A collective of thirty poverty researchers, including Ulrich Schneider, the long-time Executive Director of the Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband (a German welfare association) and sociologist Christoph Butterwegge, have accused the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) of potentially underreporting poverty rates in Germany.
The researchers voiced their concerns in a protest letter addressed to Destatis President Ruth Brand, details of which were published by the “Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland” newspapers on Thursday. The letter alleges that Destatis has reduced its calculation method to a single variant (EU-SILC/MZ-SILC) and removed results derived from a different variant (MZ-Kern) from its website.
According to statements made by Schneider, the change is significant because the remaining calculation method indicates a national poverty rate of 15.5 percent for 2023, while the removed method previously showed a rate of 16.6 percent. “This means that, according to the numbers now being presented, poverty is suddenly reduced by over one million people” Schneider stated, raising questions about potential manipulation or biased decision-making.
The researchers view the removal of the second calculation method and its retroactive deletion from the website, as an unacceptable infringement on academic freedom and bordering on arbitrary administrative action. They argue that withholding data of public and scientific interest restricts crucial discussion and public understanding. They suggest that the decision may have been motivated by a desire to steer the narrative surrounding poverty in Germany. The authors are urging Brand to reverse the decision.
Poverty risk is generally defined as having an income of less than 60 percent of the median income. The differing calculation methods primarily diverge in their definition and assessment of household net income. Destatis defends its shift, citing the need for greater comparability across the European Union. The authority states that the new method involves a more detailed breakdown of income sources – individually collected rather than as a total sum – which helps to ensure all income types, particularly those not derived from employment like child benefits, student financial aid, or housing assistance, are included.
However, the poverty researchers dispute the claim that the new method is methodologically superior, stating that this view is not universally accepted within the academic community, specifically concerning the calculation of income poverty.
