Percentage of households experiencing severe material deprivation by household type

This indicator informs on the population at risk of poverty and/ or social exclusion that live in households that are experiencing severe material deprivation. The indicator is presented for different household types, insofar as the household composition has a bearing on the value of the at risk of poverty rate.

Severe material deprivation is defined as households in least four situations out of the nine in the following list: 1. Cannot afford to go on holiday for at least one week per year. 2. Cannot afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish at least every two days. 3. Cannot afford to keep the dwelling at an adequate temperature. 4. Is unable to tackle unforeseen expenses (of 650 euros). 5. Has been late paying expenses related with the main residence (mortgage or rent, gas bills, community costs, etc.) or in the payment of purchase instalments in the last 12 months. 6. Cannot afford to have a car. 7. Cannot afford to have a telephone. 8. Cannot afford to have a television. 9. Cannot afford to have a washing machine.

You may also find interesting

Article

Whom do we trust?

Whom do we trust?

Social Inclusion

Does ethnic discrimination exist in the second-hand market online? This study analyses its presence in transactions between buyers and sellers in Spain.

Article

Paid and unpaid work: the pandemic intensifies the phenomenon of double shift among women

Paid and unpaid work: the pandemic intensifies the phenomenon of double shift among women

Social Inclusion

According to this study, the gender gap in total hours of work, paid and unpaid, has increased to 16 hours during the pandemic.

Article

Regularising the situation of the immigrant population does not result in a “call ef-fect”

Regularising the situation of the immigrant population does not result in a “call ef-fect”

Social Inclusion

What were the consequences of the regularisation, in 2005, of 600,000 non-EU immigrants who were working in Spain? This study reveals that it did not lead to any “call effect”, but did lead to increased tax revenues.