Who benefits from the anti-crisis decree?
The war in Iran has once again put inflation at the center of economic debate. As already happened with the invasion of Ukraine, the rise in energy prices is beginning to spread to the rest of the economy and is once again straining the cost of living. The OECD announced this week an increase in inflation of around 3% for this 2026.
But this price increase is not felt equally by all households. It depends, in large part, on what each family consumes, and in what quantity. When energy or food prices rise, the impact is greater for low-income households, because these items represent a larger portion of their family budget. On the other hand, other expenses weigh more heavily on higher-income households and condition their ability to adapt to price increases less.
Many families, faced with rising costs, have no choice but to consume less. In contexts of inflation, adjustment does not always mean reducing quantity, but rather changing the quality of what is bought. We see this, for example, in the shopping list: as prices rise, low-income households tend to substitute fresh products for cheaper and less healthy options. A recent study in Barcelona points precisely to an increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods in low-income neighborhoods. It's not just a matter of price, but of decision margin: when the budget is tighter, the ability to choose is reduced. The cost of living not only puts pressure on family budgets; it also ends up affecting decisions that have a direct impact on health and well-being.
To cope with this increase in the cost of living, the Spanish government has approved a new package of measures focused mainly on energy. It is a quick response to try to contain the impact of prices. But not all measures work equally. Tax reductions reach everyone, but benefit those who consume the most. On the other hand, more targeted instruments —such as the social bonus— can better protect low-income households. The problem is that often they do not reach all the people who need them. This means that a significant portion of resources is not directed to the households where they are most needed, in a context where the differences between families are particularly relevant.
In a context like the present, marked by uncertainty, markets react not only to decisions but also to signals. We have seen this in recent days with Donald Trump, capable of tightening or easing oil prices with a social media message. And this logic is not exclusive to markets. Governments also send signals. The package approved this week seeks to contain prices, but also to convey an idea of protection in the face of an uncertain scenario. The question is whether this signal translates into real protection for all households —or only for some.
