One of the most shameful statistics for a developed country is the percentage of children living at risk of poverty. And at the same time, child poverty is a bad investment for the future. Few long-term investments have a greater return than a happy childhood. This return is not only emotional but also economic. For decades, psychology and empirical evidence have demonstrated that growing up with significant material deprivation has individual and family consequences, extending beyond a single generation, and also impacts social cohesion and a country's future.
Poverty is measured using three thresholds: severe material deprivation, at-risk-of-poverty, and the AROPE rate. The first two are based on income level, while the AROPE rate also incorporates measures related to quality of life and the risk of social exclusion. In this regard, the most recent data from the INE (National Institute of Statistics), published in early February, indicates that in Spain, among those under 18, these figures are 8.6% (severe material deprivation), 28% (at risk of poverty), and 33% (AROPE). To understand where we stand, we can compare ourselves to the European average: 6%, 18%, and 24%, respectively. Therefore, as we said. Shameful.
To improve this situation, the Council of Ministers is proposing a universal allowance of 200 euros per month per child until they reach the age of majority. It is an expensive measure, very expensive, that will require the support of Congress and a corresponding budget. This would be the second time a universal measure has been implemented in Spain: some of you may remember the "baby bonus" from the Zapatero government, 2,500 euros for each birth or adoption. It was approved in 2007 and liquidated just three years later, in 2010, during the height of the austerity measures.
I think two questions arise. The first: why a universal measure and not one focused only on those who need it? The fact is that we have already been living with targeted measures for decades with mediocre results; just look at the data we have and its evolution. In contrast, there is a generous list of European countries with universal measures implemented and good results. Therefore, the old—but effective—trick of importing policies that already work well elsewhere would apply here. A second question would be: why isn't it being framed as a measure to increase the birth rate? Well, for the same reason. In the countries where this measure is already in place, after a brief initial boost, birth rates have followed their own trend, usually downward.
Given the economic impact of this measure, I think some fine-tuning would be advisable. Are the 200 euros needed for all income levels? Has a progressive system like Italy's, which varies according to income, been studied? What if it were €100? Or €150? €175? What if it were up to age 16 instead of 18? What if it were implemented in stages to see how it works? This measure will require taking money from elsewhere, and with other basic services bordering on deficiencies, a simplistic approach to cost-cutting isn't valid.
