1 / 32

The Austrian Means-Tested Minimum Income (BMS): Supportive Arguments and Obstacles

This article discusses the introduction of the means-tested minimum income (BMS) in Austria, examining the supportive arguments and obstacles faced. It explores the political context and the reform of the existing social assistance program.

still
Download Presentation

The Austrian Means-Tested Minimum Income (BMS): Supportive Arguments and Obstacles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Austrian means-tested minimum income „Bedarfsorientierte Mindestsicherung“ (BMS) Martina Kargl (EAPN AUSTRIA / Caritas Vienna) EMIN-Conference BUDAPEST September 2014

  2. means-testedminimumincomes& theAustrian welfarestate

  3. Which have been the supportive arguments and, on the other hand, obstacles for the introduction of MIS in Austria?What about the political context?

  4. INTRODUCTION? NOT a new cash benefit, but reform of an already existing one !!! Sozialhilfe social assistance, since the 1970ies (dating back to 19th centuries „poor relief“) Bedarfsorientierte Mindestsicherung since 2010  Some modernisation & improvement, but also deterioration and unsolved problems.  formative elements are still the same!

  5. Supportivearguments • Noneedtointroduce a new cash benefit– just „reform“ • Lobbying by EAPN Austria sincethe 1990s – minimumincomeas an importanttopic in thepublicdebateaboutpoverty • BUT: NGOs wereexcludedfromthenegotiationsbetweenfederalstate & Laender (2006-2010), rare informationaboutongoingnegotiations • Federal Government: • Acknowledgementofchangingsocialrealities (riseofunemployment, atypicalwork, workingpoor, single-parents, …) andtheneedtoreformthesocialsystemtoavoidpovertybythefederalgovernment • Will tointroducecostyimprovements in the 1stpillaroftheaustrianwelfarestate (unemployment-insurance, health-insurance) toreducetheburdenon the 2ndpillar– preconditionfortheLaendertoagreetoanyreform! • Fight againstpoverty: maintopic in thegovernmentprogramme 2006 & strong (personal) supportbytheministerofsocialaffairs

  6. OBSTACLES • Austria is a federalstate, constitutionrules: „poorrelief“ falls intothe legislative competenceofthe „Laender“ • Laenderrefused a federallawand real harmonisation: „Who paysthepipercallsthe tune“ • Different interestsoftheLaender(f.e.: Vienna  Kärnten) • BMS isbased on a treatybetweenfederalstateandthelaender, not on a law. Treaty onlystatesminimum-standards. • Still 9 different laws, whichmeans:9 different standardsconcerningtheamountofthe BMS, rights & duties

  7. Federal Government = Coalition Government of Social-Democrats and Conservative Party  Conflicting interests & ideologies  reform took years! • Conflicting interests not only between federal state & Laender, but also within the federal government and between relevant ministries

  8. Minimum income & the obligation to work

  9. BMS & WORKFARE • less-elegibility-principle: Thereisnostatutoryminimumwage in Austria • 10% oftheemployeesworkingfull time earnlessthan1.199 € netper month(twelfthsofannualearnings, 2012) • BMS is NOT a unconditionalbasicincome dutytowork!Otherweise: reduction/cancellationofthebenefit • BMS servesminimumincome not onlyforpeopleabletowork but also for … … disabledpersons= peoplewithseriousimpairment,usually not abletowork … children (27%, incl. disabledpersons) … people in retirementage(8%)

  10. provisions on reasonable entitlement are those of the unemployment insurance • Offered job must be based on an employment relationship • Payment must fit collective agreement • No occupational protection after 100 days of unemployment / No safeguarding of payment after 120 days • People who have to care for children up to the ageof 10 years: at least 16/20 hours per week • Duty to participate in active labour market measures

  11. Exemptions from the duty to use one‘s workforce do exist • People in retirement age (men: >65 years, women: >60 years) • People who have to care for children up to the ageof 3 years who can‘t work because there are no child-care-facilities • People who care for family members who have a proofed need for intense long term care • People who care for dying /terminally ill family members • People who started a vocational training / high school before the age of 18

  12. Sanctions • Benefitsforlivingrequirements:maybereducedupto 100% • Benefitsforhousing:must not bereduced! • benefitsforfamilymembers(children, partners):must not bereduced! • mutual assistanceamong BMS-authorityandthepublicemploymentservice (AMS), datainterfaces • People sanctionedby AMS won‘treceiveBMS • People not willingtocooperate in activelabourmeasureswon‘treceive BMS

  13. Problem: high unemploymentpredatorycompetition on thelabour-market& disappearanceoflow-skilledjobs ManyPeople judgedtobe „employable“ are not attractiveforemployers(healthproblems; low, outdatedormissingskills; careresponsibilities; indeptedness; oldage …) • In manycases: Nolongtime-integration intothelabour-market, revolving-door-effekts • German exampleshows: „zero-tolerance“ workfarepolicyleadsto a growingworking-poor-sectorandspread in wages, growingsocialinequality& weakdomesticdemand Not themissing will toworkistheproblem, but the lack ofadequatework!

  14. BMS & ADEQUACY

  15. Amountofentitlement in the BMS isdefinedbytheamoutofentitlement in the Ausgleichszulage in thepensionsystem • BUT:arbitrarilysetbypoliticalsystem, historicallyevolvedsince 1950ies – politicalpovertylines in Austria are not based on a basketofgoods / referencebudget ! • Nopoliticalconsensusthatthe BMS should at least beas high astheminimumincomewithinthepension-system (strikingargument: otherwiseweakincentivesfortakingup a job)  Ausgleichszulage (pensionsystem): 2014: 814 x 14 = 11.396 € / year  BMS: 2014: 814 x 12 = 9.768 € / year

  16. Reference budgets for Austriawww.referencebudgets.eu/budgets/ • Assumtion: Rented flat • Periodicexpenditures: housing & relatedexpenditures, publictransport, phone & internet, household-insurance, school-relatedcosts, child-care-costs(kindergarden etc.) • Irregularexpenditures: clothes& shoes, furniture & garden, health-relatedcosts • Householdexpenditures: Healthynutrition, cleaning & bodycareproducts, child-needs (trips, handicraftingetc) • Other expenditures Pocket moneyforchildren, budgetforsocial und culturalparticipation(2013: singleperson: 61 €/month) • NOT included: costsfor … carand car-relatedexpenditures, pets, leisure-time relatedexenditures (hobbies, going out, holidays), alcoholandcigarettes

  17. Most obviousproblem in thecontextofadequacy: inadequatemeansforhousing General Rule: • 75%ofthebenefit per person: livingrequirements(2014: 611 €) • 25%ofthebenefit per person: housing (2014: 204 €) • Healthinsuranceforpeoplepreviously not healthinsured someLaenderoffer additional benefitsforhousing … • but not all ofthem • Meansforhousingnonthelessoften not adequate

  18. Eligibilitycriteria

  19. Citizenship / residencepermit • Austrian citizenship • EU-citizens: requestedresidencepermit: „Anmeldebescheinigung“  statusofworkerorproofofsufficientmeansofliving & healthinsurance • Third-country nationals: permanent residencepermit • Not fortourists (lessthan 3 monthstay in Austria)! • Not forpoverty-drivenmigrants! Same conditionsforsheltersforthehomeless!(at least in Vienna)

  20. Subsidiarity • Dutytowork • compulsoryrealisationofassets/ safingsNEW: • perpetual „grace-property“: ~ 4.000 € • „graceperiod“ fordwellingsownedbeforesecuring in thelandregister: 6 months  importantreasonfor non-take up • Claims to maintenance (under family law) have to be realised • Separated, but married couples – partners (not married) in the same household are treated like spouses. NOT: if unreasonable, f.e.: domestic violence – proof! • If loss of “self-preservationcapacity“ (jur): Parentsof adult childrenand vice versaareobligedto care fortheperson in need  importantreasonfor non-take up

  21. Who benefits from the BMS?

  22. Recipients of Sozialhilfe (till 2010) and BMS (since 2010)

  23. (Non)-take-upNOTE: not everyone living below EU-SILC poverty-line is eligible to BMS!

  24. BMS-Recipients in Austria 2012

  25. BMS-recipients in Austria 2012

  26. Average duration of BMS-benefit

  27. BMS-recipients according totype of benefit, VIENNA, 2013

  28. COSTS • BMS-spending 2012: ~ 540 Mio € (66% = Vienna!), • Overall socialspending in Austria 2012: 92,7 Billion € (socialexpenditureshare: 30,4% of GDP)  BMS-spending = 0,6% ofoverallsocialspending!

  29. Special problems • not sufficiently determinated laws  leaves too much discretionary power to the officials • Not only 9 different laws, but also inconsistent law enforcement by the district-offices due to not sufficiently determinated laws & poorly trained officals  diverging standards! • Financing: to a large part responsibility of the municipalities – the poorer the municipality is, the more costs it has to bear  outdated financing-structure that incourages unlawful law-enforcement and wrong information • Insufficiant (legal) counselling-centres & information offer, both in quantity & quality  difficult for entitled persons to get to know about their rights & to enforce them

  30. Activities of EAPN Austriaconcerning BMS Followingtheinvitationsbypoliticiansandofficalsfordialog, but also activities on ourown behalf See: www.armutskonferenz.at  Mindestsicherung • Carrying out researchandpublishingit • 2008: Survey among 121 social NGOs concerning BMS- law-enforcement in Austria (showingthatthereisunlawful & non-uniform law-inforcement) • 2012: comparativestudyofthe 9 new BMS-laws (showingthattherearevastedifferences & a lotofremainingproblems) • 2014:„lemon-award“: startof a newseriesconcerninggood & badpractice in BMS-lawandlaw-enforce- ment Making problemspublic! Media-interest!

  31. Thankyouforyourattention! www.armutskonferenz.at Contact: office@armutskonferenz.at martina.kargl@caritas-wien.at

More Related