including in work. By doing so, it endeavours to tackle various challenges: poverty, social exclusion, labour market segregation, long-term unemployment and gender inequalities. Thus in the EU the poverty and social inclusion concepts are closely interlinked. A substantial proportion of the EU population is at risk of poverty or social exclusion, but not all are affected in the same way. Some have a low income compared with other residents in the same country, but this does not necessarily imply a low standard of living. Social transfers help a subset of this group achieve an income above the poverty threshold. Another form of poverty is material deprivation. Those affected cannot pay unexpected expenses or afford some items considered to be desirable or necessary to lead an adequate life. Reducing inequalities between the highest and the lowest incomes contributes to the Sustainable Development Strategy’s goal of achieving a high level of social cohesion. Differences between the earnings of men and women are also an issue. Income status and education level are closely linked. Tertiary education and lifelong learning enable citizens to gain and update knowledge, skills and competences needed for employment, social inclusion and personal fulfilment. Early school leavers and adults with low educational attainment are more likely to experience very low work intensity or be among the working poor. Social inclusion also links to the wider theme of socioeconomic development. Public expenditure on education helps foster economic growth and productivity. Poverty and unemployment represent a non-realisation of human capital and thereby a social and economic loss to society. Furthermore, gender pay gaps reduce work and education incentives for women, hindering overall economic performance. More highly educated people have a greater potential to contribute to the economy. In turn, a well-performing economy and good labour market performance fosters employment, decreases monetary poverty and strengthens social inclusion. A strong economy also has more resources for social transfers to help people who still live in poverty. Poverty and unemployment affect people’s health and are thus a challenge for the national budgets.

How does the EU tackle social inclusion?

The EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS) (Council of the European Union, 2009) dedicates one of its seven key challenges to social inclusion, demography and migration. The overall objective is to ‘create a socially inclusive society’ and ‘to secure and increase the quality of life of citizens’. Its operational objectives and targets include:

• Pursuing the EU objective of taking steps to decisively reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2010 with a special focus on reducing child poverty.
• Ensuring a high level of social and territorial cohesion at EU level and in Member States as well as respect for cultural diversity.

One of the EU headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy aims to fight poverty and social exclusion :

• ‘At least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty or social exclusion’.

Through two of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU will boost inclusive growth:

• The ‘European platform against poverty and social exclusion’ ensures economic, social and territorial cohesion. It guarantees respect for the fundamental rights of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, and mobilises support to help people integrate in the communities where they live.

The ‘Agenda for new skills and jobs’ helps people acquire new skills, adapt to a changing labour market and make successful career shifts. The initiative also modernises labour markets to raise employment levels, reduce unemployment, raise labour productivity and ensure the sustainability of the EU’s social models.

Further reading on social inclusion

• European Commission (2015), Social Europe — Aiming for inclusive growth, Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee on the social situation in the European Union (2014), Publications Office for the European Union, Luxembourg.
• Eurostat (2015), Quality of life - Facts and views, Publications Office for the European Union, Luxembourg.
• European Commission (2015), Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2014, Publications Office for the European Union, Luxembourg.
• European Commission (2014), Investing in people: EU funding for employment and social inclusion, Social Europe guide, Volume 7, Publications office for the European Union, Luxembourg.
• European Commission (2013), Social Europe — Current challenges and the way forward, Annual Report of the Social Protection Committee (2012), Publications Office for the European Union, Luxembourg.
• OECD (2014), Society at a Glance 2014: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris.

See also

• All articles on sustainable development indicators

Further Eurostat information

Main tables

• Sustainable Development Indicators, see: :Social inclusion

Dedicated section

• Sustainable Development Indicators

Methodology

• More detailed information on social inclusion indicators, such as indicator relevance, definitions, methodological notes, background and potential linkages, can be found on page 111-140 of the publication Sustainable development in the European Union - 2015 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy.