idw – Informationsdienst Wissenschaft
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
A new comparative study on minimum income protection by the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy reveals that, in many countries, minimum income schemes remain far from meeting their promise of securing a life in dignity for all – despite states’ shared commitment to the right to human dignity and social inclusion.
The open access book “Life in Dignity”, edited by Prof. Ulrich Becker and Dr. Irene Domenici and co-authored by legal experts from all over the world, offers a comprehensive analysis of minimum income measures in 16 countries across Europe and beyond – Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Japan, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and the Republic of Korea –, exposing both progresses and persistent shortcomings in adequacy and accessibility of the schemes.
The analysis focuses on three dimensions: 1) the normative background and legal obligations of states to guarantee a minimum standard of living; 2) the interaction of different benefit systems in achieving this goal and the associated challenges for effective protection; 3) the design, adequacy and implementation of specific minimum income schemes.
Calculation of Benefit Amounts Often Arbitrary
Minimum income benefit levels differ widely relative to each nation’s cost of living and poverty threshold. In most states investigated, benefit levels remain below the national poverty threshold, which underscores the gap between states’ ambitious normative framework and the benefits actually provided.
In a surprisingly large number of jurisdictions, the calculation of benefit amounts lacks an objective, transparent method that is not influenced by political discretion or budgetary constraints. This is particularly evident in Greece, but also in Bulgaria and Ireland, where benefits frequently fail to meet even basic needs. After a very modest increase in 2024, Greece’s universal guaranteed minimum income is just €216 per month for a single household. Germany’s Bürgergeld of €563 per month for single adults, plus housing support, places the country in the European mid-range, but still below the national at-risk-of-poverty threshold (€1,381 in 2024). At the higher end, Nordic countries such as Norway combine universal social services with income-tested municipal support, ensuring substantially greater adequacy for a life in dignity.
Systemic and Legal Weaknesses Undermine Protection
A major systemic weakness is the complex, fragmented, and highly conditional design of many minimum income schemes. Overlapping or mutually exclusive provisions create real gaps in the safety net. In addition, strict means-testing and “activation” conditions frequently exclude working-age adults and particularly young people from assistance. The implicit distinction between “deserving” and “undeserving” poor made in these policies runs counter to the principle of dignity. The study warns that these features could turn last-resort safety nets into systems of exclusion, leaving many unemployed or precariously employed persons without any income protection at all.
In addition, while Germany and a few other states have constitutional or judicially enforceable guarantees of a “subsistence minimum”, most countries rely only on statutory or policy-level promises, leaving social assistance vulnerable to political discretion. Even in countries where enforceable rights are constitutionally recognised, they often protect only the minimum core of the right to a life in dignity.
Strengthening Minimum Income Schemes
When viewed from a comparative perspective, it becomes evident that countries can draw important lessons from one another’s approaches to strengthen their minimum income systems. Although national contexts differ, the following guidelines can inform reform efforts across jurisdictions:
Modernisation and Coordination of Schemes: Many countries would benefit from a better coordination of existing poverty alleviation – in particular by aligning social assistance, social insurance, and tax-financed benefits. In addition, reducing bureaucratic barriers would help ensure equal and effective access to minimum income support.
Ensuring Adequacy and Regular Adjustment: Inadequate or stagnant benefit levels are a frequent cause of persistent poverty despite nominal schemes being in place. Therefore, minimum income benefits need to be set in accordance with objective poverty thresholds reflecting actual living costs and be updated regularly via automatic indexation mechanisms.
Legal and Constitutional Anchoring: Embedding the right to a dignified minimum standard of living firmly in constitutional or high-level legal provisions strengthens enforceability. The experience of Germany’s constitutional jurisprudence shows the importance of binding legal obligations for minimum subsistence.
Reducing Conditionality and Sanction Harshness: Strict means-testing, activation requirements, and harsh sanctions often exclude vulnerable groups from income support. Punitive, exclusionary mechanisms should be replaced by enabling policies that preserve access to essential assistance.
Enhancing Complementarity with Social Services: Linking income support with accessible, coordinated social services such as healthcare, housing, education, and rehabilitation is essential for social inclusion and long-term poverty reduction.
Dr. Irene Domenici
Becker, Ulrich/Domenici, Irene (Hrsg.): Life in Dignity – A Comparison of National Approaches to Minimum Income Protection, Studien aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Sozialrecht und Sozialpolitik, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2025.
Merkmale dieser Pressemitteilung:
Journalisten, Studierende, Wissenschaftler
Politik, Recht
überregional
Forschungsergebnisse, Wissenschaftliche Publikationen
Englisch
Sie können Suchbegriffe mit und, oder und / oder nicht verknüpfen, z. B. Philo nicht logie.
Verknüpfungen können Sie mit Klammern voneinander trennen, z. B. (Philo nicht logie) oder (Psycho und logie).
Zusammenhängende Worte werden als Wortgruppe gesucht, wenn Sie sie in Anführungsstriche setzen, z. B. „Bundesrepublik Deutschland“.
Die Erweiterte Suche können Sie auch nutzen, ohne Suchbegriffe einzugeben. Sie orientiert sich dann an den Kriterien, die Sie ausgewählt haben (z. B. nach dem Land oder dem Sachgebiet).
Haben Sie in einer Kategorie kein Kriterium ausgewählt, wird die gesamte Kategorie durchsucht (z.B. alle Sachgebiete oder alle Länder).
