The data on income inequality in Poland presented in Figure 6 show a decrease in income disparities after Poland’s EU entry. The dimension of this decrease depends on the data taken into consideration, and the differences between the data result mainly from the adopted definition of income and the equivalence scale. According to the Central Statistical Office, income inequality in Poland increased rather than decreased in 2010 compared with the 2006–2009 period.
Table 15 presents data on households’ mean monthly income for individual quintile groups and quintile share ratios. While the Gini coefficient measures changes across the income distribution spectrum, the quintile share ratios only take into account changes between particular quintiles of the income distribution. The quintile share ratios calculated from Poland’s GUS data on disposable income do not show monot‑ onic changes in income inequality in the analyzed period. However, it can be clearly seen that income disparities at the extremes of the income distribution and between the middle and the first quintile have been increasing since 2010.
28 If we treat Luxembourg as an outlier and take into consideration the country with the second‑ highest position, then the change in welfare disparities is as follows: from 311% to 175 % for GDP per capita and from 306 % to 206 % for Sen’s social welfare function.
Figure 6
Income inequalitya in Poland, 1989–2012
Note: a Disposable income in the case of TransMONEE and Eurostat data; available income for GUS data. Per
capita income in the case of TransMONEE and GUS data; equivalised income for Eurostat data.
Source: Eurostat; TransMONEE 2012 Database, UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS, Geneva; GUS, 2013, Table 5, p. 267.
Table 15
Households’ mean monthly incomea in Poland by quintile groups, 2006–2012 Measure 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total 802.43 894.53 1,006.57 1,071.67 1,147.18 1,183.66 1,232.85 I quintile 268.07 308.39 343.15 359.95 398.95 389.25 400.45 II quintile 490.16 552.41 631.11 671.72 710.69 739.81 764.16 III quintile 674.65 749.40 853.36 911.55 964.34 1,004.32 1,046.51 IV quintile 915.88 1,004.19 1,140.19 1,224.31 1,293.95 1,342.90 1,402.79 V quintile 1,667.26 1,862.22 2,068.89 2,196.16 2,373.77 2,446.12 2,556.19 V quintile/I quintile 6.22 6.04 6.03 6.10 5.95 6.28 6.38 III quintile/I quintile 2.52 2.43 2.49 2.53 2.42 2.58 2.61 V quintile/III quintile 2.47 2.48 2.42 2.41 2.46 2.44 2.44
Note: a Disposable per capita income. Rows 2–6 in zlotys.
Income inequality trends were different in individual socioeconomic groups throughout the analyzed period. The largest variability of income inequality was experienced by farmer households, while retirees and pensioners were the groups with the lowest variability of income disparities. The largest fluctuations of income inequality among all socioeconomic groups were observed until 2008. The most sig‑ nificant rise in income disparities occurred for farmer households, while the greatest decrease was experienced by self‑employed households during the analyzed period. Rural income inequality was higher than urban income inequality for most of the time between 2006 and 2012.
Table 16
Income inequalitya in individual socioeconomic groups in Poland, 2003–2012
Households 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Employees 36.4 37.1 37.1 35.8 35.2 34.0 34.3 34.7 34.6 34.3 Farmers 47.3 49.1 49.7 49.6 54.8 57.2 53.6 53.3 53.9 55.9 Self‑employed 40.8 40.3 39.7 41.5 41.3 38.7 37.8 37.5 37.3 38.2 Retirees 25.2 24.3 24.1 24.5 23.6 24.2 24.1 24.9 24.4 24.2 Pensioners 28.2 29.0 28.1 28.3 28.9 29.4 28.7 29.1 29.2 27.9 Urban 33.0 33.1 33.3 32.9 32.5 31.5 31.2 32.3 31.7 31.7 Rural 32.6 33.0 33.6 33.1 34.1 34.3 33.8 33.9 33.7 34.3
Note: a Available per capita income. Income inequality is measured by the Gini index.
Source: GUS, 2013, Table 5, p. 267.
Income inequality can be considered within socioeconomic groups (as above), but it can also be considered between individual groups or in comparison to the mean total income. Figure 7 shows the relations of individual groups’ mean income to the mean total income. Farmers were the group with the largest variability of income in comparison to the mean total income throughout the analyzed period. In addi‑ tion, farmers experienced a continuous and significant improvement in their income position between 2003 and 2007. A similar trend can be observed in the case of the self‑employed, although their relative income position worsened in subsequent years, falling below the 2003 level in 2009. The income position of retirees and pensioners worsened somewhat between 2003 and 2012, although it was relatively stable for the two groups analyzed jointly. As the data in Figure 7 were not adjusted by any equiva‑ lence scale, it is possible that adjusted data could yield different conclusions.
Figure 7
Relationa of socioeconomic groups’ mean income to mean total income in Poland,
2003–2012 – main trends
Note: a Relation of individual socioeconomic groups’ mean monthly disposable per capita income to the mean
monthly disposable per capita income in Poland.
Source: Calculated from GUS, (2004–2013), Budżety Gospodarstw Domowych.
In the case of poverty analysis, Poland’s Central Statistical Office uses three key poverty measures. The first one is the relative poverty rate or rather the relative at-risk-of-poverty rate, which is defined as the share of households living below the poverty line determined by 50 % of the mean monthly household expenditures. The two other poverty measures are the subsistence‑level poverty rate and the poverty rate based on the statutory poverty line. The subsistence poverty rate is the share of households living below the extreme poverty line calculated by the Institute of Labor and Social Studies. The poverty rate based on the statutory poverty line is the share of households living below “the amount [of monthly income] that entitles one to social benefits” (GUS, 2013, p. 14). In the case of the subsistence-level and the at‑risk‑of‑poverty rates, expenditures are adjusted by the so‑called original equivalence scale. Figure 8 shows the trends of all the aforementioned poverty measures in Poland between 2003 and 2012 and the Eurostat main at‑risk‑of‑poverty rate (relative pov‑ erty measure) for comparison. The Eurostat at-risk-of-poverty rate is defined as the percentage of people with an income below the poverty line, set at 60 % of the median equivalised disposable income. Figure 8 shows that all the analyzed poverty measures decreased after 2004. This trend stopped in 2008 and some measures even began to increase. The poverty rate based on the statutory poverty line decreased significantly
in the analyzed period, which was mainly caused by the fact that the nominal statutory threshold was not adjusted between Oct. 1, 2006 and Oct. 1, 2012.
Figure 8
Poverty in Poland at different poverty thresholds, 2003–2012
Source: Eurostat; GUS, (2007–2013a), Budżety Gospodarstw Domowych; GUS, (2013b).