2004 (text with relevance for the EEA and Switzerland) - Hoofdinhoud

Kerngegevens
Tekst
Behandeld document
Meer informatie
EU Monitor

1. Kerngegevens

Documentdatum	16-12-2016
Publicatiedatum	17-12-2016
Kenmerk	15642/16 ADD 5
Van	Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
Externe link	origineel bericht
Originele document in PDF

2. Tekst

Council of the European Union

Brussels, 16 December 2016 (OR. en)

15642/16

Interinstitutional File: ADD 5

2016/0397 (COD) i

SOC 812 EMPL 549 CODEC 1910

COVER NOTE

From: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 15 December 2016

To: Mr Jeppe TRANHOLM-MIKKELSEN, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union

No. Cion doc.: SWD(2016) 460 final PART 4/6

Subject: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Initiative to partially revise Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security

systems and its implementing Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i Accompanying the document PROPOSAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security systems and regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i (text with relevance for the EEA and Switzerland)

Delegations will find attached document SWD(2016) 460 final PART 4/6.

Encl.: SWD(2016) 460 final PART 4/6

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Strasbourg, 13.12.2016 SWD(2016) 460 final

PART 4/6

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Initiative to partially revise Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems and its implementing

Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i

Accompanying the document

PROPOSAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security systems and regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i laying down the procedure for implementing

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i

(text with relevance for the EEA and Switzerland)

{COM(2016) 815 final i} {SWD(2016) 461 final} Table of Contents

ANNEX XI: HIVA Report family benefits – Export data ................................................... 4

ANNEX XII: HIVA HIVA Report aggregation of Unemployment benefits – data .............. 51

ANNEX XIII: HIVA HIVA Report family benefits – economic impact .......................... 74

ANNEX XIV: HIVA Report aggregation – economic impact ...................................... 162

ANNEX XV: Administrative Costs 2014 package ....................................................... 226

ANNEX XI: HIVA REPORT FAMILY BENEFITS – EXPORT DATA

ANNEX XI

Export of family benefits

Report on the questionnaire on the export of

family benefits

Prof. dr. Jozef Pacolet and Frederic De Wispelaere HIVA-KU Leuven

June 2015

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Directorate B — Employment and Social Legislation, Social Dialogue

Unit B.4 — Free Movement of Workers and Coordination of Social Security Schemes

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Export of family benefits

Report on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Network Statistics FMSSFE

This report has been prepared in the framework of Contract No VC/2013/0301 ‘Network of Experts on intra EU mobility – social security coordination and free movement of workers / Lot 2: Statistics and compilation of national data’. This contract was awarded to Network Statistics FMSSFE, an independent research network composed of expert teams from HIVA (KU Leuven), Milieu Ltd, IRIS (UGent), Szeged University and Eftheia bvba. Network Statistics FMSSFE is coordinated by HIVA.

Authors:

Prof Dr Jozef Pacolet, Head of the ‘Welfare State’ research group, HIVA Research Institute for Work and

Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Frederic De Wispelaere, Senior research associate, HIVA Research Institute for Work and Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Peer reviewers:

Prof Dr József Hajdú, Head of the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged University.

Gabriella Berki, Professor Assistant at the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged University.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Export of family benefits

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................... 6

List of Figures .................................................................................................. 7

Introduction .................................................................................................... 8

1.

Overall picture ........................................................................................ 8 1.1. An overview of the different types of family benefits by Member State ....... 10 1.2. The amount of the child benefit compared to the net earnings in the

Member State of residence (of a one-earner married couple, at 100% of the average wage, with two children) ................................................................... 13

2.

The export of family benefits ................................................................... 16 2.1. All types of family benefits ................................................................... 16 2.1.1. General overview ......................................................................... 16 2.1.2. Primarily or secondarily competent Member States ............................ 20

2.2. Selection of the ‘child benefits’ ............................................................. 22 2.2.1 General overview .............................................................................. 23 2.2.2 The percentage of export in the total number of child benefits ................. 31 2.2.3 The impact of intra-EU mobility on the export of family benefits:

cross-border workers and migrants ............................................................. 32 2.2.4 Concentration in bilateral Member States ............................................. 33

Conclusion..................................................................................................... 34

Annex I Response ....................................................................................... 34 Export of family benefits

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Public spending on family benefits reported in the questionnaire

(2013 or 2014) compared to ESSPROS (2012), in million € 9

Table 2 A global picture of family benefits 11

Table 3 The average annual amount of the child benefit compared to the net annual earnings in the Member State of residence of a one-earner married couple, at 100% of the average wage, with two children (as

%) 15

Table 4 Export of family benefits, by type of family benefit, by number of persons entitled, family members involved and annual amount paid, 2013/2014 18

Table 5 The export of family benefits, breakdown between the primary or secondary competences of Member States, 2013/2014 21

Table 6 The export of child benefits, the number of persons entitled,

2013/2014 24

Table 7 The export of child benefits, the number of family members involved,

2013/2014 25

Table 8 The export of child benefits, expenditure (in €), 2013/2014 26

Table 9 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State, 2013 28

Table 10 The export of child benefits, by Member State of residence, 2013 29

Table 11 The share of the export of child benefits in the total number of child benefits paid by the reporting Member State, 2013 31

Table 12 The impact of intra-EU mobility on the export of child benefits 33

Table 13 The share of the export of child benefits between bilateral Member

States compared to the total export (selection of top 20), number of persons entitled, 2013, as % 34

Table 14 Response 34 Export of family benefits

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 The average annual amount (in €) per person entitled and per family member 13

Figure 2 The export of family benefits, breakdown of total annual expenditure on export, by primary or secondary competences of Member States, 2013/2014 22

Figure 3 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State and Member

State of residence, number of persons entitled, 2013 30

Figure 4 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State and Member

State of residence, number of family members involved, 2013 30

Figure 5 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State and Member

State of residence, total expenditure (in €), 2013 30

Export of family benefits

INTRODUCTION

At the end of 2014, a questionnaire on the export of family benefits was discussed and launched within the framework of the Administrative Commission in order to obtain for the first time a general picture of the size and the budgetary cost of the phenomenon. Both aspects could be compared to the total number of persons entitled and their family members involved and the national public spending on family benefits. Member States were asked to report all types of family benefits covered by the definition of a ‘family benefit’ given by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security systems 1 and to be applied by the provisions defined in Chapter 8 of this Regulation. These provisions, especially the ones on the applicable priority rules in the

event of overlapping entitlements, 2 cover a broader range of situations than what is

asked by the administrative questionnaire on the export of family benefits. First, the questionnaire did not cover, and hence no information will be available on, the supplement paid by the Member State of residence as the secondarily competent Member State. Second, no information will be available on the number of households for which no supplement should be exported because the family benefit paid by the Member State of residence is higher than the family benefit of the exporting Member State.

In total 30 Member States responded to the questionnaire (see also Annex I). 27 Member States provided overall data, 19 Member States were able to provide more detailed data on the export of family benefits and only 10 Member States were able to provide a breakdown by primary and secondary competences. It follows that some caution is required when drawing general conclusions especially given that some Member States which can be considered highly relevant in this respect, in particular Member States with a high level of incoming cross-border workers, 3 did not provide data on the export of family benefits.

This report first presents an overview of the total number of persons entitled to a family benefit (section 1). Afterwards, more detailed figures on the export of family benefits are presented (section 2.1), in total (section 2.1.1) and as a distribution between the primary and secondary competences of the reporting exporting Member State (section 2.1.2). Finally, a selection is made of the exported child benefits (section 2.2) in order to avoid double-counting and to ensure the comparability between the reporting Member States.

1.

OVERALL PICTURE

Member States apply different types of family benefits in cash and in kind. 4 Besides the general scheme of child benefits also other types of family benefits are applicable, among others child care allowances, parental benefits, single parent allowances or supplements, allowances or supplements for children with disabilities etc. At European but also even at national level, these benefits show considerable differences in terms

A ‘family benefit’ includes “all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses, excluding advances of maintenance payments and special childbirth and adoption allowances” [mentioned in Annex I.] (Article 1(z) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i).

Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Cross-border workers: working in a Member State other than the Member State of residence of the child(ren). Another important group with regard to the export of family benefits are migrants living in a Member State other than the Member State of the child(ren).

This includes also tax expenditures towards families. These, however, fall outside the scope of this report.

Export of family benefits

of eligibility criteria, design and generosity. 5 Table 2 summarises all family benefits listed by the reporting Member States. However, based on the ‘exhaustive’ list of

family benefits reported in the MISSOC 6 tables (2014) and in the data set of public spending on family benefits in cash available in ESSPROS, 7 it appears that this list is to some extent incomplete. However, the MISSOC tables and the data of ESSPROS not necessarily correspond completely with data provided by the Member States and are therefore merely indicative (e.g. advances of maintenance and special childbirth and adoption benefits expressly fall outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i, but are integrated in the MISSOC tables; the selection of ‘cash benefits’ via ESSPROSS is broader (e.g. including parental leave benefits) than the ‘cash benefits’ defined by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i); also, Member States were asked to provide data on family benefits in cash and in kind). Table 1 compares the data reported in the questionnaire with the data available in ESSPROS on public spending on cash family benefits. A total expenditure on cash family benefits of € 81.1 billion is reported. This implies that on average 64% of the EU-28 expenditure on cash family benefits is covered by the questionnaire. It turns out that some Member States only reported a fraction of their public spending on cash family benefits, in contrast to other Member States which have reported all types of cash family benefits.

Table 1 Public spending on family benefits reported in the questionnaire (2013 or 2014) compared to ESSPROS (2012), in million €

Questionnaire ESSPROS – cash benefits Share reported in questionnaire (A) (B) (A/B)

BE 6,065 6,857 88.5%

CZ 1,000 1,488 67.2%

DK 2,219 3,917 56.7%

DE 38,806 55,726 69.6%

EE 101 294 34.2%

IE 3,249 4,563 71.2%

EL 519 2,431 21.3%

ES 1,358 5,148 26.4%

HR 220 672 32.8%

IT 4,297 12,074 35.6%

CY 121 248 48.9%

LV 164 172 95.4%

LT 20 334 6.0%

LU 1,005 1,257 80.0%

HU 2 2,005 0.1%

MT 43 71 60.7%

NL 6,069 4,247 142.9%

AT 4,069 6,288 68.2%

PL 1,714 2,572 66.6%

PT 794 1,333 59.6%

RO 1,001 1,216 82.3%

FI 1,493 3,129 47.7%

EU-28 74,557 116,040 64.3%

IS 63 119 53.1%

LI 41 n.a.

NO 1,908 4,847 39.4%

CH 4,581 6,075 75.4%

Total 81,149 127,081 63.9%

*

n.a.: No data available. No data available for: BG, DK, FR, SI, SK, SE and UK.

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits and ESSPROS [spr_exp_ffa]

The MISSOC tables (2014) provide more detailed information on the different types of family benefits applicable in Member States as well as their characteristics.

Mutual Information System on Social Protection.

http://www.missoc.org/MISSOC/INFORMATIONBASE/COMPARATIVETABLES/MISSOCDATABASE/comparativeTableSearch.jsp

The European system of integrated social protection statistics.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/social-protection/data/database

Export of family benefits

1.1. An overview of the different types of family benefits by Member State

The reported figures on the total number of persons entitled (i.e. households), the number of family members (i.e. children) involved and the corresponding expenditure on family benefits could be used as a denominator in order to calculate the impact of the export of family benefits to the total.

The average spending per family member or per person entitled varies markedly between Member States from a high average amount in Luxembourg, Germany and Ireland to a much lower average amount in Hungary, Romania, Greece and Latvia (Table 2 and Figure 1). Also at national level this average amount varies significantly between the different types of family benefits (e.g. IE and LV). Not only the average amount per type of family benefit will differ, but also the eligibility criteria (universal or selective) between and within Member States. Child benefit schemes also appear to be less selective compared to other family-oriented benefits. On the contrary, other family-oriented benefits show on average a higher average amount per child or per household.

Export of family benefits

Table 2 A global picture of family benefits

MS Type Year Total number of Number of family Total annual Annual average Annual average Average number persons entitled members amount amount per child amount per of family involved (in €) (in €) person entitled members per (in €) person entitled

BE Cash family benefit (only salaried 2013 1,144,049 2,037,993 4,504,340,165 2,210 3,937 1.8 persons)

Cash family benefit (total estimate) 2013 1,589,175 2,748,242 6,065,173,658 2,207 3,817 1.7 BG

CZ Child care benefit, Parental allowance, 2013 771,800 n.a. 1,000,000,000 1,296 Payment for children in foster care

DK Ordinary child benefit 2013 172,843 406,632 292,566,408 719 1,693 2.4 Child and youth allowance 2013 716,380 1,226,536 1,926,884,070 1,575 2,690 1,7

DE Child benefit (Kindergeld) 2013 8,791,626 13,942,574 33,313,739,921 2,389 3,789 1.6 Parental benefit (Elterngeld) 2013 580,983 n.a. 5,105,063,073 8,787

Childcare supplement 2013 64,874 n.a. 16,884,444 260 (Betreuungsgeld) Child allowance (Kinderzuschlag) 2013 78,133 183,349 370,067,509 2,018 4,736 2.3

EE Family benefit 2014 157,603 250,715 100,510,000 401 638 1.6 IE Child benefit 2013 611,366 1,168,582 1,899,922,000 1,626 3,108 1.9 One-parent family payment 2013 78,246 132,057 977,961,000 7,406 12,499 1.7 Domiciliary Care Allowance 2013 25,510 27,363 104,272,000 3,811 4,087 1.1 Family Income Supplement 2013 44,159 98,350 261,758,000 2,661 5,928 2.2 Guardians (non-contributory) payment 2013 345 5,124,000 14,852

EL Family benefit granted to the 2013 307,307 560,134 82,391,930 147 268 1.8 employees of the private sector

Family benefit granted to civil servants 2013 390,766 n.a. 297,138,764 760 Spouse benefit public sector 2013 243,627 n.a. 102,323,340 420 Child and spouse benefit public sector 2013 33,017 n.a. 28,854,295 874 Child benefit public sector 2013 10,320 n.a. 8,201,296 795

ES Cash family benefit (INSS) 2013 941,297 1,437,567 1,330,505,640 926 1,413 1.5 Hijo a cargo (MUFACE) 2013 7,694 n.a. 2,509,390 326

Disabled childcare benefit (ISFAS) 2013 5,499 5,664 24,944,534 4,404 4,536 1.0 FR

HR Children's allowance 204,941 383,199 220,211,881 575 1,075 1.9 IT Assegni al Nucleo Familiare 2013 4,507,380 4,297,134,189 953

CY Family benefit 2013 74,345 135,689 94,243,040 695 1,268 0.5 Single parent benefit 2013 9,370 14,219 27,008,080 1,899 2,882 0.7

LV Family state benefit 2014 213,206 306,315 42,971,290 140 202 1.4 Supplement to the family state benefit 2014 7,240 7,617 9,777,275 1,284 1,350 1.1 for a disabled child

Parent's benefit 2014 12,541 12,537 70,877,418 5,653 5,652 1.0 Childcare benefit 2014 27,038 27,336 40,379,430 1,477 1,493 1.0 Disabled child care benefit 2014 1,932 1,966 5,061,178 2,574 2,620 1.0

LT Child benefits 2014 n.a. 88,000 20,157,553 229 LU Child benefit (incl. special 136,699 244,629 1,005,181,298 4,109 7,353 1.8 supplementary allowance, annual school year allowance and child-raising allowance)

Export of family benefits

HU Family allowance, Child Home Care

Allowance, Child-raising Support 2013 22,188 35,714 1,748,433 49 79 1.6 MT Children's allowance, Disabled child 2013 43,980 69,706 42,790,000 614 973 1.6

allowance NL Child benefit (AKW) 2013 1,929,003 3,435,945 3,228,648,188 940 1,674 1.8

Childcare allowance 2013 415,911 625,505 1,875,000,000 2,998 4,508 1.5

(kinderopvangtoeslag)

Child budget (kindgebonden budget) 2013 825,241 1,510,584 965,000,000 639 1,169 1.8

AT Family allowance, differential

supplement, Kinderabsetzbetrag 2013 1,138,821 1,860,821 4,291,665,684 2,306 3,769 1.6

PL Family allowances + supplements 2013 1,202,400 2,337,600 1,713,670,511 733 1,425 1.9

PT Family allowance for children and 2013 831,770 1,289,106 614,409,760 477 739 1.5

young persons

Increase due to handicap 2013 73,371 81,998 71,508,989 872 975 1.1

Prenatal family allowance 2013 56,893 56,902 37,832,206 665 665 1.0

Monthly lifelong benefit 2013 12,439 13,211 30,367,596 2,299 2,441 1.1

Constant attendance allowance 2013 12,713 13,078 13,326,634 1,019 1,048 1.0

Special education allowance 2013 6,850 13,958 26,680,674 1,911 3,895 2.0

RO Child state allowance 2013 3,779,894 n.a. 612,811,151 162

Child-raising benefit 2013 142,170 n.a. 345,912,387 2,433

Monthly incentive for insertion 2013 30,506 n.a. 42,694,942 1,400

FI Child benefit 2013 589,693 1,074,360 1,492,775,776 1,389 2,531 1.8

UK Child benefit aug/13 7,550,265 13,107,460 n.a. 1.7

Child and Working Tax Credits 2012 5,758,000 n.a. n.a.

IS Child benefit 2013 54,616 61,289 63,225,784 1,032 1,158 1.1

LI Cash family benefit 2013 9,065 n.a. 40,512,251 4,469

NO Family allowances 2013 718,979 n.a. 1,766,784,480 2,457

Cash benefits 2013 52,059 n.a. 140,863,520 2,706

CH Child benefits 2013 1,061,200 n.a. 3,188,000,000 3,004

Vocational training allowances 2013 n.a. n.a. 1,335,000,000

Household allowances 2013 n.a. n.a. 58,000,000

Tot ** ** 81,149,026,869

*

No data available for: BG, FR, SI, SK and SE. ** In order to avoid double-counting, only the total expenditure is reported. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

Figure 1 The average annual amount (in €) per person entitled and per family member

*

IE: The amount of the guardians (non-contributory) payment is not included. ** No data available for: BG, DK, FR, SI, SK and SE. Also, no figures are available for LT (no figures on the number of persons entitled) and UK (no figures on the expenditure). Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

1.2. The amount of the child benefit compared to the net earnings in the Member State of residence (of a one-earner married

couple, at 100% of the average wage, with two children)

Table 2 already showed clear differences in average spending between Member States. The annual average amount could also be compared to the net earnings of households (Table 3). In view of this report’s topic, namely the export of family benefits, not only the net earnings of households residing in the same Member State as the competent Member State, but also those of the households residing in another Member State should be taken into account in order to assess the impact of family benefits on the net earnings of families. In so doing, also differences between Member States in the extent to which they support families in their daily living through the

Export of family benefits

payment of a family benefit will become clear and even the increase or decrease of this extent if those family benefits would be exported.

In this case the average annual amount per child (multiplied by two), by selecting only the national child benefit schemes, 8 is compared to the annual net earnings of a oneearner married couple, at 100% of the average wage, with two children. The case of a one-earner family is selected as this corresponds best with the prevailing export situation of primarily competent Member States. 9 However, these assumptions make the results reported in Table 3 merely indicative.

Box 1 – interpretation of Table 3 – Two examples

An employee in Belgium whose children live in the Czech Republic is receiving a Belgian family benefit that amounts to 36% of the average earnings of a one-earner married couple with two children working in the Czech Republic.

An employee in the Czech Republic whose children live in Belgium is receiving a Czech family benefit that amounts to 4% of the average earnings of a one-earner married couple with two children working in Belgium.

The financial support of the child benefit to households living in the competent Member State, expressed as a percentage of the net earnings, varies markedly between Member States from only 2% in Greece to 18% in Poland and Slovenia (Table 3). In general, this amount is on average (EU-28/EFTA) equal to 10% of the net earnings.

The net earnings of households in the children’s Member State of residence will be of utmost relevance, since it reflects the ‘standard of living’ 10 in those Member States. In the context of the export of a family benefit, the relation with the level of the financial support differs again to a high extent between the Member States of residence. The differences are even accentuated since nominal benefits from potential high-income level Member States with high levels of benefits are confronted with earnings in lowincome level Member States. This could lead to a situation where a household residing in Bulgaria or Romania receives 1.9 times its net earnings as a result of the export of a family benefit of Luxembourg (Table 3). 11 The financial support as a result of the export will also differ from the financial support the household would receive from their Member State of residence.

Some Member States provided information on several types of family benefits. Most of the time the ‘child benefit scheme’ was selected. However, it is not always sure that the term covers the same type of benefit. Also, some Member States reported only the sum of more than one family benefit (e.g. CZ, LU and MT).

Other possible cases are, for example: a single person with two children, at 67% of the average wage; a one-earner married couple, at 33% of the average wage, with two children; a two-earner married couple, one at 100%, the other at 67% of the average wage, with two children etc (see Eurostat [earn_nt_net]).

Sen (1984, p. 86) concludes that “living standard can be seen as freedom of particular types, related to material capabilities. […] It is in this sense that living standard can be seen as ‘economic freedom’.” The ‘standard of living’ needs to be distinguished from the ‘cost of living’ but certainly also from ‘purchasing power standards’. For a more detailed discussion we refer to the analysis of the economic impact of the export of family benefits (Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2015).

The amount of the child benefit paid by Luxembourg is divided by the net earnings of Bulgaria and Romania.

Export of family benefits

Table 3 The average annual amount of the child benefit compared to the net annual earnings in the Member State of residence of a one-earner married couple, at 100% of the average wage, with two children (as %)

Competent Member State

Net B B C D D E IE E E F H IT C L L L H M N A P P R S S FI S U I LI N C earnings E G Z K E E L S R R Y V T U U T L T L T O I K E K S O H (€)

BE 35,566 1 1 2 9 1 5 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 4 3 0 8 3 1 7 2 4 9 3 3 1 3 0 7 3 3

BG 4,328 1 1 1 7 7 4 2 3 6 1 2 1 1 3 2 4 6 2 1 5 0 3 7 1 9 5 3 7 2 2 1 9 8 3 0 4 2 4 7 0 7 2 0 3 0 2 1 0 2 9 7 3

CZ 12,251 3 1 2 3 7 2 2 1 9 1 2 6 1 4 3 1 8 1 2 9 3 2 6 1 6 9 7 5 8 1 4 7 1 0 9 8 2 3 6 0

DK 38,436 1 1 2 8 1 5 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 4 2 0 7 3 1 6 1 3 8 2 2 1 1 0 6 2 2

DE 35,424 1 1 2 9 1 5 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 4 3 0 8 3 1 7 2 4 9 3 3 1 3 0 7 3 3

EE 10,632 4 1 3 4 8 3 3 1 1 1 3 7 1 5 4 1 9 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 0 5 1 7 1 9 3 4 7 1 2 6 3 4 6 1 2 3

IE 33,629 1 1 2 1 1 6 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 4 3 0 8 3 1 7 ce 3 4 9 4 0 3 1 4 0 8 4 3 en EL 17,614 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 7 8 2 4 7 3 2 8 5 1 1 7 2 1

id 5 7 8 7 8 1 5 3 7 1 4 6 6 5 4 es ES 22,041 2 1 2 4 1 1 8 5 6 1 3 6 2 2 7 4 1 1 5 2 1 f r 0 6 4 2 5 4 2 7 0 7 1 3 0 1

te o FR 30,373 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 4 5 1 2 4 2 1 5 3 1 9 4 1 8

ta 5 4 0 6 1 3 2 7 0 0 5 5 S HR 9,742 4 1 3 4 8 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 8 1 6 4 1 1 2 2 1 4 2

ber 5 3 2 9 3 9 2 0 4 5 4 1 3 2 7 5 0 9 2 6 5

em IT 24,416 1 1 2 3 1 1 8 5 6 1 3 5 2 1 6 4 1 1 5 1 1

M 8 5 3 0 3 4 2 4 0 5 9 1 8 0

CY n.a. LV 7,746 5 6 1 4 4 2 1 1 4 1 1 7 1 1 2 3 1 5 3 7 1 4 2 0 2 4 5 1 8 0 6 7 6 9 2 6 5 8 2 7 1 2 6 6 1 0 LT 6,473 6 7 1 5 5 2 1 2 4 1 1 9 2 1 3 4 1 6 3 8 2 4 4 2 0 9 8 1 1 2 9 3 7 3 5 3 8 9 8 0 9 5 7 7 2 1 LU 51,301 9 9 2 6 1 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 0 5 2 9 5 3 6 2 1 6 0 2 9 HU 8,314 5 1 3 5 1 3 4 2 1 1 1 3 9 1 7 5 1 1 2 3 1 5 3 3 6 8 7 0 9 2 4 1 7 6 9 1 5 2 5 8 1 3 4 4 0 MT 17,772 2 1 2 5 1 2 1 6 8 2 4 7 3 2 8 5 1 1 7 2 1 5 7 8 7 8 0 5 3 6 1 4 6 6 5 4 NL 36,485 1 4 9 1 2 9 1 5 3 3 4 1 1 2 0 3 1 1 4 3 0 8 3 1 7

Export of family benefits

2 3 3 6 3 2 AT 33,276 1 1 2 1 1 6 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 4 3 0 8 3 1 7

3 4 9 4 0 3 1 5 0 8 4 3 PL 8,092 5 5 1 4 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 7 1 1 2 3 1 5 3

5 1 3 9 0 0 3 4 1 7 0 5 4 5 8 2 4 4 5 0 6 9 2 6 2 1 7

PT 15,229 2 2 3 5 2 2 1 8 9 2 5 8 3 3 1 6 1 1 8 2 1 9 9 1 1 1 2 6 3 4 1 9 0 0 8 9 6

RO 4,431 1 1 1 7 7 4 2 3 6 1 2 1 1 3 2 4 6 2 1 5 0 2 7 0 8 3 2 6 2 1 1 8 8 3 0 3 2 3 6 0 5 0 9 1 8 2 0 5 2 5 4 1

SI 15,766 2 2 3 5 2 2 1 7 9 2 5 8 3 2 9 6 1 1 7 2 1 8 8 0 0 1 2 6 3 2 1 8 9 8 8 6

SK 9,499 4 1 3 5 8 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 8 1 6 4 1 1 2 2 1 4 2 7 4 3 0 4 9 2 0 5 5 7 1 3 3 9 5 0 9 2 7 6

FI 32,180 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 4 4 1 2 4 1 1 5 3 1 9 4 1 8 4 4 0 5 0 3 1 6 0 9 4 4

SE 37,105 1 1 2 9 1 5 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 4 3 0 7 3 1 7 2 3 8 3 3 1 2 0 6 2 2

UK 33,852 1 1 2 1 1 5 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 4 3 0 8 3 1 7 3 4 9 4 0 3 1 4 0 8 4 3

IS 33,222 1 1 2 1 1 6 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 4 3 0 8 3 1 7 3 4 9 4 0 3 1 5 0 8 4 3

LI n.a.

NO 52,219 8 9 2 6 1 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 0 5 2 9 5 2 6 2 1 6 0 1 9

CH 68,868 6 7 1 5 0 3 2 2 0 1 2 9 2 1 0 4 2 6 4 2 5 1 1 2 0 7

EU2 25,737 1 1 1 3 1 1 7 4 5 1 3 5 2 1 6 4 1 1 4 1 1 8 7 5 2 9 3 4 2 2 0 3 8 1 7 0

*

No data available for: BG, FR, LT, AT, SI, SK, SE, UK and CH. ** For some Member States (RO, IT, IS, LI and NO) the average amount per child is not known. In that case the average amount per household is selected. In that case this amount is not multiplied by 2. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits and Eurostat [earn_nt_net]

Export of family benefits

2.

THE EXPORT OF FAMILY BENEFITS

Chapter 8 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security systems covers the EU provisions on the coordination of family benefits (Article 67 to

69). If family members live in a Member State other than the one where the insured person works and/or resides, family benefits can in some cases be exported to these family members. Because the entitlement to family benefits might arise in more than one Member State (based on residence, employment or receipt of a pension) Article

68 lays down some priority rules in order to define the ‘primarily competent Member State’. In this respect, rights available on the basis of (self-)employment have priority. 12 However, when there is employment in two different Member States, it is the Member State of residence of the children 13 that will become primarily competent

for the payment of the family benefits.

However, a Member State might have to pay a supplement (corresponding to the difference between the two family benefits) as the ‘secondarily competent Member

State’ if the family benefit paid by the primarily competent Member State is lower than the family benefit the person entitled would have received from the secondarily competent Member State. 14

Of the 19 Member States that provided quantitative data on the export of family benefits, only nine were able to provide more detailed figures on the primary and secondary competences of the exporting Member State (see Annex I).

2.1. All types of family benefits

Table 4 provides an overview of all exported family benefits in terms of numbers and expenditure reported by the different Member States. The export of child benefits will be discussed in more in detail in section 2.2 in order to guarantee the comparability of the figures.

2.1.1. General overview

A total amount of some € 983 million related to the export of family benefits was brought into the picture by the reporting Member States (Table 4). As the export of child benefits will be discussed in a separate section of this report, in this section more attention will be given to the other exported family-oriented benefits.

• Germany exported parental leave (Elterngeld) to 1,426 households (or 0.2% of the total households entitled) and a childcare supplement (Betreuungsgeld) to 78 households (or 0.1% of the total households entitled).

• Ireland exported a family income supplement to 775 households (or 1.7% of the total households entitled) amounting to a public spending of € 4.7 million (or 1.8 % of total expenditure) and a domiciliary care allowance to only 6 households. The average amount exported by Ireland per entitled household for other family-oriented benefits (e.g. € 6,225 for a family income

Article 68 (1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Article 68 (1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Article 68 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Export of family benefits

supplement) is much higher than the one related to the export of a child benefit (€ 1,412).

• Denmark exported an ‘ordinary’ child benefit (allowance for single parents) to 421 households (or 0.2% of the total household entitled) amounting to a public spending of € 1 million (or 0.4% of total spending).

• Latvia reported the exportability of a childcare benefit to 435 households (or 1.6% of the total households entitled) amounting to a public spending of € 344,000, a parent’s benefit to 100 households (or 0.8% of the total households entitled) amounting to a public spending of € 303,000, a supplement to the family state benefit for a disabled child to 22 households, and finally a disabled childcare benefit to 6 households. Again, the average exported amount per entitled household for other family-oriented benefits (e.g. € 3,034 for a parent’s benefit) appears to be higher than the exportable child benefit (€ 113).

• Hungary exported a child home care allowance to 118 households and a childraising allowance to 2 households.

• The Netherlands exported to 15,810 households (or 1.9% of the total households entitled) or 26,026 children a child budget (kindgebonden budget) amounting to a public spending of € 20.7 million (2.2 % of total spending). 16,982 benefits or 65% of the total number of benefits were exported to Poland. Also, a childcare allowance (kinderopvangtoeslag) was exported to 1,556 households (or 0.4% of the total households entitled) or 2,238 children amounting to a public spending of € 4.9 million (or 0.3% of total spending). 1,274 benefits or 57% of the total number of benefits were exported to Belgium.

• Romania reported the exportability of a child-raising benefit to 24 households.

• By Slovakia, a parental allowance was exported to 2,935 households amounting to a public spending of € 4.3 million. This expenditure is much higher than their expenditure related to the export of child benefits (€ 1.5 million).

• The United Kingdom also reported, besides the export of the child benefit, the export of a child tax credit. This benefit was exported to 7,005 households or 11,735 children. 6,952 benefits or almost 60% of the total number of benefits were exported to Poland. Another 1,928 benefits (16% of total) were exported to Ireland.

• Norway exported a cash benefit to 1,919 families (or 3.7% of the total households entitled) amounting to a public spending of € 5.4 million (or 3.8% of total spending).

Export of family benefits

Table 4 Export of family benefits, by type of family benefit, by number of persons entitled, family members involved and annual amount paid,

2013/2014

Type Total number of Number of family Total annual amount Annual average Annual average Average number of persons members involved (in €) amount per child (in amount per person family members per €) entitled person entitled (in €)

BE Cash family benefit (only salaried 23,962 45,010 83,566,755 1,857 3,487 1.9 persons)

CZ Child care benefit, Parental 1,009 4,596 951,041 207 943 4.6 allowance, Payment for children in

foster care DK Ordinary child benefit 421 1,101 1,033,380 939 2,455 2.6

Child and youth allowance 4,720 15,797 24,383,654 1,544 5,166 3.3 DE Child benefit (Kindergeld) 62,587 106,552 105,759,924 993 1,690 1.7

Parental leave (Elterngeld) 1,426 Childcare supplement 78 (Betreuungsgeld)

EE Family benefit 406 537 573,075 1,067 1,412 1.3 IE Child benefit 4,636 7,421 11,576,760 1,560 2,497 1.6

Domiciliary care allowance 6 6 22,344 3,724 3,724 1.0

Family income supplement 755 4,700,000 6,225

EL Family benefit granted to the 0 0 0

employees of the private sector

ES 37 49 10,729 219 290 1.3

LV Family state benefit 948 1,102 107,478 98 113 1.2

Supplement to the family state 22 36 12,639 351 575 1.6

benefit for a disabled child

Parent's benefit 100 100 303,414 3,034 3,034 1.0 Childcare benefit 435 437 344,275 788 791 1.0 Disabled childcare benefit 6 6 11,878 1,980 1,980 1.0

LU Child benefit (incl. special 69,310 127,500 476,900,069 3,740 6,881 1.8 supplementary allowance, annual

school year allowance and child raising allowance)

HU Family allowance 1,154 1,616 336,232 208 291 1.4 Child home care allowance 118 123 11,404 93 97 1.0 Child-raising support 2 6 185 31 93 3.0

NL Child benefit (AKW) 20,225 37,924 35,622,000 939 1,761 1.9 Childcare allowance (kinderopvang 1,556 2,238 4,869,733 2,176 3,130 1.4 toeslag)

Export of family benefits

Child budget (kindgebonden budget) 15,810 26,016 20,669,349 794 1,307 1.6

AT Family allowance, differential 63,828 104,295 147,322,836 1,413 2,308 1.6 supplement, Kinderabsetzbetrag

PL Family benefit 8,698 3,995,406 459

RO Child benefit allowance 11,427

Child-raising benefit 24 SI

SK Child benefit 4,520 6,846 1,544,876 226 342 1.5 Parental allowance 2,935 3,010 4,292,123 1,426 1,462 1.0

FI Child benefit 11,449 13,206 19,359,180 1,466 1,691 1.2 SE

UK Child benefit 20,271 33,553 1.7 Child tax credit 7,005 11,735 1.7

IS Child benefit 73 119 116,339 978 1,594 1.6 LI

NO Family allowances 14,524 29,660,573 2,042

Cash benefits 1,919 5,415,554 2,822 CH

Total ** ** 983,473,205

*

No data available for BG, DK, ES, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, PT, SI, SE, LI and CH. ** In order to avoid double-counting, only the total expenditure is reported. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

2.1.2. Primarily or secondarily competent Member States

Table 5 and Figure 2 provide a breakdown between the primary and secondary competences of the reporting Member State. This distinction between both is very important as the numbers of exports and the amount these represent will differ between the primary and secondary competences of Member States and also will influence the total numbers and expenditure. The priority rules and the differences in the amounts of the family benefits will determine to a high extent the number of exports and the related expenditure as primarily or secondarily competent Member

State. It follows that the context will vary between Member States. As a result, the share of the expenditure as primarily competent Member State varies from 97% of total expenditure on export in the Netherlands to 17% in Estonia. In total for the reporting Member States, in particular influenced by Luxembourg, 64% of the crossborder expenditure is paid as primarily competent Member State. The distribution between primarily and secondarily competent Member States will in particular be influenced by the partner being employed in the Member State of residence of the child(ren) (i.e. a low employment rate of the partner in the children’s Member State will result in a high number of exports as primarily competent Member State) and by the level of the family benefits in the children’s Member State of residence and in the

Member State of employment of one of the parents (i.e. if the family benefit paid by the children’s Member State of residence is lower than the family benefit which the person entitled would have received from the secondarily competent Member State, a supplement will be paid by the latter).

• Luxembourg paid a child benefit to 39,301 households (57% of the total households entitled living abroad) amounting to € 329 million as primarily competent Member State, and to 30,009 households (43% of the total households entitled living abroad) amounting to € 148.4 million as secondarily competent Member State. The fact that Luxembourg as a primarily competent Member State pays a higher average amount (€ 4,898) than as secondarily competent Member State (limited to the supplement) (€ 2,455) results in a higher share in the total expenditure as primarily competent Member State (69% of total expenditure related to export).

• Germany paid to 78,450 children (74% of the total households entitled living abroad) a child benefit as primarily competent Member State compared to 28,102 children (26% of the total households entitled living abroad) as secondarily competent Member State.

• Austria paid to 15,437 households a total amount of € 60 million as primarily competent Member State and to 48,391 households a total amount of € 87.3 million. This implies that 76% of the households entitled received only 59% of total expenditure related to the export of family benefits, because they were only entitled to receive a supplement (average of € 1,104).

• The Netherlands exported a child benefit to 13,346 households (66% of the total households entitled living abroad) and paid a supplement to 6,879 households (34% of the total households entitled living abroad). The fact that the Netherlands as a secondarily competent Member State had to pay a small average supplement (€ 105) compared to the average amount they had to pay as primarily competent Member State (€ 1,215) results in a very high share in Export of family benefits

the total expenditure as primarily competent Member State (97% of total expenditure related to export).

Export of family benefits

Table 5 The export of family benefits, breakdown between the primary or secondary competences of Member States, 2013/2014

Primary competence Secondary competence

Type Number of Number of Total annual Annual Share of Number of Number of Total annual Annual Share of persons family expenditure average total persons family expenditure average total

entitled members (in €) amount per expenditure entitled members (in €) amount per annual involved child involved child expenditur e

CZ Child care benefit, Parental 878 3,981 842,207 212 89% 131 615 108,834 177 11% allowance, Payment for children

in foster care DK

DE Child benefit (Kindergeld) 78,450 28,102

EE Family benefit 53 66 98,731 1,496 17% 353 471 474,344 1,007 83%

LV Family state benefit 515 513 75,783 148 71% 433 589 31,695 54 29%

Supplement to the family state 6 12 7,063 589 56% 16 24 5,576 232 44% benefit for a disabled child Parent's benefit 73 73 193,702 2,653 64% 27 27 109,712 4063 36% Child-care benefit 199 200 169,605 848 49% 236 237 174,670 737 51% Disabled child care benefit 2 2 4,880 2,440 41% 4 4 6,998 1,750 59%

LU Child benefit (incl. special 39,301 67,067 328,522,947 4,898 69% 30,009 60,433 148,377,116 2,455 31% supplementary allowance,

annual school year allowance and child-raising allowance)

HU Family allowance 825 1,100 82,936 75 24% 449 645 264,885 411 76%

NL Child benefit (AKW) 13,346 28,508 34,634,040 1,215 97% 6,879 9,416 987,960 105 3%

AT Family allowance, differential 15,437 25,225 60,000,516 2,379 41% 48,391 79,070 87,322,320 1,104 59% supplement, Kinderabsetzbetrag

SK Child benefit 2,410 3,554 697,600 196 45% 2,110 3,292 847,276 257 55%

Parental allowance 2,342 2,402 3,153,891 1,313 73% 593 608 1,138,232 1,872 27% FI

IS Child benefit 64 99 103,389 1,044 89% 9 20 12,950 647 11%

Tot. ** ** 428,587,289 64% 239,862,568 36%

*

No data available for BE, BG, DK, IE, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK, LI, NO and CH. ** In order to avoid double-counting, only the total expenditure is reported.

Export of family benefits

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

Figure 2 The export of family benefits, breakdown of total annual expenditure on export, by primary or secondary competences of Member States, 2013/2014

*

No data available for BE, BG, DK, DE, IE, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK, LI, NO and CH.

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

2.2. Selection of the ‘child benefits’

As could be observed, some Member States provided information on the exportability of several types of family benefits. In order to avoid double-counting, this section will discuss only one family benefit scheme of each of the reporting Member States. Most of the time the child benefit scheme was selected. But it is not always sure that the term covers the same type of benefit. As mentioned before, some Member States reported only the sum of more than one family benefit (e.g. CZ, LU, AT and MT). By selecting only one family benefit scheme per Member State, also a view on the

Member State of residence of the children will be obtained.

Export of family benefits

2.2.1 General overview

Tables 6 to 8 provide detailed information on the bilateral cross-border flows of child benefits between the exporting competent Member States and the Member States of residence in terms of the number of persons entitled (Table 6), the number of family members involved (Table 7) and expenditure (Table 8). These total figures are the sum of the child benefits exported as primarily and as secondarily competent Member

State. 19 Member States reported a total export of child benefits to some 324,000 households or 506,000 children amounting to a total expenditure of € 942 million. The cross-border tables provide a view on the ‘main’ exporting and receiving Member

States. In particular, Luxembourg, Austria and Germany appear to be the ‘main’ exporting Member States in absolute terms. Luxembourg has even paid a total amount of € 477 million for family benefits exported abroad (Table 8). At the same time, a high number of child benefits were exported to France, Poland, Belgium and Germany.

The detail of the cross-tables gives also a first impression of the strong concentration of the bilateral export of child benefits between Member States.

The share of each of the reporting Member States but also of the children’s Member States of residence in the total export of child benefits will be discussed in more detail later on (Tables 9 and 10). Also, the number of exported child benefits could be compared to the total number of child benefits paid by the reporting Member State in terms of households entitled, family members involved and expenditure

(section 2.2.2). Finally, the strong concentration of the export of child benefits will be discussed in more detail in section 2.2.4.

Export of family benefits

Table 6 The export of child benefits, the number of persons entitled, 2013/2014

Competent MS BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS

BE 543 1 4 17,567 1 5,081 68 17 181 70 BG 59 1,561 17 5 20 9 2 142 201 CZ 32 3,328 33 337 1 134 12 1,534 53 129 2 DK 5 109 0 9 10 17 13 130 18 DE 218 1 11 16 2 15,013 2 4,030 272 173 601 246 EE 5 48 53 9 1 28 0 0 5,046 44 1 IE 13 35 3 0 6 18 97 53 104 1,218 EL 47 1,999 0 3 30 443 17 131 47 ES 389 647 58 43 291 5,320 59 668 547 FR 16,014 10,087 1 18 2 34,318 3 218 335 50 278 683 HR 54 171 0 3 6 0 13 3

e IT 316 2,345 24 1 42 1 79 4,076 125 231 150

nc CY 0 2 1 0 4 142 2 31 36

ide LV 10 460 2 150 1 73 0 2 120 749 3 es LT 8 523 13 344 1 120 1 1 97 1,144 3

f r

o LU 68 30 1 10 6 21 28 8

te HU 32 2,335 28 26 86 137 97 137 148

ta MT 1 2 1 0 9 1 0 12 16

r S NL 3,505 3,194 4 9 291 23 70 186 136

AT 6 3 1,341 0 24 24 106 1,903 102 22 mbe PL 2,259 24 26,901 1 2,932 2 575 9,131 39 42 368 13,381 54

Me PT 322 1,152 23 3 674 157 130 1 59 199

RO 336 3,585 93 26 61 24 90 8 147 234 SI 12 110 0 2 2 6 2 11 18 6 SK 60 981 1,229 107 155 1,117 266 1 0 27 676 7 FI 7 55 255 1 5 6 9 9 13 SE 25 55 9 4 40 2 39 8 10 1,224 51 UK 95 550 11 762 1 40 1 170 159 176 803 IS 2 3 0 5 0 0 3 19 2 3 LI 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 NO 10 17 42 0 2 22 8 62 290 33 CH 52 168 1 61 67 6 58 203 61 Total 23,962 1,009 4,720 62,587 406 4,636 37 948 69,310 1,154 20,225 63,828 8,698 11,427 4,520 11,449 20,271 73

*

No data available for BG, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PT, SI, SE, LI and CH. The breakdown by Member State or residence provided by DK has not been reported given that for most of the cases the Member State of residence is unknown (for non-Danish citizens in particular).

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

Table 7 The export of child benefits, the number of family members involved, 2013/2014

Competent Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS

BE 945 1 4 34,971 2 8,929 33 225 123 BG 84 2,362 19 7 157 2 199 261 CZ 52 5,575 43 542 1 255 2,404 59 208 3 DK 12 226 0 18 20 25 147 35 DE 399 2 12 24 2 26,134 2 7,220 284 767 426 EE 9 77 66 10 2 46 0 5,422 59 3 IE 25 74 3 0 13 48 68 105 2,456 EL 73 3,387 0 5 140 24 144 69 ES 728 243 92 76 651 89 790 919 FR 31,036 16,553 1 31 2 62,143 4 484 56 350 1,198 HR 84 304 0 3 35 0 21 5 e

nc IT 547 3,887 32 1 65 2 203 174 296 264 CY 0 3 1 0 6 4 38 56

ide LV 24 717 3 197 1 143 2 169 1,031 6 es LT 14 817 23 437 1 198 1 135 1,588 5

f r

o LU 103 57 2 26 33 49 17

te HU 64 3,942 44 46 239 122 195 223

ta MT 2 2 1 0 17 0 10 23

r S NL 6,417 6,428 4 16 591 102 229 272

AT 11 12 2,160 0 40 59 2,881 122 35 mbe PL 3,807 100 47,273 1 4,473 2 1,044 17,181 55 368 22,120 81

Me PT 492 1,851 28 3 1,136 350 1 63 304

RO 531 5,727 167 38 89 38 200 13 238 393 SI 16 176 0 2 5 15 17 21 11 SK 103 4,482 2,167 165 283 1,555 611 0 39 1,165 16 FI 12 105 347 2 9 15 14 19 SE 42 107 14 6 79 4 84 17 1,411 88 UK 192 1,043 11 1,625 1 74 3 418 242 1,014 IS 2 4 0 9 0 4 15 4 5 LI 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 NO 17 30 51 0 4 37 88 314 69 CH 112 307 2 113 137 89 251 112 Total 45,010 4,596 15,797 106,552 537 7,421 49 1,102 127,500 1,616 37,924 104,295 6,846 13,206 33,553 119

*

No data available for BG, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE, LI, NO and CH. The breakdown by Member State or residence provided by DK has not been reported given that for most of the cases the Member State of residence is unknown (for non-Danish citizens in particular).

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

Table 8 The export of child benefits, expenditure (in €), 2013/2014

Competent Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI BE 7,986 5,370 6,240 122,085,013 87 8,282,000 7,011 323,8 BG 316,349 744,767 29,640 32,040 151,000 333 264,2 CZ 117,192 398 1,509,823 67,080 2,597,277 40 235,000 487,904 80,4 DK 15,187 48,142 0 70,427 19,000 5,488 216,2 DE 738,158 7,564 37,440 4,545 85,555,195 991 6,646,000 70,217 1,100,2 EE 8,367 33,635 98,731 15,600 9,797 40,000 0 7,880,3 IE 63,135 23,712 6,414 0 59,112 46,000 16,785 154,8 EL 198,705 861,265 0 23,192 135,000 5,189 216,3 ES 2,014,643 957,466 143,520 341,195 624,000 21,999 1,195,8 FR 53,416,347 12,879,629 150 48,360 291 250,730,201 171 465,000 13,255 506,0 HR 172,347 15,104 0 14,695 28,000 0 27,5

e IT 1,439,309 1,749,862 49,920 146 294,043 87 195,000 41,140 439,3 nc CY 0 1,196 1,560 0 6,000 761 57,4

si LV 43,364 228,917 5,528 307,320 3,756 134,000 369 237,5 re LT 19,116 169,199 72,133 681,720 4,898 185,000 162 185,7 of LU 160,109 23,185 3,120 24,000 8,823 69,9

te HU 167,131 4,086,640 68,640 191,625 227,000 26,556 265,0 ta MT 1,638 133 1,560 0 16,000 0 14,1

r NL 11,804,158 3,559,962 9,460 24,960 2,379,098 25,107 325,8 be AT 13,500 2,231 2,344,024 0 160,408 56,000 692,799 175,2

PL 9,379,946 25,901 70,384,885 98 6,977,880 218 5,101,172 16,332,000 14,954 502,1 em

M PT 1,158,160 687,876 43,680 364 4,484,241 344,000 277 89,1

RO 1,417,325 2,433,666 260,520 5,020 355,907 19,079 190,000 2,714 333,1 SI 27,886 81,117 0 7,426 243 14,000 2,974 28,6 SK 223,934 922,511 2,614,086 257,400 1,121,625 301,157 578,000 0 52,4

FI 12,545 43,079 285,960 3,120 28,635 14,000 3,064 SE 65,892 58,058 29,838 9,360 291,746 7,823 79,000 3,665 2,230,2 UK 311,836 158,361 6,651 2,535,000 146 368,299 6,555 397,000 52,114 1,532,1 IS 3,771 9,818 0 44,086 0 531 21,7 LI 0 0 0 0 0 508 NO 33,427 13,084 45,179 0 12,957 32,000 19,152 475,2 CH 223,276 31,250 3,120 532,003 128,000 21,029 357,9 Tot 83,566,755 951,041 24,383,654 105,759,924 573,075 11,576,760 10,729 107,478 476,900,069 336,232 35,622,000 147,322,836 3,995,406 1,544,876 19,359,1

*

No data available for BG, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK, LI and CH. The breakdown by Member State or residence provided by DK has not been reported given that for most of the cases the Member State of residence is unknown (for non-Danish citizens in particular).

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

In absolute terms, most child benefits are exported by Luxembourg, Austria and Germany (Table 9). 21% of the total number of households entitled received a child benefit being exported by Luxembourg. This percentage increases even in terms of total expenditure. In that case Luxembourg paid 51% of total reported spending on the export of child benefits. The main reason for this is the high average amount paid per child (€ 3,740) 15 compared to the other reporting Member States. Also, the figures reported by Luxembourg do not make a distinction between types of family benefits.

This implies that for Luxembourg a (much) broader definition of child benefit is applied compared to other reporting Member States. Austria represents 20% of the child benefits exported to the households entitled and 21% of the children involved. Their share in total expenditure is, however, much lower (16% of total expenditure). 19% of the child benefits exported to the households entitled were paid by Germany or to

21% of the children involved. Also Belgium (7% of the total persons entitled), the United Kingdom (6% of the total persons entitled), the Netherlands (6% of the total persons entitled) and Norway (5% of the total persons entitled) exported in absolute terms a quite high number of child benefits. Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Romania,

Poland, Slovakia and Norway have a share between 1 and 5% in the total export of child benefits, while the Czech Republic, Estonia, Spain, Latvia, Hungary and Iceland have a share of less than 1% in the total export of child benefits in absolute figures.

The impact of the export of child benefits in relative terms (as a percentage of the total number of child benefits paid by a Member State and the related amount) will be discussed in a separate section of this report. The number of child benefits being exported by the EU-15 to households living abroad covers 87% of the total households entitled but accounts for 96% of total expenditure.

The annual average amount paid per child varies between Member States from € 3,740 in Luxembourg to € 98 in Latvia (Table 9). Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Finland,

Austria, Estonia, Germany, Iceland and the Netherlands paid an average amount between € 900 and € 2,000. Finally the Czech Republic, Spain, Hungary, Slovakia and

Latvia paid on average less than € 300. These total averages will be influenced by the proportionate distribution of the primary and secondary competences of the reporting

Member States.

However, there is a strong difference between the amount paid as primarily competent Member State (€ 4,898) and the supplement paid as secondarily competent Member State (€ 2,455) (see also Table 5).

Export of family benefits

Table 9 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State, 2013

Persons entitled Family members Annual expenditure Annual Average involved average number of amount family per members

child per person entitled

Number % of Number % of Amount % of

column column (in €) column

total total total

BE 23,962 7.4% 45,010 8.9% 83,566,755 8.9% 1,857 1.9

CZ 1,009 0.3% 4,596 0.9% 951,041 0.1% 207 4.6

DK 4,720 1.5% 15,797 3.1% 24,383,654 2.6% 1,544 3.3

DE 62,587 19.3% 106,552 21.1% 105,759,924 11.2% 993 1.7

EE 406 0.1% 537 0.1% 573,075 0.1% 1,067 1.3

IE 4,636 1.4% 7,421 1.5% 11,576,760 1.2% 1,560 1.6

ES 37 0.0% 49 0.0% 10,729 0.0% 219 1.3

LV 948 0.3% 1,102 0.2% 107,478 0.0% 98 1.2

LU 69,310 21.4% 127,500 25.2% 476,900,069 50.6% 3,740 1.8

HU 1,154 0.4% 1,616 0.3% 336,232 0.0% 208 1.4

NL 20,225 6.2% 37,924 7.5% 35,622,000 3.8% 939 1.9

AT 63,828 19.7% 104,295 20.6% 147,322,836 15.6% 1,413 1.6

PL 8,698 2.7% 3,995,406 0.4%

RO 11,427 3.5%

SK 4,520 1.4% 6,846 1.4% 1,544,876 0.2% 226 1.5

FI 11,449 3.5% 13,206 2.6% 19,359,180 2.1% 1,466 1.2

UK 20,271 6.3% 33,553 6.6% 1.7

IS 73 0.0% 119 0.0% 116,339 0.0% 978 1.6

NO 14,524 4.5% 29,660,573 3.1%

Total 323,784 100.0% 506,123 100.0% 941,786,927 100.0%

EU-12 28,162 8.7% 14,697 2.9% 7,508,108 0.8%

EU-15 281,025 86.8% 491,307 97.1% 904,501,907 96.0%

EFTA 14,597 4.5% 119 0.0% 29,776,912 3.2%

*

No data available for BG, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PT, SI, SE, LI and CH.

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Data could also be analysed for the export of child benefits to the Member State of residence of the children. However, the missing data for a number of Member States, in particular Member States with a high level of incoming commuters, may lead to a distorted view of reality if the export of child benefits is reported by the Member State of residence. Most of the households that received a child benefit from abroad lived in France and Poland (Table 10). 25% of the child benefits were exported to France comprising 42% of total expenditure. This much higher share of France in the total expenditure is mainly explained by the fact that more than half of the households residing in France received a child benefit paid by Luxembourg. Also Belgium and Germany have a much higher share in total expenditure compared to their share in the number of households or children receiving a child benefit, as again both Member States received a child benefit mainly from Luxembourg. These examples illustrate how much certain rights are ‘derived’ by an underlying reality of cross-border work. Furthermore, 25% of the child benefits were exported to households living in Poland. Finally, a high percentage of child benefits was exported to Belgium (10%) and Germany (8.5%). The number of child benefits being imported by a household living in the EU-15 covers 61% of the total households entitled, but accounts for 78% of

Export of family benefits

total expenditure. Several Member States (e.g. BE, CZ, DE, LU, HU and NL) exported the child benefit mainly to their neighbouring Member States (Tables 6 and 12).

Table 10 The export of child benefits, by Member State of residence, 2013

Persons entitled Family members involved Annual amount

Number % of Number % of Amount (in % of

column column €) column

total total total

BE 23,658 9.6% 45,233 11.8% 130,928,092 17.1%

BG 2,171 0.9% 3,091 0.8% 1,854,141 0.2%

CZ 5,635 2.3% 9,142 2.4% 5,172,488 0.7%

DK 732 0.3% 483 0.1% 1,076,313 0.1%

DE 20,918 8.5% 35,272 9.2% 94,734,983 12.4%

EE 5,537 2.3% 5,694 1.5% 8,684,908 1.1%

IE 1,572 0.6% 2,792 0.7% 420,768 0.1%

EL 2,744 1.1% 3,842 1.0% 1,494,518 0.2%

ES 8,486 3.5% 3,588 0.9% 6,199,194 0.8%

FR 62,148 25.3% 111,858 29.1% 318,267,742 41.6%

HR 260 0.1% 452 0.1% 272,253 0.0%

IT 7,453 3.0% 5,471 1.4% 4,348,582 0.6%

CY 223 0.1% 108 0.0% 74,485 0.0%

LV 2,018 0.8% 2,293 0.6% 1,961,506 0.3%

LT 4,404 1.8% 3,219 0.8% 6,165,460 0.8%

LU 179 0.1% 287 0.1% 307,012 0.0%

HU 3,084 1.3% 4,875 1.3% 5,135,912 0.7%

MT 49 0.0% 55 0.0% 44,050 0.0%

NL 7,569 3.1% 14,059 3.7% 18,417,776 2.4%

AT 3,551 1.4% 5,320 1.4% 3,473,916 0.5%

PL 62,047 25.3% 96,505 25.1% 122,970,831 16.1%

PT 2,836 1.2% 4,228 1.1% 7,023,518 0.9%

RO 4,616 1.9% 7,434 1.9% 5,026,450 0.7%

SI 174 0.1% 263 0.1% 171,561 0.0%

SK 4,833 2.0% 10,586 2.8% 6,438,552 0.8%

FI 500 0.2% 523 0.1% 594,958 0.1%

SE 3,342 1.4% 1,852 0.5% 5,706,101 0.7%

UK 3,391 1.4% 4,623 1.2% 6,486,221 0.8%

IS 254 0.1% 43 0.0% 524,744 0.1%

LI 3 0.0% 5 0.0% 508 0.0%

NO 486 0.2% 610 0.2% 631,011 0.1%

CH 717 0.3% 1,123 0.3% 1,368,998 0.2%

Total

*

245,590 100.0% 384,929 100.0% 765,977,553 100.0%

EU-13 95,051 38.7% 143,717 37.3% 163,972,596 21.4%

EU-15 149,079 60.7% 239,431 62.2% 599,479,694 78.3%

EFTA 1,460 0.6% 1,781 0.5% 2,525,262 0.3%

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for BG, DK, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, PT, SI, SE, LI and CH as reporting Member State. However, IT reported that the export of family

benefits is increasing, especially to RO and ES. Also, no breakdown by Member State of residence was provided by AT, PL and LV and an incomplete breakdown provided by DK.

** Total numbers differ compared to Table 9 as some Member States (AT, PL and LV) did not provide a breakdown by Member State of residence. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Comparing the number of exported and imported child benefits and the related amount allows to obtain a more detailed view on the ‘net figures’ (Figures 3 to 6). These net figures correspond to a high extent to the impact of the export of child benefits for several Member States. Despite the number of imported and exported child benefits being almost equal, the net budgetary cost may still vary markedly. This is especially the case for Belgium. In terms of budgetary implications, some Member States are net recipients (in particular PL, BE and probably also FR), while other Member States are net contributors (in particular LU and AT) (Figure 5). The crosstables illustrate how the export in one Member State is the import in another. In each Member State the export and the import relate to a different group of persons. So

Export of family benefits

netting reveals some statistical compensation, but only the gross flows serve to illustrate the number of persons involved.

Figure 3 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State and Member State of residence, number of persons entitled, 2013

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Figure 4 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State and Member State of residence, number of family members involved, 2013

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

Figure 5 The export of child benefits, by competent Member State and Member State of residence, total expenditure (in €), 2013

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

2.2.2 The percentage of export in the total number of child benefits

In relative terms, the impact of the export of child benefits (as a percentage of the total number of child benefits paid by a Member State and the related amount) is quite limited for most of the Member States. On average 1% of child benefits are being exported abroad, which represents 1.6% of total public spending on child benefits of 17 reporting Member States. Luxembourg is an important ‘outlier’ with regard to the export of child benefits. More than 50% of the child benefits paid by Luxembourg were exported abroad. The lower share of export in the total public spending of Luxembourg on child benefits could be explained by the lower average amount paid per child as secondarily competent Member State (supplement of € 2,455) compared to the average amount of the child benefit paid per child (€ 4,107) and the impact of this supplement on the average amount being exported per child (€ 3,740). Austria exported almost 6% of their child benefits amounting to some 3% of their public spending on child benefits. Belgium, Finland and Norway exported some 2% of their child benefits. The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Ireland and Poland exported between 0.5 and 1.5% of their child benefits, while Latvia, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Romania, Iceland, the Czech Republic and Spain exported even less than 0.5% of their child benefits. However, the impact is expected to level-off for most of the EU Member States, as stated above, when also the import of child benefits is taken into account.

Export of family benefits

Table 11 The share of the export of child benefits in the total number of child benefits paid by the reporting Member State, 2013

As % of Total number of persons Number of family members involved Total amount

(in €) BE 2.1% 2.2% 1.9% BG

CZ 0.1% n.a. 0.1%

DK 0.7% 1.3% 1.3%

DE 0.7% 0.8% 0.3%

EE 0.3% 0.2% 0.6%

IE 0.8% 0.6% 0.6%

ES 0.004% 0.003% 0.001%

LV 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

LU 50.7% 52.1% 47.4%

NL 1.0% 1.1% 1.1%

AT 5.6% 5.6% 3.4%

PL 0.7% n.a. 0.2%

RO 0.3% n.a. n.a.

FI 1.9% 1.2% 1.3%

UK 0.3% 0.3% n.a.

IS 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

NO 2.0% n.a. 1.7%

Total of reporting 1.0% 1.2% 1.6%

MSs (weighted)

*

No data available for BG, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PT, SI, SK, SE, LI and CH. Figures of HU not included.
Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

2.2.3 The impact of intra-EU mobility on the export of family benefits: crossborder workers and migrants

The number of child benefits being exported abroad is influenced by two main groups, namely cross-border workers (working in a Member State other than the Member State of residence of the child(ren)) and migrants living in a Member State other than the Member State of the child(ren). The share of both groups in the total number of child benefits being exported abroad was not asked in the questionnaire on the export of family benefits. However, by comparing the available information provided via the questionnaire with data from the Labour Force Survey, for each of the Member States the correlation can be investigated between the breakdown of the export of child benefits by Member State of residence and the breakdown of the cross-border workers’ Member State of residence or the nationality of the migrants at working

age. 16 Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary and Finland

show a strong correlation (greater than 0.8) between the breakdown of the number of child benefits being exported abroad and the breakdown of the number of incoming cross-border workers. We observe a strong correlation between the breakdown of the number of child benefits being exported abroad and the breakdown of the number of

However, the export is not limited only to migrants at working age. Also retired migrants might export a family benefit.

Export of family benefits

migrants at working age by their nationality for the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland,

Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Finland, the United Kingdom, Iceland and Norway. The number of child benefits exported by Ireland and the United Kingdom (and perhaps also IT) are mainly influenced by the number of immigrants. Several Member States (e.g. BE, CZ, NL, LU, ES, NL and FI) might be influenced by both groups.

Table 12 The impact of intra-EU mobility on the export of child benefits

Incoming cross-border workers EU/EFTA migrants at working age (last 10 years)

3 main MSs export Correlation 3 main MSs Correlation 3 main MSs of family benefit crossmigrants ** border workers **

BE FR, NL, PL 0.99 FR, NL, DE 0.73 FR, NL, RO

CZ SK, PL, AT 0.99 SK, PL, DE 1.00 SK, BG, IT,

DE PL, FR, RO 0.87 PL, FR, HU 0.90 PL, RO, IT

EE FI, EE, NO 0.08 LV, PL, FI -0.60 LV, UK, ES

IE PL, UK, LT 0.16 UK, SK, HU 0.98 PL, LT, UK

ES RO, PT 0.75 RO, PT, FR 0.98 RO, IT, BG

IT ***

LU FR, DE, BE 0.99 FR, DE, BE 0.84 FR, PT, BE

HU SK, RO, FR 1.00 SK, AT, DE 0.12 RO, SK, ES

NL PL, BE, DE 0.67 DE, BE, PL 0.94 PL, DE, BE

RO ES, IT, EL -0.22 IT, HU, PT n.a. n.a.

SK PL, DK, UK 0.77 CZ, AT, HU 0.95 CZ, HU, RO

FI EE, SE, UK 0.97 EE, FR, DE 0.98 EE, UK, SE

UK PL, IE, LT 0.09 ES, IE, SK 0.98 PL, RO, LT

IS PL, SK 0.99 PL, LT, LV

NO PL, LT, SE 0.98 PL, SE, LT

*

In bold: Neighbouring Member State. ** Correlation calculated for each Member State between breakdown export and breakdown incoming cross-border workers or migrants at working age by nationality. *** IT reports the export of family benefits is increasing, in particular to RO and PL. **** No data available for BG, EL, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PT, SI, SE, LI and CH. No breakdown by Member State of residence was provided by AT, PL and LV or an incomplete breakdown provided by DK. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits and Eurostat Labour Force Survey

2.2.4 Concentration in bilateral Member States

As already stated above, both the export and import of child benefits are strongly concentrated in the EU-15 Member States. However, export is even concentrated in only a few number of bilateral flows between certain Member States. The export of child benefits from Luxembourg to France amounts to 14% of the total number of exports to households. In terms of spending, this single flow even amounts to € 250.7 million or 33% of total expenditure on the export of child benefits. Also the flows of

Export of family benefits

export of child benefits from Germany to Poland (11% of total), from Luxembourg to Belgium (7% of total), from Belgium to France (6.5% of total), from Luxembourg to Germany (6% of total) and from the United Kingdom to Poland (5%) are considerable. Most of the main flows are geographically concentrated between neighbouring countries. The main 10 bilateral flows amount to 63% of the child benefits being exported abroad and the main 20 bilateral flows even amount to 78%.

Export of family benefits

Table 13 The share of the export of child benefits between bilateral Member States compared to the total export (selection of top 20), number of persons entitled, 2013, as %

Competent Member State B B C D D E I E E F H I C L L L H M N A P P R S S F S U I L N C Tot E G Z K E E E L S R R T Y V T U U T L T L T O I K I E K S I O H . BE 7. 2.

2 1 9.6 BG 0.9 CZ 1.

4 2.3 DK 0.3 DE 6. 1.

1 6 8.5 EE 2.

1 2.3 IE 0.6 EL 1.1

ce ES 2. 2 3.5

den FR 6. 4. 1 25.

esi 5 1 4 3 r HR 0.1

of IT 1. 1.

ta 0 7 3.0

S CY 0.1

LV 0.8

ber LT 1.8

em LU 0.1

M HU 1.3

MT 0.0

NL 1. 1.

4 3 3.1

AT 1.4

PL 1 1. 3. 5. 2. 25.

1 2 7 4 6 3

PT 1.2

RO 1.

5 1.9

SI 0.1

SK 2.0

FI 0.2

SE 1.4

UK 1.4

Export of family benefits

Competent Member State

M B B C D D E I E E F H I C L L L H M N A P P R S S F S U I L N C Tot E G Z K E E E L S R R T Y V T U U T L T L T O I K I E K S I O H .

IS 0.1 LI 0.0 NO 0.2 CH 0.3

Tot. 7. 0. 1. 19 0. 1. 0. 0. 21 0. 6. 19 2. 3. 1. 3. 0. 6. 0. 4. 4 3 5 .3 1 4 0 3 .4 4 2 .7 7 5 4 5 0 3 0 5 100 * No data available for BG, DK, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, PT, SI, SE, LI and CH. No breakdown by Member State of residence was provided by AT, PL and LV. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

CONCLUSION

At the end of 2014, a questionnaire on the export of family benefits was launched in order to obtain for the first time a general picture of the size and the budgetary cost of the phenomenon. 19 Member States were able to provide more detailed data on the export of family benefits and only 10 Member States were able to provide more detailed figures on the primary and secondary competences of the reporting Member

State. It follows that some caution is required when drawing general conclusions especially given the fact that some Member States which can be considered highly relevant in this respect did not provide data on the export of family benefits.

The relative impact of child benefits being exported abroad amounts to some 1% of the total number of child benefits paid by the reporting Member States. It is strongly related to the volume of cross-border workers. Only Luxembourg is confronted with a considerably high budgetary impact, as almost 50% of their public spending on child benefits is being exported abroad. In absolute terms, most child benefits were exported by Luxembourg, Austria and Germany. Luxembourg reported a total expenditure of € 477 million, which is more than half of total expenditure reported.

Also in absolute terms, most child benefits were imported by France and Poland. The number of child benefits being exported by the EU-15 to households living abroad covers 87% of the total households entitled, but accounts for 96% of total expenditure.

The flow of child benefits is in particular concentrated in a limited number of bilateral (mostly neighbouring) Member States. The single flow between Luxembourg and

France even amounts to a third of reported total expenditure on the export of child benefits. The number of child benefits being exported abroad is influenced by the number of incoming cross-border workers (working in a Member State other than the

Member State of residence) and the number of migrants without family reunification. The numbers of child benefits exported by Ireland and the United Kingdom are mainly influenced by the number of immigrants. However, several Member States (e.g. BE,

CZ, NL, LU, ES, NL and FI) might be influenced by both groups. The share of both groups in the number of exported child benefits is determined by the absolute number of incoming cross-border workers and migrants without family reunification, their household composition and the spouse’s labour status.

The total number of family benefits being exported and the amount it represents will be a result of the primary or secondary competences of the Member State. The supplement paid by secondarily competent Member States sometimes represents a significant amount of total expenditure related to the export of family benefits. Among others, 31% of the amount paid by Luxembourg is linked to the supplement they have paid as secondarily competent Member State.

The export of a child benefit could have a considerable positive impact on the net earnings of the household living abroad and compared to the amount they would receive from the competent institution in their Member State of residence. This situation cannot be generalised to all households, as the average amount paid by the competent Member State should be compared to the amount paid by the Member

State of residence. Nevertheless, due to the strong concentration of the number of exports in EU-15 Member States and in particular Luxembourg and Germany most of the households will benefit from the export compared to what they would receive if the Member State of residence paid the benefit and if no additional supplement was paid. A detailed analysis of the economic impact of those differences in amounts according to who is paying will be analysed in the impact study in preparation.

Export of family benefits

ANNEX I RESPONSE

Table 14 Response

Answer received? Overall data? Data on export? Data primarily or secondarily

competent? BE YES YES YES NO

BG YES NO NO NO

CZ YES YES YES YES

DK YES YES YES NO

DE YES YES YES YES

EE YES YES YES YES

IE YES YES YES NO

EL YES YES NO NO

ES YES YES YES NO

FR NO NO NO NO

HR YES YES NO NO

IT YES YES NO NO

CY YES YES NO NO

LV YES YES YES YES

LT YES YES NO NO

LU YES YES YES YES

HU YES YES YES YES

MT YES YES NO NO

NL YES YES YES YES

AT YES YES YES YES

PL YES YES YES NO

PT YES YES NO NO

RO YES YES YES NO

SI YES NO NO NO

SK YES NO YES YES

FI YES YES YES NO

SE NO NO NO NO

UK YES YES YES NO

IS YES YES YES YES

LI YES YES NO NO

NO YES YES YES NO

CH YES YES NO NO

Total 30 27 19 10

Source Based on the Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

ANNEX XII: HIVA HIVA REPORT AGGREGATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT

BENEFITS – DATA

ANNEX XII

Aggregation of periods or

salaries for unemployment

benefits

Report on U1 portable documents

for migrant workers

Prof. dr. Jozef Pacolet and Frederic De Wispelaere HIVA–KU Leuven

June 2015

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Directorate B — Employment and Social Legislation, Social Dialogue

Unit B.4 — Free Movement of Workers and Coordination of Social Security Schemes

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

Aggregation of periods or

salaries for unemployment

benefits

Report on U1 portable documents

for migrant workers

Network Statistics FMSSFE

Authors:

Prof Dr Jozef Pacolet, Head of the ‘Welfare State’ research group, HIVA Research Institute for Work and

Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Frederic De Wispelaere, Senior research associate, HIVA Research Institute for Work and Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Peer reviewers:

Prof Dr József Hajdú, Head of the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged University.

Gabriella Berki, Professor Assistant at the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged University.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................... 6

List of Figures .................................................................................................. 7

Introduction .................................................................................................... 8

1.

General overview .................................................................................... 9

2.

A limited share in the total unemployment figure and in intra-EU mobility ..... 15

3.

Impact of (re)migration .......................................................................... 16

Conclusion..................................................................................................... 19

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment,

2013 10

Table 2 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member

State of last activity, by competent Member State, 2013 11

Table 3 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member

State of last activity, by Member State of origin, 2013 13

Table 4 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, as a percentage of the total number of unemployed persons and the total

annual EU-27/EFTA migration inflow at working age 16

Table 5 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment as

% of column total, 2013 18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Aggregation of periods in case of unemployment by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member State of last activity, by competent Member State, 2013 12

Figure 2 Aggregation of periods in case of unemployment by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member State of last activity, by Member State of origin, 2013 14

Figure 3 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, by competent Member State and Member State of origin, 2013 15 Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

INTRODUCTION

As a principle, unemployed migrant workers will claim benefits in the Member State of last activity. In some cases a recent migrant worker’s period of insurance, employment or self-employment is insufficient to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. In that case additional periods completed by the person in a Member State other than the competent Member State are required. 17 For the aggregation of periods, the competent institution where the person applied for unemployment benefits must contact the institutions of the Member States to whose legislation the person has also been subject in order to determine all periods completed under their legislation. The Portable Document (PD) U1 or the corresponding Structured Electronic Document (SED) U002 certify periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed by a worker in another Member State that are to be taken into account for the award of unemployment benefits. The PD U1 is issued to the worker, on his or her request, by the institution of the Member State where the person completed the

periods of insurance, employment or self-employment. 18 The SED U002 is issued at

the request of the competent institution. It should be noted that a migrant worker becomes subject to the legislation of a Member State as soon as he or she starts to work there (leaving aside the special case of posting). Hence, the aggregation rules become fully applicable as from that moment.

Furthermore, not only the period of insurance, employment or self-employment already completed by the unemployed recent migrant worker, but also the qualifying period, which varies markedly across Member States, will determine the number of PDs U1 or SEDs U002 requested by the competent Member States and issued by the Member States of origin.

The scope of the aggregation rules covered by PDs U1 not only includes unemployed recent migrant workers. The provisions are also applicable to unemployed frontier workers and cross-border workers other than frontier workers. 19 This group, however, falls beyond the scope of this questionnaire. The group of unemployed frontier workers and other cross-border workers involved and the budgetary consequences on public unemployment spending may even be larger compared to the number of unemployed recent migrant workers and the corresponding expenditure. 20 The fact that this risks to be marginal is also illustrated by the fact that some Member States provide much

larger figures beyond the scope of this questionnaire. 21

Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i.

Frontier workers (people who work in a Member State other than the Member State of residence, and return home daily or at least once a week – Article 1(f) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i) who become wholly unemployed must apply for unemployment benefits in their Member State of residence. Cross-border workers other than frontier workers may apply for unemployment benefits and register with the employment service in either the Member State of last activity or the Member State of residence. See Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

The current system for coordinating unemployment benefits applicable to the different categories of cross-border workers was already subject to an impact assessment. In the process of this assessment a preparatory study was prepared (Doherty, R., Vandresse, B., Bulté, S., Bardaji Horno, M., Ulrich, M., Pacolet, J. and De Wispelaere, F. (2013), Study for an impact assessment for revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 and 987/2009, Deloitte – HIVA KU Leuven, 295 p.). Based on the results of a questionnaire launched, it appears that more PDs U1 were issued to unemployed frontier workers and other cross-border workers compared to migrant workers.

E.g. the United Kingdom refers to some 90,000 income-based Jobseeker’s Allowances (listed as a special non-contributory benefit in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i) claims made by EEA migrants. Portugal refers to 3,274 unemployment benefits granted to unemployed frontier workers and other cross-border workers, while Belgium reports 2,785 unemployed frontier workers and other cross-border workers who will receive an unemployment benefit. Slovenia refers to 2,142 unemployment benefits granted to unemployed migrant workers, frontier workers and other cross-border workers of which 90% of the benefits granted to unemployed frontier workers and other cross-border workers. Finally, Italy reports some 900 PD U1

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

At the end of 2014 a questionnaire on the aggregation of periods for unemployment was launched in order to obtain for the first time an idea of the size of the phenomenon. The questionnaire only covered migrants who became unemployed in their Member State of last activity and needed additional periods completed in a Member State other than the competent Member State to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. As a result, not all unemployed migrant workers are covered by this questionnaire. 23 Member States provided quantitative data, of which three Member States were not able to provide a breakdown by Member State of origin and two other Member States were not able to provide a breakdown by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in the Member State of last activity. The missing data for a number of large Member States, in particular EU-15 Member States, may lead to a distorted view. As a result, some caution is required when drawing conclusions.

1.

GENERAL OVERVIEW

In total 24,821 cases of aggregation of periods for unemployment were reported for 2013 by 23 Member States (Table 1). The cross table illustrates that some Member States of last activity (= competent Member State) and some Member States of origin more frequently report a limited number of cases. However, the reasons for this are not fully clear (large number of (re)migration, high level of unemployment, long qualifying period). Most of the cases concern France (33.6% of total), Bulgaria (16.6% of total), Spain (10.0% of total), Belgium (8.8% of total) and Poland (6.1% of total) as Member State of last activity (Table 2). Also, in 56% of the cases an EU-15 Member State was the Member State of last activity. Given that information from some large EU-15 Member States (e.g. DE and IT) is missing, this result is even an underestimation of the share of the EU-15 Member States.

28% of the reported cases of aggregation of periods related to a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than 30 days in the Member State of last activity (Table 2 and Figure 1). 14% of the cases were applicable to a period between one and three months, and 58% to a period of three months or longer. So, in the majority of cases of aggregation already a period of insurance, employment or selfemployment of more than three months was completed by the unemployed migrant worker in the Member State of last activity.

Nonetheless, this distribution varies markedly between the EU-13 and the EU-15. 62% of the cases reported by the EU-15 concerned a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than three months compared to only 16% of the cases reported by the EU-13. But, the period already completed by the unemployed migrant workers also differs across the Member States of last activity. The length of insurance, employment or self-employment in most of the cases completed in Denmark (63% of the cases) 22 and the United Kingdom (57% of the cases) was less than one month. This in contrast to Hungary (97% of the cases) and Bulgaria (96% of the cases), which aggregated most of their periods on the basis of a period of insurance,

employment or self-employment of more than three months. 23

documents issued by an electronic procedure (no breakdown reported between unemployed recent migrant workers, frontier workers or other cross-border workers).

There are 499 cases in a total of 569 cases (88%) where DK is both the competent Member State and the Member State of origin. Most of these cases concern Danish citizens from the Faroe Islands. However, the Faroe Islands are not covered by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Also in Croatia and Cyprus most of their limited number of cases are applicable to a period longer than three months.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 1 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, 2013

Competent Member State BE B CZ D D EE IE EL ES FR H IT CY LV LT LU H M N AT PL PT R SI SK FI SE U IS LI N C Total

G * K E R ** U T L O ** ** K O H

BE 2 13 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 53 27 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 7 115 BG 8 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 24 CZ 4 15 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 56 0 45 0 3 0 2 0 0 689

6 9

DK 1 2 0* 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 16 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 3 117

DE 79 33 6 6 0 2 9 8 68 0 51 26 1 34 8 22 3 34 0 20 1,139

7 2 9

EE 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 63 2 0 0 0 2 82

IE 15 10 0 0 0 2 45 0 1 1 1 13 0 83 0 7 6 0 0 1 305

EL 54 28 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 2 8 1 1 3 5 1 0 0 9 118

ES 38 16 1 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 8 23 0 4 8 13 5 0 0 56 678

6 6

FR 38 27 1 0 0 0 12 4 0 8 50 0 6 1 3 1 0 0 48 549

HR 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4

IT 26 41 1 0 0 2 1 3 11 0 2 28 1 23 0 3 1 0 0 13 509

1 1

CY 2 77 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 4 4 7 1 3 2 0 0 0 801

in LV 0 18 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 25

rig LT 3 0 5 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 17

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 128

f o LU

10 11 0 7

te HU

15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 66 0 1 1 0 0 13 104

MT 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 13

S ta r NL

55 3 0 0 0 2 18 2 4 0 28 0 21 2 9 4 0 0 6 914 6 7

be AT 4 39 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 25 1 43 0 7 2 68 0 29 843

em 6 M PL 72 15 3 0 0 0 2 1 22 0 6 0 0 4 4 5 0 0 0 13 147

PT 66 10 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 62 804

5 0

RO 26 11 5 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 6 887

SI 3 19 0 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 46

SK 4 19 3 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 208

FI 5 22 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 24 0 0 0 3 72 SE 11 8 18 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 7 0 1 14 0 1 0 0 2 71 UK 73 2, 2 0 0 10 12 4 6 6 5 51 0 37 12 38 0 0 0 17 3,329

14 1 7 1 7

IS 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 19 LI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO 1 13 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 20 0 11 3 20 0 0 0 0 259

CH 43 12 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 8 13 0 14 1 4 2 0 0 11 322

1 2

Un 0 0 0 17 2, 8, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 11,483

k.

4 47 33 0
1 8

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Competent Member State BE B CZ D D EE IE EL ES FR H IT CY LV LT LU H M N AT PL PT R SI SK FI SE U IS LI N C Total

G * K E R ** U T L O ** ** K O H

Tot 2, 4, 54 17 2, 8, 16 3 19 22 48 1, 8 16 1, 12 1, 13 45 30 72 50 1, 24,821

. 19 11 4 47 33 5 14 0 51 16 5 7 6 0 30 6 8 1 8 9 7 0 5

*

DK reported 569 cases where DK is also the Member State of origin. DK estimates that 80-90% of these are Danish citizens from the Faroe Islands. ** LT: figures reported for 2012. LT reports 370 cases for 2013. Some Member States provided data for 2012: FR: 8,208 cases (7,575 cases in 2014); BG: 3,482 cases; SK: 1,243 cases and SE: 590 cases. ** No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, FR, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS. Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods for unemployment

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 2 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member State of last activity, by competent Member State, 2013

Less than 30 More than 1 3 months and Total for Total days month but less more subperiods

than 3 months Numbe Row % Numbe Row % Numbe Row % Numbe Numbe Column

r r r r r % BE 736 33.5% 420 19.1% 1,040 47.4% 2,196 2,196 8.8% BG 22 0.5% 150 3.6% 3,946 95.8% 4,118 4,118 16.6% CZ

DK 34 63.0% 0 0.0% 20 37.0% 54 54 0.2% DE

EE 64 36.8% 31 17.8% 79 45.4% 174 174 0.7% IE

ES 1,195 48.4% 534 21.6% 742 30.0% 2,471 2,471 10.0% FR 3,948 47.3% 1,283 15.4% 3,107 37.3% 8,338 8,338 33.6% HR 0 0.0% 1 6.3% 15 93.8% 16 16 0.1% IT

CY 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 100.0 3 3

% 0.0% LV 6 31.6% 2 10.5% 11 57.9% 19 19 0.1% LT 0 225 0.9% LU 1 2.1% 7 14.6% 40 83.3% 48 48 0.2% HU 29 2.5% 6 0.5% 1,114 97.0% 1,149 1,149 4.6% MT 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 6 75.0% 8 8 0.0% NL 26 16.3% 27 16.9% 107 66.9% 160 160 0.6% AT

PL 164 10.8% 379 25.0% 974 64.2% 1,517 1,517 6.1% PT

RO 2 16.7% 2 16.7% 8 66.7% 12 12 0.0% SI

SK 217 18.7% 218 18.8% 725 62.5% 1,160 1,160 4.7% FI 23 17.0% 50 37.0% 62 45.9% 135 135 0.5% SE 156 34.1% 122 26.7% 179 39.2% 457 457 1.8% UK 17 56.7% 1 3.3% 12 40.0% 30 30 0.1% IS

LI 96 13.2% 75 10.3% 555 76.4% 726 726 2.9% NO 500 2.0% CH 4 0.3% 32 2.5% 1,269 97.2% 1,305 1,305 5.3% Total 100.0

6,741 28.0% 3,341 13.9% 14,014 58.2% 24,096 24,821 % EU-13 505 6.2% 790 9.7% 6,881 84.2% 8,176 8,401 33.8% EU-15 6,136 44.2% 2,444 17.6% 5,309 38.2% 13,889 13,889 56.0% EFTA 100 4.9% 107 5.3% 1,824 89.8% 2,031 2,531 10.2%

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS. Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods for unemployment

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Figure 1 Aggregation of periods in case of unemployment by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member State of last activity, by competent Member State, 2013

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, LT, PT, SI, NO and IS. Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods for unemployment

It is also useful to determine the Member State of origin whose legislation the unemployed migrant worker has been subject to. The missing data for a number of Member States may also lead to a distorted view of reality if the numbers of cases are reported by the Member State of origin. Again some caution is therefore required when drawing conclusions.

In most of the cases the period of insurance, employment or self-employment of the Member State of last activity was aggregated with an additional period completed in the United Kingdom (25% of total) (Table 3). Remarkable is that some of the Member States of origin are ‘immigration’ Member States, such as the United Kingdom and Germany. This becomes even more obvious if the periods are aggregated. We observe that 73% of the cases come from the EU-15 and only 23% from the EU-13. This could be an indication of return migration 24 for the EU-13 Member States, but probably also of a high flow of migrants across neighbouring Member States (cf. infra).

The length of insurance, employment or self-employment that was already achieved by the unemployed migrant worker in the Member State of last activity and that should be complemented with an additional period completed in the Member State of origin varies across the EU-13 and EU-15 Member States of origin (Table 3 and Figure 2). Unemployed migrant workers who proved an additional period from an EU- 13 Member State of origin had completed in general already a longer period of insurance, employment or self-employment (approximately nine in ten of the cases a period of three months and longer) compared to the unemployed migrant workers coming from the EU-15 (approximately seven in ten of the cases a period of three months of longer). For most of the Member States of origin already a period of longer

In that respect, not only the Member State of origin but also the nationality of the unemployed recent migrant worker should be asked.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

than three months was completed in the Member State of last activity (more than 90% for CY, PT, RO, SI and SK). This is also the case for new EU Member States such as Bulgaria and Romania.

Table 3 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member State of last activity, by Member State of origin, 2013

Less than 30 More than 1 3 months and Total for Total

days month but less more subperiods

than 3 months

Numbe Row % Numbe Row % Numbe Row % Numbe Numbe Column

r r r r r %

BE 23 20.0% 18 15.7% 74 64.3% 115 115 0.9%

BG 6 25.0% 0 0.0% 18 75.0% 24 24 0.2%

CZ 50 7.3% 68 9.9% 570 82.8% 688 689 5.2%

DK 28 24.3% 27 23.5% 60 52.2% 115 117 0.9%

DE 94 8.3% 133 11.8% 903 79.9% 1,130 1,139 8.5%

EE 8 9.9% 23 28.4% 50 61.7% 81 82 0.6%

IE 51 19.6% 62 23.8% 147 56.5% 260 305 2.3%

EL 29 24.8% 10 8.5% 78 66.7% 117 118 0.9%

ES 153 22.7% 175 26.0% 346 51.3% 674 678 5.1%

FR 165 30.1% 68 12.4% 316 57.6% 549 549 4.1%

HR 2 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 50.0% 4 4 0.0%

IT 115 22.6% 94 18.5% 299 58.9% 508 509 3.8%

CY 9 1.1% 10 1.3% 781 97.6% 800 801 6.0%

LV 2 8.3% 4 16.7% 18 75.0% 24 25 0.2%

LT 7 41.2% 2 11.8% 8 47.1% 17 17 0.1%

LU 32 25.0% 15 11.7% 81 63.3% 128 128 1.0%

HU 12 11.5% 13 12.5% 79 76.0% 104 104 0.8%

MT 3 23.1% 3 23.1% 7 53.8% 13 13 0.1%

NL 179 20.0% 192 21.4% 525 58.6% 896 914 6.9%

AT 110 13.0% 88 10.4% 645 76.5% 843 843 6.3%

PL 20 13.8% 18 12.4% 107 73.8% 145 147 1.1%

PT 18 2.2% 22 2.7% 764 95.0% 804 804 6.0%

RO 23 2.6% 8 0.9% 856 96.5% 887 887 6.7%

SI 2 4.3% 1 2.2% 43 93.5% 46 46 0.3%

SK 6 2.9% 7 3.4% 195 93.8% 208 208 1.6%

FI 10 14.1% 7 9.9% 54 76.1% 71 72 0.5%

SE 18 27.7% 8 12.3% 39 60.0% 65 71 0.5%

UK 263 8.2% 314 9.8% 2,631 82.0% 3,208 3,329 25.0%

IS 5 33.3% 2 13.3% 8 53.3% 15 19 0.1%

LI 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

NO 67 26.5% 86 34.0% 100 39.5% 253 259 1.9%

CH 24 7.5% 15 4.7% 282 87.9% 321 322 2.4%

Total 100.0

1,534 11.7% 1,493 11.4% 10,086 76.9% 13,113 13,338 %

EU13 150 4.9% 157 5.2% 2,734 89.9% 3,041 3,047 22.8%

EU15 1,288 13.6% 1,233 13.0% 6,962 73.4% 9,483 9,691 72.7%

EFTA 96 16.3% 103 17.5% 390 66.2% 589 600 4.5%

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS as

reporting Member State and given that some Member States did not provide a breakdown

by Member State of origin (FR, ES and EE).

** Total numbers differ compared to Table 2 as some Member States did not provide a

breakdown by Member State of origin.

Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods for unemployment

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Figure 2 Aggregation of periods in case of unemployment by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in Member State of last activity, by Member State of origin, 2013

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT and IS as reporting Member State and given that some Member States did not provide a breakdown by Member State of origin (FR, ES and EE).

Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods for unemployment

Figure 3 gives an idea of the number of cases of periods aggregated by the Member State of last activity (= competent Member State) on the basis of an additional period certified with a PD U1 of the Member State of origin. However, these ‘net’ figures do not change the conclusions already made. France, Bulgaria, Spain and Belgium are the main ‘net recipients’, and the United Kingdom is the main ‘net contributor’.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Figure 3 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, by competent

Member State and Member State of origin, 2013

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS as reporting Member State and given that some Member States did not provide a breakdown
by Member State of origin (FR, ES and EE). Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods for unemployment

2.

A LIMITED SHARE IN THE TOTAL UNEMPLOYMENT
FIGURE AND IN INTRA-EU MOBILITY

It is probably even more interesting to compare the absolute number of cases of aggregation to a denominator.

First, the number of cases where the aggregation with previous periods of insurance, employment or self-employment was needed could be compared to the total number

of unemployed persons. 25 In general, only 0.1% of the unemployed persons had to

rely on the principle of aggregation of periods.

Second, these cases of aggregated periods could be compared to the annual inflow of intra-EU migrants at working age. 26 An estimated average of 2.1% of the migrants at working age became unemployed and completed an insufficient period of insurance, employment or self-employment in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. However, for more than 50% of the inflow of intra-EU migrants in Bulgaria and Liechtenstein periods needed to be aggregated. Also for approximately 2.5% of the immigrants towards the EU-13 an additional period of insurance, employment or selfemployment was required in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. In comparison, ‘only’ 1.9 % of the immigrants towards the EU-15 needed to rely on the aggregation principle. This might be the result of a high level of (return) migration towards Member States with a high(er) unemployment level.

Note that no data is available on the total number of unemployed persons who were or became unemployed during the year. This implies a (small) overestimation of the share of the cases of aggregated periods in the total unemployment figure. However, also unemployment persons who required a PD U1 in previous years could still be unemployed.

Taking into consideration that most of the Member States apply a qualifying period of 12 months.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 4 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, as a percentage of the total number of unemployed persons and the total annual EU-27/EFTA migration inflow at working age

Cases of Number of annual average Total annual inflow of EU-27/EFTA

aggregation unemployed persons (2013) migrants at working age (2012)

Number Number % cases of Number % cases of

(in ,000) aggregation aggregation

BE 2,196 417 0.5% 65,403 3.4%

BG 4,118 436 0.9% 7,468 55.1%

DK 54 202 0.0% 34,265 0.2%

EE 174 59 0.3% 1,187 14.7%

ES 2,471 6,051 0.0% 102,405 2.4%

FR 8,338 3,010 0.3% 160,534 5.2%

HR 16 318 0.0%

CY 3 69 0.0% 10,591 0.0%

LV 19 120 0.0% 8,738 0.2%

LT 225 172 0.1% 16,310 1.4%

LU 48 15 0.3% 13,568 0.4%

HU 1,149 441 0.3% 20,911 5.5%

MT 8 12 0.1% 3,424 0.2%

NL 160 647 0.0% 72,799 0.2%

PL 1,517 1,793 0.1% 132,837 1.1%

RO 12 653 0.0% 137,913 0.0%

SK 1,160 386 0.3%

FI 135 219 0.1% 14,088 1.0%

SE 457 411 0.1% 38,246 1.2%

UK 30 2,441 0.0% 224,915 0.0%

LI 726 446 162.8%

NO 500 95 0.5% 37,060 1.3%

CH 1,305 2,449 0.1% 96,056 1.4%

Total of 24,821 20,416 0.1% 1,199,164 2.1%

reporting MS

EU-13 8,401 4,459 0.2% 339,379 2.5%

EU-15 13,889 13,413 0.1% 726,223 1.9%

EFTA 2,531 2,544 0.1% 133,562 1.9%

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, FR, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS. Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods in case of unemployment; Eurostat [une_nb_a]; Eurostat data on migration [migr_imm1ctz]

3.

IMPACT OF (RE)MIGRATION

For migrants who became unemployed in Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Liechtenstein and Switzerland in particular an additional period completed in an EU-15 Member State of origin was added to the short period already achieved in the Member State of last activity. Only for unemployed migrants living in Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary, Romania and Finland in particular an additional period completed in an EU-13 Member State was added to their period already completed in their Member State of last activity. The United Kingdom is the main Member State of origin for unemployed migrants who had to aggregate periods in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta or Poland. New EU-Member States such as Bulgaria and Romania never appear as one of the main Member States

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

of origin of the unemployed migrants in the EU-15 who had to prove additional periods of insurance, employment or self-employment.

The fact that many cases of aggregation were applied by a Member State of the EU-13 as Member State of last activity and that in most of the cases also a Member State of the EU-15 was the Member State of origin could be an indication of return migration. At the same time, more than half of the cases in Liechtenstein (95% of total), Hungary (87% of total), Sweden (69% of total), the Netherlands (65% of total), Finland (59% of total), Croatia (56% of total), Luxembourg (54% of total) and Belgium (52% of total) refer to a neighbouring Member State of origin. In total, some 34% of all cases reported refer to a neighbouring Member State as the Member State of origin.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 5 The number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment as % of column total, 2013

Competent Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO BE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 33 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 BG 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 DK 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 DE 4 8 11 38 0 11 4 17 6 0 32 17 8 3 6 5 10 5 0 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 IE 1 0 0 0 0 11 20 0 0 13 1 9 0 7 0 2 20 0 0 EL 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 8 0 2 1 3 0 0 ES 18 4 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 3 17 0 0 FR 18 1 2 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 5 3 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 HR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 IT 12 1 2 0 0 11 0 6 1 0 1 2 8 2 0 1 3 0 0 CY 0 19 2 0 100 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 33 1 1 1 7 0 0 LV 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0

in LT 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

rig LU 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f o HU 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 25 6 0 0 3 0 0 o

te MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL 25 0 0 0 0 11 8 4 0 0 0 19 0 2 1 2 13 0 0

S ta r AT 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 4 0 2 7 94 0

be PL 3 0 6 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 PT 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

M RO 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 SI 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

SK 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FI 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 SE 1 0 33 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 3 0 0 UK 3 52 4 0 0 53 54 8 1 75 3 34 0 32 9 8 0 0 0 IS 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 LI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NO 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 44 0 0 0 CH 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 5 1 0 1 1 1 7 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 EU-13 6 39 56 100 5 3 6 91 13 6 5 67 47 59 4 13 0 0 EU-15 91 72 56 44 0 95 92 88 9 88 89 92 33 51 37 49 80 100 0 EFTA 2 3 6 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 5 3 0 2 4 46 7 0 0 Neighbouring 52 1 44 56 0 5 1 54 87 0 65 22 25 49 59 69 20 95

*

Dark blue: main Member State of origin. *** No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT and IS. Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods in case of unemployment
19

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

CONCLUSION

The scope of the questionnaire on the aggregation of periods for unemployment was limited to recent migrant workers who completed an insufficient period of insurance, employment or self-employment in their Member State of last activity in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. In that case additional periods completed by the person in a Member State other than the competent State and proven by a PD U1 are required. 23 Member States provided quantitative data. Missing data for a number of large Member States, in particular EU-15 Member States, may lead to a distorted view. As a result, some caution is required when drawing conclusions.

In total 24,821 cases reported for 2013 by 23 Member States concern unemployed migrant workers whose period of insurance, employment or self-employment completed in the Member State of last activity was insufficient to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. This is equal to an estimated share of 0.1% of the total unemployment figure in those Member States and to 2.1% of the annual flow of intra

EU migrants at working age to these Member States. 54% of the cases related to a period of insurance, employment or self-employment already completed in the

Member State of last activity of three months and longer. 28% of the reported cases of aggregation concerned a period of less than 30 days. This distribution varies markedly across Member States, but also between the EU-13 and the EU-15. 62% of the cases reported by the EU-15 concerned a period of insurance, employment or selfemployment of less than three months compared to only 16% of the cases reported by the EU-13.

Most aggregations of periods for unemployment concern France (34% of total), Bulgaria (16.6% of total) and Spain (10.0% of total). Also, 56% of the aggregations of periods for unemployment were applied by the EU-15. This percentage is even an underestimation given that some EU-15 Member States did not provide any data. In most of the cases the insufficient period of insurance, employment or self-employment was aggregated with an additional period completed in the United Kingdom (25% of total). For 73% of the cases an additional period fulfilled in an EU-15 Member State was added to the period already achieved in the Member State of last activity. The period of insurance, employment or self-employment already completed in the

Member State of last activity is also much longer for unemployed migrant workers coming from the EU-13 (90% longer than three months) compared to those coming from the EU-15 (73% longer than three months).

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

ANNEX XIII: HIVA HIVA REPORT FAMILY BENEFITS – ECONOMIC

IMPACT

Export of family benefits

Analysis of the economic impact of the options

Prof. dr. Jozef Pacolet and Frederic De Wispelaere

HIVA-KU Leuven

August 2015

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Directorate B — Employment and Social Legislation, Social Dialogue

Unit B.4 — Free Movement of Workers and Coordination of Social Security Schemes

Contact: Andrea Pontiroli

E-mail: andrea.pontiroli@ec.europa.eu

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Export of family benefits

Analysis of the economic impact of the options

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Network Statistics FMSSFE

Eftheia bvba. Network Statistics FMSSFE is coordinated by HIVA.

Authors:

Prof Dr Jozef Pacolet, Head of the ‘Welfare State’ research group, HIVA Research Institute for Work and

Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Frederic De Wispelaere, Senior research associate, HIVA Research Institute for Work and Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Peer reviewers:

Prof Dr József Hajdú, Head of the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged University.

Dr Gabriella Berki, Professor Assistant at the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged

University.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Export of family benefits

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................... 6

List of Figures .................................................................................................. 8

Preface ........................................................................................................... 9

Introduction .................................................................................................. 11

1.

Characteristics ...................................................................................... 13

2.

Expenditure .......................................................................................... 14

3.

Reference group .................................................................................... 18

4.

The level of social protection versus the standard of living versus the cost of living 24

5.

The estimated economic impact of the current rules and the alternative options 26

5.1. Data collection ...................................................................................... 26

5.2. Overview of the different options ............................................................. 30

Status quo ............................................................................................... 30

Option 1 – Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards ..... 30

Option 2 – No export ................................................................................. 30

Option 3 – Reverse order of competence ...................................................... 30

Horizontal Option - Different coordination rules for salary-related child-raising

allowances ............................................................................................... 31

5.3. The estimated economic impact of the different options .............................. 31

Status quo ............................................................................................... 31

Option 1 – Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards ..... 33

Option 2 – No export ................................................................................. 39

Option 3 – Reverse order of competence ...................................................... 39

Horizontal Option - Different coordination rules for salary-related child-raising

allowances ............................................................................................... 47

Summary ................................................................................................ 51

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 61

Annex 1 List of family benefits per Member State ................................................ 63

References .................................................................................................... 72 Export of family benefits

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Types of intra-EU labour mobility, 2012-2013 10

Table 2 Characteristics of child benefits, 2014 14

Table 3 Family benefits expenditure, in kind and in cash, 2012 15

Table 4 Family or child allowance – expenditure, 2012 17

Table 5 The number of outgoing and incoming cross-border workers (in

,000), EU-28 19

Table 6 The number of outgoing and incoming frontier workers (in ,000), EU-

28, 2013 20

Table 7 The number of children of cross-border workers, 2013 22

Table 8 The number of cross-border workers and involved children by household composition, 2013 23

Table 9 Export of family benefits, per type of family benefit, per number of persons entitled, family members involved and annual amount paid, 2013/2014 28

Table 10 The impact of the payment of a supplement on the living standard in the MS of residence 30

Table 11 Export of child benefits, expenditure (in million €), 2013/2014 –

Status quo 32

Table 12 Correction coefficient for the cost of living based on the price level indices for consumer goods and services, 2013 34

Table 13 Export of child benefits, estimated expenditure (in million €),

2013/2014 – Sub-option 1a (adjustment upwards and downwards) 36

Table 14 Export of child benefits, estimated expenditure (in million €),

2013/2014 – Sub-option 1a (adjustment limited to the amount of the competent MS) 38

Table 15 Export of child benefits, the number of family members involved,

2013/2014 40

Table 16 Average annual amount per child based on different sources,

2013/2014 41

Table 17 Difference between the average annual amount per child of the

‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren), 2013/2014 42 Export of family benefits

Table 18 Average annual supplement per child paid by the ‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State, 2013/2014 43

Table 19 Export of child benefits, estimated expenditure (in million €) = supplement paid by the ‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State, 2013/2014 – Option 3 (Member State of residence of the child primarily competent) 45

Table 20 Amount paid by the Member State of residence of the child(ren),

2013/2014 46

Table 21 Sum of the estimated expenditure as ‘primarily’ competent Member

State of residence of the child(ren) and as ‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State, Option 3, 2013/2014 47

Table 22 Export of child raising allowances, 2013 48

Table 23 Estimated number of cross-border workers with children and their family members entitled to a child-raising allowance, impact of horizon option on the number of persons entitled, 2013 49

Table 24 Estimated impact of disapplying the anti-accumulation rules for income-related child-raising allowance, % change per benefit status quo compared to new option 50

Table 25 Estimated impact of disapplying the anti-accumulation rules for income-related child-raising allowance, % change status quo

compared to new option 50

Table 26 Estimated budgetary impact of the options on the exporting Member

States 52

Table 27 Export of child benefits, number of family members involved, breakdown per primarily and secondarily competences of the exporting Member State, 2013/2014 53

Table 28 Estimated expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) under the status quo scenario, 2013/2014 54

Table 29 Estimated expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) under the status quo scenario and Option 3 55

Table 30 Total estimated expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits under the status quo scenario and Option 3 56

Table 31 Budgetary impact as the share of total expenditure on family benefits, 2013/2014 57 Export of family benefits

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Determination of the reference group 12

Figure 2 Public spending on family benefits in cash and in kind, as percentage of GDP, 2012 15

Figure 3 Family or child allowance – expenditure, in € and Purchasing Power

Standard per inhabitant, 2012 17

Figure 4 Distribution of income of the outgoing cross-border workers, by income deciles of their Member State of residence, 2013 21

Figure 5 The influence of GDP per capita on expenditure family or child allowance, 2013 24

Figure 6 Indices of GDP and AIC per capita in PPS and price levels, 2013 (EU-

28 = 100) 26

Figure 7 Limited scope of the questionnaire on export of family benefits 27

Figure 8 Estimated budgetary impact of the export of family benefits from

Luxembourg to France 59

Figure 9 Estimated budgetary impact of the export of family benefits from

Germany to Poland 60

Export of family benefits

PREFACE

In the framework of an impact assessment of a revision of Regulation (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and 987/2009 by the end of 2015 the Commission requires a preparatory study on the economic impact of an amendment to the rules on the export of family benefits. The Commission proposed several alternative options, to be compared with the current situation, i.e. the ‘status quo’. 27

 Status quo  Option 1 – Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards. o Option 1a - Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards (upwards and downwards). o Option 1b - Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards (ceiling).  Option 2 – No export (discarded).  Option 3 – A reverse order of competence.  Horizontal Option - Different coordination rules for salary-related child-raising allowances.

In 2015, among others, a questionnaire was launched on the export of family benefits. These data provide already a first overview of the current situation (see Pacolet and

De Wispelaere, 2015). Nonetheless, data collected outside the framework of the Administrative Commission is also highly relevant. These data available at EU level or at national level are especially useful when they are combined or confronted with data collected within the framework of the Administrative Commission. This will in particular be the case if current rules need to be assessed and alternative scenarios have to be calculated.

Some data sources, interesting for different reasons, which could be extracted at EU level:

 provide information on national social security systems (MISSOC, OECD);

 provide information on intra-mobility (LFS, Eurostat migration statistics, national reports);

 compare total national expenditure with the specific cross-border expenditure (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ("OECD"), European system of integrated social protection statistics ("ESSPROS").

Intra-EU labour mobility, and as a result the export of family benefits, has different faces (Table 1): ‘permanent’ stay in another EU Member State as a result of migration; cross-border commuting and ‘temporary’ stay through the posting of workers. A first group are EU migrants of working age who moved to an EU Member

State other than their EU Member State of birth or of their citizenship. In 2013, the share of citizens of working age (15 to 64 years) from an EU-28 Member State/EFTA country who resided in another EU-28 Member State was around 3.1% of the total population residing in the EU-28 Member States (Cannetta et al., 2014). In 2013,

Several proposals for changes to the current rules (e.g. Holzmann and Koettl, 2014; Barslund and Busse, 2014; BMI and BMAS, 2014; Tænketanken Europa, 2014) or for a ‘harmonisation’ of the child benefit schemes (e.g. Levy et al., 2013) emerged in recent years.

Export of family benefits

some 7 million EU citizens worked and lived in an EU Member State other than their own (equal to 3.3% of total employment in the EU) (European Commission, 2014). In 2012, some 1.1 million citizens of working age moved to an EU-28 Member State or EFTA country other than the State of their nationality (Cannetta et al., 2014). However, also some 700 thousand EU-28/EFTA citizens returned to their Member State of citizenship. In addition, in 2013 some 1.3 million EU citizens were employed in an EU Member State other than their EU Member State of residence (i.e. ’crossborder workers’), representing 0.6% of total employment in the EU. Some 65% (about 814,000) cross-border workers were employed in a neighbouring Member State (i.e. ‘frontier workers’). Finally, in 2013 some 1.34 million ‘Portable Documents A1’ 28 were issued to posted workers residing in an EU-28 Member State/EFTA country (Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2014). The reference group to be studied in case of export of family benefits are the intra-EU migrants and cross-border workers. Both reference groups will be studied in more detail in this report.

Box 1 – Glossary

-

Cross-border workers: working in a Member State other than the Member State of residence which is also the Member State of residence of the child(ren).

-

Frontier workers: cross-border workers employed in a neighbouring Member State. This definition differs from the definition defined in Article 1 (f) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i: “any person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State and who resides in another Member State to which he/she returns as a rule daily or at least once a week.”

-

Migrants: living (and working) in a Member State other than the Member State of the child(ren).

Table 1 Types of intra-EU labour mobility, 2012-2013

Type Flow/Stock Number % Year

Total stock EU/EFTA migrants Stock 3.1% of total EU-28 2013 at working age * population at working age

Flow of EU/EFTA migrants at Flow 1.8 million 0.5% of total EU-28/EFTA 2012 working age

*

population at working age

Of which ‘return migration’ Flow 714,000 0.2% of total EU-28/EFTA 2012

** population at working age

EU migrants working and Stock 7 million 3.3% of total EU 2013 living in another MS employment

Cross-border workers Stock 1.3 million 0.6% of total EU 2013 in EU-28 employment

Of which ‘frontier workers’ Stock 814,000 2013

Posted workers in Stock 1.34 ± 0.6% of total EU/EFTA 2013

EU28/EFTA *** million employment

*

By citizenship of the migrant. ** We cannot know if someone has ever previously lived in the country of citizenship. *** Number of forms issued. Source Based on LFS; Eurostat data on migration, Cannetta et al., 2014; Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2014

Portable Document A1 is a formal statement on the applicable social security legislation and proves that the posted worker pays social security contributions in another Member State.

Export of family benefits

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 8 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security

systems covers the EU provisions on the coordination of family benefits 29 (Article 67 –

69). If family members live in a Member State other than the State where the insured person works and/or resides, family benefits could in some cases be exported to these family members. Since entitlement to family benefits might arise in more than one Member State (based on residence, employment or receipt of a pension) Article 68 has defined some priority rules in order to determine the ‘primarily competent Member State’. In this respect, rights available on the basis of employment have first priority. 30 However, when there is employment in two different Member States, it is the Member State of residence of the children that will become primarily competent for the payment of the family benefits. 31 Also, a Member State might have to pay a supplement (corresponding to the difference between the two benefits) as the ‘secondarily competent Member State’ if the family benefit paid by the competent Member State is lower than the family benefit the entitled person would have received

from the other Member State. 32

These provisions, especially those containing the applicable priority rules in the event of overlapping entitlements, cover a broader scope than what is asked by the administrative questionnaire launched within the framework of the Administrative

Commission 33 ("administrative questionnaire") on the export of family benefits to

members of the family residing in another Member State. Firstly, no information will be available on the supplement paid by the Member State of residence as the secondarily competent Member State. Secondly, no information will be available on the number of households for which no supplement should be exported because the family benefit paid by the Member State of residence is higher than the family benefit the person entitled would have received from the exporting secondarily competent Member State.

This implies that parameters such as the number of intra-EU cross-border workers and migrants, the number of children involved, the Member State of residence of the children, the household composition of the insured persons living/working in a Member State other than the Member State of residence of the children, the labour status of the spouse and the level of the family benefits will influence the number of exports of family benefits (Figure 1). This means that more detailed figures on all the parameters are required in order to estimate the economic impact of the several options.

‘Family benefit’ means all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses, excluding advances of maintenance payments and special childbirth and adoption allowances (Article 1 (z) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i).

Article 68 (1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Article 68 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Article 68 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Article 71 and 72 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i define the composition and tasks of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security schemes.

Export of family benefits

Figure 1 Determination of the reference group

Source The authors’ own figure

In order to discuss the economic impact of intra-EU mobility on family benefits, different aspects have to be taken into account:

-

the structure of the family benefits: distribution between family benefits in cash or in kind; eligibility criteria; variation by age, number of children or income; benefit level etc;

-

the determination of the reference group: intra-EU migrants and cross-border workers might export their family benefit to the family members residing in another Member State;

-

the household composition: spouse and number of children; - the labour market status of the spouse: employed, unemployed or inactive; - the Member State of residence of the family members: the same (family reunification) or another (export) Member State than the Member State of employment of the intra-EU migrant. Cross-border workers will live in the same Member State as their children (no family reunification possible).

All Member States have defined specific family benefit schemes (in particular child benefit schemes). There are, however, considerable differences in design, structure, and generosity. These family benefit schemes should be embedded within a broader term of ‘family policy’ aiming to compensate the cost of children and to increase households’ wellbeing. This family policy resulted in specific family-oriented benefits (e.g. family benefits (in kind and in cash), maternity leave 34 and equivalent paternity leave, 35 parental leave, 36 etc) 37 and tax policies (e.g. tax relief for children, tax deduction etc). They are the result of different objectives and motives, among others to assist parents with the additional costs of raising children, to increase fertility, to fight (child) poverty risks, to supplement household income, to respond to new family

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

See Recital (19) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Maternity and equivalent paternity benefits (Chapter 1) and family benefits (Chapter 8) are coordinated differently under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Export of family benefits

structures and labour market structures, to reconcile work and family life, and to create horizontal (between small and large families) and/or vertical (between high and low-income families) redistribution (Gauthier, 1999; Barr, 1998; Bradshaw and Finch, 2010). Van Lancker (2014, p. 40) concludes that “the particular design of the system of child benefits in the various countries often reflects such historical objectives and ideological motives: They may be income or non-income related, variable with the age or parity of the children, taxable or non-taxable, have a contributory or noncontributory base and operate through the tax system, via cash benefits, or a combination of the two.” In Annex I of this report a list of family benefits per Member State is presented based on the MISSOC tables (2014). Besides the national child benefit schemes, many Member States have implemented more specific child-raising allowances, child care allowances, birth and adoption grants, advances of maintenance payments and special allowances/supplements for single parents and/or for children with disabilities. However, these tables not necessary match data provided by the Member States and therefore need to be treated with caution (advances of maintenance and special childbirth and adoption benefits expressly fall outside the scope of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i). 38

1.

CHARACTERISTICS

First, a more detailed analysis will be made of the characteristics of the national child benefit schemes (as part of the family benefit schemes). The differences in legislation will influence the number of entitled intra-EU migrants/cross-border workers and their children involved.

The child benefit could be either universal (all children are entitled) or selective (e.g. targeting only low-income households). However, universal systems could also be targeted (e.g. by taking into account the number of children, the child’s age, the vulnerability of families etc). Table 2 shows the age limit for children. It varies most of the time between 15 and 18 years old, but is extended in many Member States up to a higher age if the child remains in further education. The child benefit varies in many Member States with the child’s age (applied in 13 Member States) and/or with the number of children (applied in 15 Member States). Some of the child benefit schemes also implement a means-test in the form of a ‘family’ income test. 11 Member States (CZ, DK, ES, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PT, SI and IS) apply more selective income-tested child benefit schemes. This means that only families which fulfil the income criteria will be entitled to the targeted child benefits. Because of this, the level of the benefit might differ according to the ‘family’ income (DK, IT, PT, SI and IS) and/or families exceeding the ‘family’ income threshold will not be entitled to a child benefit (CZ, ES, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, PT, SI and IS). These differences in characteristics of the child benefit schemes, but also the distribution of means between benefits in cash or in kind and the tax system will have an impact on the national expenditure of child benefits and as a consequence on their export. The related expenditure will be discussed in more detail in Tables 3 and 4 based on figures from ESSPROS.

Article 1 (z) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Export of family benefits

Table 2 Characteristics of child benefits, 2014

Member Age limit Benefit varies with

State (student) Number of children Child’s age Income

BE 18 (25) YES YES NO

BG 20 YES NO NO

CZ 15 (26) NO YES YES

DK 18 NO YES YES

DE 18 (25) YES NO NO

EE 16 (19) YES NO NO

IE 16 (18) NO NO NO

EL 18 (22) YES NO NO

ES 18 NO NO YES

FR 20 YES YES NO

HR 15 (19) NO NO YES

IT 18 (21) YES NO YES

CY 18 (19) NO NO YES

LV 15 (19) NO NO NO

LT 7 NO YES YES

LU 18 (27) YES YES NO

HU 18 (20) YES NO NO

MT 16 (21) YES NO YES

NL 18 NO YES NO

AT 18 (24) YES YES NO

PL 18 (21) NO YES NO

PT 16 (24) NO YES YES

RO 18 NO YES NO

SI 18 NO NO YES

SK 16 (25) NO NO NO

FI 17 YES NO NO

SE 16 ( * ) YES NO NO

UK 16 (20) YES NO NO

IS 18 YES YES YES

LI 18 NO YES NO

NO 18 NO NO NO

CH 16 (25) NO NO NO

Total

YES 15 13 11

NO 17 19 21

*

Until the child completes compulsory education Source MISSOC, 2014

2.

EXPENDITURE

Family benefits can be either paid in cash (e.g. child benefit) or in kind (e.g. child care) (Table 3). Total family expenses vary from 4% of GDP (DK) and 3.7% of GDP (LU) to 0.9% (PL) and 1.0% (LV). The majority of public spending on family benefits (excluding the financial support provided through the tax system) are related to cash benefits (1.4% of GDP in the EU-28 compared to 0.8% of GDP related to benefits in kind). This is particularly so in Ireland and Luxembourg. On the contrary, policy in the Nordic countries (DK, SE, FI, IS and NO) and Spain is more focused on the development of family benefits in kind (Figure 2). 39 The unweighted EU average of the tax expenditure towards families amounts to 0.3% of GDP and varies from 0.7% of GDP in France to being practically non-existent in other Member States (e.g. LU, SE, DK, AT, FI, SI and EL). The distribution of means between family benefits in cash or in kind (and the tax system) will also have consequences for the eligibility criteria and the level of the cash benefits and consequently for their export (Figure 2).

The OECD Family Database also reports figures on public spending on family benefits and contains not only figures on the spending in cash and in kind but also on the ‘financial support for families provided through the tax system’.

Export of family benefits

Table 3 Family benefits expenditure, in kind and in cash, 2012

Member Cash benefits Benefits in kind

State

In million € In percentage of In million € In percentage of GDP GDP

BE 6,856.89 1.8 1,216.52 0.3

BG 457.38 1.1 253.86 0.6

CZ 1,487.69 1.0 213.02 0.1

DK 3,917.17 1.6 5,946.66 2.4

DE 55,725.97 2.1 28,646.45 1.1

EE 294.21 1.7 10.57 0.1

IE 4,562.73 2.8 942.57 0.6

EL 2,431.34 1.3 744.87 0.4

ES 5,147.56 0.5 9,041.51 0.9

FR 33,615.86 1.7 18,215.85 0.9

HR 672.15 1.5 38.90 0.1

IT 12,074.00 0.8 9,548.00 0.6

CY 247.82 1.4 38.55 0.2

LV 171.93 0.8 49.73 0.2

LT 333.91 1.0 118.66 0.4

LU 1,256.83 2.9 337.31 0.8

HU 2,004.52 2.1 580.38 0.6

MT 70.53 1.0 11.83 0.2

NL 4,247.00 0.7 2,344.00 0.4

AT 6,288.46 2.0 2,227.57 0.7

PL 2,571.83 0.7 642.97 0.2

PT 1,332.61 0.8 719.46 0.4

RO 1,216.10 0.9 529.10 0.4

SI 549.17 1.6 197.22 0.6

SK 1,141.24 1.6 124.51 0.2

FI 3,129.07 1.6 3,326.66 1.7

SE 6,093.11 1.5 6,769.91 1.7

UK 23,284.45 1.2 13,000.40 0.7

EU-28 181,181.53 1.4 105,837.05 0.8

IS 119.18 1.1 168.37 1.6

NO 4,846.56 1.2 6,958.03 1.8

CH 6,075.05 1.2 1,198.36 0.2

Source ESSPROS [spr_exp_ffa]

Figure 2 Public spending on family benefits in cash and in kind, as percentage of GDP, 2012

Source ESSPROS [spr_exp_ffa]

Export of family benefits

Child benefit expenditure could, among others, be expressed in absolute amounts, in a percentage of GDP, as average expenditure per child (0 to 17 years) or per inhabitant.

These figures could also be converted to purchasing power standards 40 (PPS) in order

to eliminate the effect of price level differences across Member States. To calculate the impact of the different options, in particular figures on the average expenditure per child are useful given the fact that not all Member States have answered the administrative questionnaire.

In terms of GDP, Luxembourg (2.1% of GDP), Ireland (2.0% of GDP), Austria (1.8% of GDP), Germany (1.7% of GDP) and Belgium (1.6% of GDP) show the largest child benefit expenditure within the EU-28/EFTA area (Table 4).

The average amount per child and per inhabitant (also in purchasing power standards)

varies markedly across the EU-15 Member States 41 and the EU-13 Member States.

Member States could also be clustered into specific welfare state regimes by taking into account the characteristics (e.g. Bismarck-oriented or Beveridge-oriented) and the development (e.g. in terms of social protection expenditure at a high or low level)

of the national welfare states. 42 These welfare state regimes also seem to be clustered

geographically. Especially the EU-15 Bismarck-oriented countries (BE, FR, AT, DE, NL, LU and CH) show high public spending on child benefits. But also the eligibility criteria and the coverage of the family benefit schemes (as discussed above and described in more detail by the MISSOC tables) influence public spending.

See section 4 for a detailed description of this term.

‘EU-15’ refers to the ‘old’ EU Member States: Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Austria, Finland and Sweden. ‘EU-13’ refers to the ‘new’ Member States: Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, Cyprus and Malta.

See Pacolet and Coudron, 2006; EC, 2015.

Export of family benefits

Table 4 Family or child allowance – expenditure, 2012

Member In million € In percentage of In € In € per In Purchasing State GDP per child inhabitant * Power Standard

(0-17) per inhabitant BE 5,916 1.6 2,616 455 471

BG 213 0.5 180 21 67

CZ 133 0.1 72 9 19

DK 2,603 1.1 2,165 399 321

DE 46,017 1.7 3,481 519 569

EE 68 0.4 281 38 73

IE 3,329 2.0 2,870 727 605

EL 1,196 0.6 611 89 121

ES 1,797 0.2 215 33 41

FR 23,233 1.1 1,603 317 325

HR 227 0.5 287 43 80

IT 6,882 0.4 688 100 113

CY 119 0.7 671 115 155

LV 53 0.2 152 18 40

LT 38 0.1 68 9 22

LU 889 2.1 8,147 1,448 1,226

HU 1,211 1.2 679 102 222

MT 63 0.9 820 129 200

NL 4,147 0.7 1,189 223 222

AT 5,508 1.8 3,650 563 593

PL 910 0.2 127 20 44

PT 706 0.4 371 60 81

RO 668 0.5 181 28 68

SI 250 0.7 706 102 148

SK 577 0.8 566 68 164

FI 1,495 0.8 1,382 234 225

SE 2,790 0.7 1,454 244 216

UK 15,005 0.8 1,113 229 202

EU-28 126,043 1.0 1,322 222 250

IS 53 0.5 667 206 150

NO 2,015 0.5 1,802 329 240

CH 5,094 1.0 3,496 471 384

*

At constant 2005 prices Source ESSPROS [spr_exp_ffa]

Figure 3 Family or child allowance – expenditure, in € and Purchasing Power Standard per inhabitant, 2012

Source ESSPROS [spr_exp_ffa]

Export of family benefits

3.

REFERENCE GROUP

Intra-EU cross-border workers are an important group of persons that will be affected by changes to the applicable legislation on the export of family benefits. A second group, and for some Member States even more important (see also Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2015), are intra-EU migrants who live in a Member State other than their child(ren). However, no recent figures are available on the number of intra-EU migrants who find themselves in such a situation.

In 2013, some 1.26 million persons were employed in an EU Member State other than their EU Member State of residence. Despite a remarkable increase of almost 20% compared to 2010, still only 6 in 1,000 workers commute across borders of EU Member States (Table 5). The extent of outgoing cross-borders workers varies significantly between Member States, from 5.6% of the employed population in Slovakia and 3% in Estonia to only a marginal percentage of the employed population in Finland, Italy and the United Kingdom (1 in 1,000). But also the scale of incoming cross-border workers varies. Especially Luxembourg (43% of the employed population) and Austria (3.5% of the employed population) are confronted with a high number of incoming cross-border workers. In absolute figures, most of the outgoing cross-border workers reside in France (198,000), Germany (170,000) and Slovakia (131,000). Again in absolute figures, most of the incoming cross-border workers are employed in Germany (267,000), Luxembourg (178,000) and Austria (151,000). However, it is important to mention that also many EU cross-border workers are employed in Switzerland. In 2013, some 325,000 workers crossed the border to be employed in Switzerland, more than half of them (some 180,000) residing in France.

Export of family benefits

Table 5 The number of outgoing and incoming cross-border workers (in ,000), EU-28

Number of outgoing cross-border workers Number of incoming cross-border workers (in ,000) (in ,000)

Member 2011 2012 2013 as % of 2011 2012 2013 as % of State national national

employment employment in 2013 in 2013

BE 92.5 91.7 94.6 2.1% 65.9 71.9 72.6 1.6% BG 22.8 18.4 20.1 0.7% 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.0% CZ 25.0 23.8 36.0 0.7% 55.6 58.8 54.5 1.1% DK 2.4 3.5 4.1 0.2% 28.1 27.7 29.6 1.1% DE 172.9 174.1 169.6 0.4% 197.5 227.9 266.7 0.7% EE 17.7 20.5 18.6 3.0% 0.4 0.7 2.1 0.4% IE 11.0 10.3 11.5 0.6% 15.4 13.7 14.1 0.8% EL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.7 10.1 7.3 0.2% ES 20.6 35.7 45.7 0.3% 46.3 38.9 43.2 0.3% FR 151.5 161.9 197.8 0.8% 45.9 55.9 59.8 0.2% HR 19.4 22.9 26.7 1.8% 1.7 1.6 1.6 0.1% IT 22.3 35.1 31.7 0.1% 80.8 81.9 93.6 0.4% CY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 3.0 3.7 2.8 0.8% LV 5.9 9.2 7.6 0.9% 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.0% LT 1.5 1.7 2.1 0.2% 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.1% LU 2.7 3.4 3.7 1.5% 134.6 151.8 178.1 43.0% HU 59.2 76.7 92.5 2.4% 13.0 9.6 8.0 0.2% MT 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3% 0.2 3.2 0.9 0.5% NL 25.9 27.5 31.1 0.4% 100.3 114.2 103.0 1.2% AT 32.9 32.8 33.1 0.8% 105.9 119.6 151.2 3.5% PL 93.9 107.9 107.0 0.7% 4.4 8.3 6.6 0.0% PT 19.8 20.2 23.4 0.5% 4.6 8.1 5.2 0.1% RO 89.4 95.7 109.8 1.2% 3.2 5.6 4.0 0.0% SI 10.1 14.0 14.9 1.6% 6.0 7.7 9.3 1.0% SK 111.1 117.3 130.6 5.6% 7.3 3.9 7.8 0.4% FI 0.5 0.7 1.6 0.1% 19.7 18.9 17.9 1.3% SE 25.8 18.0 20.4 0.4% 13.0 13.3 14.3 0.3% UK 14.3 20.4 24.4 0.1% 83.0 84.7 102.6 0.3% EU-28 1,052.0 1,144.1 1,259.2 0.6% 1,052.0 1,144.1 1,259.2 0.6% CH 325.1 319.3 324.9

Source Own calculations based on LFS

Some 65% of the cross-border workers are employed in a neighbouring Member State, which amounts to some 814,000 frontier workers (Table 6). This percentage varies markedly across Member States. Over 90% of the cross-border workers living in Belgium (97%) and France (96%) are employed in a neighbouring Member State. Also some 67% of the cross-border workers living in Slovakia, a Member State indicating a high number of outgoing cross-border workers in absolute and relative terms, are employed in one of the neighbouring countries. At the same time, also more than 90% of the cross-border workers working in Luxembourg (99%), the Czech Republic (99%), Slovenia (94%) and Austria (91%) reside in a neighbouring Member State. This more detailed analysis is useful, as it demonstrates that most of the crossborder workers are employed in a neighbouring Member State (and as a consequence most of the time also in a similar welfare state regime). When there is a great similarity in family benefits across neighbouring Member States and a net balance in outgoing and incoming cross-border workers, it does not matter who pays the family benefit.

Export of family benefits

Table 6 The number of outgoing and incoming frontier workers (in ,000), EU-28, 2013

Outgoing frontier workers Incoming frontier workers

Member Number As share of cross Number As share of cross

State (in ,000) border workers (in ,000) border workers

BE 91.6 96.9% 55.3 76.2%

BG 4.8 23.6% 0.0 0.0%

CZ 30.6 85.0% 53.7 98.6%

DK 2.1 49.9% 22.1 74.7%

DE 149.2 88.0% 162.8 61.0%

EE 15.7 84.3% 1.4 66.9%

IE 10.8 94.0% 6.3 44.4%

EL 0.0 0.0% 4.5 61.5%

ES 6.7 14.6% 15.5 35.9%

FR 189.4 95.7% 33.3 55.7%

HR 6.5 24.4% 0.2 15.6%

IT 7.8 24.6% 5.7 6.1%

CY 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

LV 1.2 15.2% 0.1 49.8%

LT 0.0 1.6% 0.1 12.1%

LU 2.9 79.1% 176.3 99.0%

HU 45.0 48.7% 7.1 89.0%

MT 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%

NL 26.7 85.9% 79.8 77.4%

AT 28.9 87.4% 137.3 90.8%

PL 66.0 61.7% 5.3 80.3%

PT 6.9 29.5% 1.8 34.9%

RO 0.0 0.0% 1.0 25.1%

SI 12.6 84.8% 8.7 93.8%

SK 88.0 67.3% 6.3 80.8%

FI 1.3 83.9% 15.9 88.8%

SE 13.2 64.7% 2.4 17.0%

UK 6.3 25.6% 10.8 10.5%

EU-28 813.9 64.6% 813.9 64.6%

Source Own calculations based on LFS

Figure 4 depicts the distribution of cross-border workers among the income deciles in their Member State of residence (decile 1: the lowest 10% of income earners and decile 10: the top 10% of income earners). On average 50% of EU cross-border workers fall within the two highest income deciles (or within the top 20% of income earners in their Member State of residence). This suggests that cross-border workers earn on average a (much) higher income compared to workers employed in their Member State of residence. There is, however, a possible selection bias (see e.g. EC, 2011; Nerb et al, 2009). “There is a marked difference between the occupations of cross-border commuters and others in employment in the country in which they live, which underlies the differences observed above in educational attainment levels” (EC, 2011, p. 101).

As a result, some of the cross-border workers might not be entitled to a family benefit when working in a Member State that has implemented a means-test. However, it is to be noted that the distribution of cross-border workers among the income deciles in the Member State of residence is not necessarily comparable to the distribution among the income deciles in the Member State of employment. This distribution of the crossborder workers among the income deciles of the Member State of residence is at the same time also an indication of the living standard of the cross-border worker, which is more likely to be higher compared to other citizens.

Export of family benefits

Figure 4 Distribution of income of the outgoing cross-border workers, by income deciles of their Member State of residence, 2013

Source Own calculations based on LFS

The household composition of the cross-border worker and the labour work status of the spouse will have a significant influence on the number and the level of exported family benefits. This will be further elaborated in Tables 7 and 8. In general, half of the cross-border workers have no children. There are on average 0.9 children per cross-border worker in the EU area. Cross-border workers with children have on average 1.7 children. These average figures vary slightly between Member States, both for outgoing and incoming cross-border workers. This average number of children in the cross-border workers’ families will consequently influence the expected financial impact of the export of family benefits.

Export of family benefits

Table 7 The number of children of cross-border workers, 2013

Outgoing cross-border workers Incoming cross-border workers

Member No children Children Total Average No children Children Total Average State number of number of number of number of

children children per children children per (in ,000) worker (in ,000) worker

BE 45.0% 55.0% 92.1 1.0 49.4% 50.6% 65.9 0.9 BG 33.4% 66.6% 21.2 1.1 50.6% 49.4% 0.7 0.6 CZ 46.1% 53.9% 33.0 0.9 43.2% 56.8% 53.0 1.0 DK 71.4% 28.6% 2.4 0.6 58.3% 41.7% 23.9 0.8 DE 67.5% 32.5% 91.1 0.5 45.8% 54.2% 259.4 1.0 EE 44.6% 55.4% 17.6 0.9 46.9% 53.1% 1.6 0.8 IE 37.2% 62.8% 15.7 1.4 54.9% 45.1% 10.3 0.7 EL 29.4% 70.6% 8.7 1.2 ES 50.1% 49.9% 39.0 0.9 54.9% 45.1% 33.9 0.8 FR 44.9% 55.1% 191.5 1.0 46.1% 53.9% 52.3 0.9 HR 41.1% 58.9% 26.7 1.0 72.3% 27.7% 0.6 0.4 IT 57.5% 42.5% 20.6 0.6 52.2% 47.8% 70.9 0.8 CY 47.0% 53.0% 2.1 0.7 LV 52.0% 48.0% 5.1 0.7 63.0% 37.0% 0.1 0.5 LT 58.0% 42.0% 1.3 0.6 89.1% 10.9% 0.2 0.2 LU 52.4% 47.6% 3.4 0.9 42.2% 57.8% 173.0 1.0 HU 53.3% 46.7% 71.4 0.8 64.7% 35.3% 3.7 0.5 MT 67.3% 32.7% 0.2 0.5 84.4% 15.6% 0.2 0.2 NL 57.0% 43.0% 24.0 0.8 54.5% 45.5% 80.0 0.8 AT 58.2% 41.8% 21.0 0.6 51.4% 48.6% 119.4 0.8 PL 30.8% 69.2% 130.7 1.2 78.7% 21.3% 2.1 0.3 PT 38.8% 61.2% 22.1 0.9 43.0% 57.0% 4.6 0.9 RO 43.9% 56.1% 103.4 0.9 52.0% 48.0% 2.2 0.5 SI 44.0% 56.0% 13.2 0.9 44.4% 55.6% 8.0 0.9 SK 46.5% 53.5% 121.2 0.9 60.1% 39.9% 5.2 0.7 FI 81.9% 18.1% 0.4 0.3 43.6% 56.4% 18.0 1.0 SE 59.0% 41.0% 15.7 0.8 58.3% 41.7% 10.5 0.7 UK 61.3% 38.7% 14.8 0.6 51.8% 48.2% 88.3 0.9 EU-28 49.0% 51.0% 1,098.6 0.9 49.0% 51.0% 1,098.6 0.9

Source Own calculations based on LFS

By taking the different components into account (number of children – household composition – labour status of the spouse), the number of cross-border workers entitled to a child benefit for their children residing in another Member State could be estimated. At EU level, 22% of cross-border workers (276,000) live in a household with child(ren) whereby the spouse does not take up employment (Table 8). Also 2% of cross-border workers (22,000) is a single parent with child(ren). Both groups of cross-border workers is entitled to export their family benefit outside the Member State acting as ‘primarily competent’. At the same time, 27% of cross-border workers (334,000) live in a household with child(ren) whereby the spouse is employed. In this case there will be no export of the child benefit from the Member State of employment of the cross-border worker as the ‘primarily competent Member State’. However, this Member State might have to pay a supplement as the ‘secondarily competent Member State’. Finally, as has been said, also 49% of cross-border workers have no children. The percentage of cross-border workers entitled to export a child benefit slightly differs across Member States. Table 8 describes only those Member States with a high number of incoming cross-border workers (in absolute or/and in relative terms) (DE, LU and AT). 43 As a result, for these cross-border workers with children (some 50% of the reference group) almost 5 in 10 have a partner who is employed. For the other 50% of cross-border workers with children, the child benefit is exported outside the ‘primarily competent Member State’.

The impact assessment will take all Member States into consideration.

Export of family benefits

Table 8 The number of cross-border workers and involved children by household composition, 2013

DE LU AT EU Total

Cross% of Children Cross% of Children Cross% of Children Cross% of Children % of border total involved border total involved border total involved border total involved total

workers (in workers (in workers (in workers (in (excl. (in ,000) (in ,000) (in ,000) (in ,000) no

,000) ,000) ,000) ,000) children )

No children 122 46% 75 42% 78 51% 617 49%

Single with child(ren) 4 2% 7 8 5% 14 2 1% 3 22 2% 38 3%

Couple with 141 53% 252 94 53% 159 72 47% 117 610 48% 1,043 97%

child(ren)

Partner working 73 27% 131 65 36% 109 38 25% 62 334 27% 571 53%

Partner not working 68 25% 121 29 17% 50 34 22% 55 276 22% 472 44%

Other 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 10 1% 18

Total 267 100% 259 178 100% 173 151 100% 119 1,259 100% 1,098

*

Bold: Export of family benefit as primarily competent Member State. Source Own calculations based on LFS

Export of family benefits

4.

THE LEVEL OF SOCIAL PROTECTION VERSUS THE
STANDARD OF LIVING VERSUS THE COST OF LIVING

A possible amendment to the rules could correct the amount of the family benefit in proportion to the ‘standard of living’ in the Member State where the children reside (Option 1). Financial support by means of a family benefit aims to meet family expenses (see also Article 1 (z) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i). However, the extent to which family benefits compensate family expenses might be different between the

competent Member State and the Member State of residence of the children. 44 This

section will focus on the definition of the concept ‘living standard’, the possible methodology to measure it, but also the similarities/differences with other concepts such as the level of social protection and the cost of living.

The concept ‘living standard’ has already been discussed frequently in literature (e.g. by Sen 1984; Dubnoff, 1985; Stávková, 2012). Sen (1984, p. 86) concludes that “living standard can be seen as freedom of particular types, related to material capabilities. … It is in this sense that living standard can be seen as ‘economic freedom’.” Several indicators could measure this. GDP per capita is, despite the imperfections of the indicator (see Stiglitz, Sen and Fittoussi, 2009), the most frequently used economic indicator to measure the standard of living. The correlation between this indicator and public spending on social protection (in this case related to family or child allowances) is shown by Figure 5. It will articulate the relative differences in generosity of social spending per capita. The Actual Individual Consumption (AIC) is an alternative economic indicator and is probably also better adapted to describe the material welfare of households. It includes all consumer goods and services purchased directly by households, as well as services provided by nonprofit institutions and the government for individual consumption.

Figure 5 The influence of GDP per capita on expenditure family or child allowance, 2013

*

Figures of LU are excluded in this figure. Correlation of 0.64. Source Eurostat [prc_ppp_ind] [spr_exp_ffa]

Barslund and Busse (2014, p. 20) concluded yet that “any indexation should apply in a non-discriminatory way, i.e. also when benefits are exported to countries with higher costs of living.”

Export of family benefits

Both indicators, but also expenditure on social protection, could be converted by the

Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) 45 rates into a Purchasing Power Standard (PPS), eliminating the effect of price level differences across Member States, as price levels for consumer goods and services vary widely between Member States from 140% of the EU-28 average in Denmark to 48% of the EU-28 average in Bulgaria (figures for 2013) (Figure 6). EFTA countries Norway (157% of the EU-28 average) and Switzerland (155% of the EU-28 average) have, however, the highest price levels. These price level indices could be used to calculate a ‘correction coefficient’ in order to correct the price level differences between the competent Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren). But, this is rather a correction for the cost of living, which is in the most extreme situation three times higher or lower between Member States.

In 2013, the highest level of AIC per capita (136% of the EU-28 average) and GDP per capita 46 (257% of the EU-28 average) expressed in Purchasing Power Standards (PPS) was recorded in Luxembourg (Figure 6). This in contrast to Bulgaria, where the lowest level of AIC per capita in PPS (49% of the EU-28 average) and GDP per capita in PPS (45% of the EU-28 average) was recorded.

45 See also EU Staff Regulations, Annex XI

( http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/docs/toc100_en.pdf ).

With the exception that GDP per capita is not a good measure for a small country with a huge external workforce (cross-border commuters), as is the case for Luxembourg. In that case, GNP, which adds to the GDP net income received from abroad by the national population, is a better indicator.

Export of family benefits

Figure 6 Indices of GDP and AIC per capita in PPS and price levels, 2013 (EU-28 = 100)

Source Eurostat [prc_ppp_ind]

5.

THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CURRENT
RULES AND THE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

5.1. Data collection

The scope of the administrative questionnaire was limited to the number of households and children who received a child benefit from a competent exporting Member State. For the calculation of the options, the complete reference group should be taken into account. However, some persons of the reference group do not appear on the basis of the administrative questionnaire. In particular persons who did not receive a supplement from the exporting Member State because the family benefit paid by the Member State of residence of the child(ren) is higher than the family benefit of the exporting Member State (see also Figure 7). This is a limitation of the data which should be taken into account. The definition of the complete reference group is in particular important for Option 3 (making the Member State of residence of the child primarily competent). Also, more information is required on the average amount of the family benefit on the basis of ESSPROS, as not all Member States have answered the administrative questionnaire. This kind of additional information will be needed for the calculation of Option 3.

Export of family benefits

Figure 7 Limited scope of the questionnaire on export of family benefits

Member State of residence of the child(ren)

r Primarily competent Supplement as No supplement

be MS secondarily competent MS

M Primarily competent

g MS

in Supplement as YES Part

ort te secondarily

competent MS ial

Exp S ta No supplement

*

Black: Unknown Source The authors’ own figure

19 Member States were able to provide more detailed data on the export of family benefits, of which 17 Member States provided data on the amount of exported family benefits. It follows that some caution is required when drawing conclusions especially given the fact that some Member States which can be considered highly relevant in this respect did not provide data on the export of family benefits. A total amount of some € 983 million related to the export of family benefits was brought into the picture by the reporting Member States (Table 9). As could be observed, some Member States provided information on the exportability of several types of family benefits. In order to avoid double-counting, the options will discuss only one family benefit scheme of each of the reporting Member States. Most of the time the child benefit scheme was selected. For a detailed reporting on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits we refer to Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015).

The Member States have reported a total export of child benefits to some 324,000 households or 506,000 children, which amounts to a total expenditure of € 942 million. The cross-border tables provide a view on the ‘main’ exporting and receiving Member States. In particular, Luxembourg, Austria and Germany appear to be the ‘main’ exporting Member States in absolute terms. Luxembourg has even paid a total amount of € 477 million on family benefits exported abroad.

Export of family benefits

Table 9 Export of family benefits, per type of family benefit, per number of persons entitled, family members involved and annual amount paid,

2013/2014

BE Cash family benefit (only salaried 23,962 45,010 83,566,755 1,857 3,487 1.9 persons)

CZ Child care benefit, parental 1,009 4,596 951,041 207 943 4.6 allowance, payment for children in

foster care DK ‘Ordinary’ child benefit 421 1,101 1,033,380 939 2,455 2.6

Child and youth allowance 4,720 15,797 24,383,654 1,544 5,166 3.3 DE Child benefit (Kindergeld) 62,587 106,552 105,759,924 993 1,690 1.7

Parental leave (Elterngeld) 1,426 Child care supplement 78 (Betreuungsgeld)

EE Family benefit 406 537 573,075 1,067 1,412 1.3 IE Child benefit 4,636 7,421 11,576,760 1,560 2,497 1.6

Domiciliary care allowance 6 6 22,344 3,724 3,724 1.0

Family income supplement 755 4,700,000 6,225

EL Family benefit granted to the

employees of the private sector

ES 37 49 10,729 219 290 1.3

LV Family state benefit 948 1,102 107,478 98 113 1.2

Supplement to the family state 22 36 12,639 351 575 1.6

benefit for a disabled child

Parent's benefit 100 100 303,414 3,034 3,034 1.0 Child care benefit 435 437 344,275 788 791 1.0 Disabled child care benefit 6 6 11,878 1,980 1,980 1.0

LU Child benefit (incl. special 69,310 127,500 476,900,069 3,740 6,881 1.8 supplementary allowance, annual

school year allowance and childraising allowance)

HU Family allowance 1,154 1,616 336,232 208 291 1.4 Child home care allowance 118 123 11,404 93 97 1.0 Child-raising support 2 6 185 31 93 3.0

NL Child benefit (AKW) 20,225 37,924 35,622,000 939 1,761 1.9 Child care allowance (kinderopvang 1,556 2,238 4,869,733 2,176 3,130 1.4 toeslag)

Export of family benefits

Child budget (kindgebonden budget) 15,810 26,016 20,669,349 794 1,307 1.6

AT Family allowance, differential 63,828 104,295 147,322,836 1,413 2,308 1.6 supplement, Kinderabsetzbetrag

PL Family benefit 8,698 3,995,406 459

RO Child benefit allowance 11,427

Child raising benefit 24 SI

SK Child benefit 4,520 6,846 1,544,876 226 342 1.5 Parental allowance 2,935 3,010 4,292,123 1,426 1,462 1.0

FI Child benefit 11,449 13,206 19,359,180 1,466 1,691 1.2 SE

UK Child benefit 20,271 33,553 1.7 Child tax credit 7,005 11,735 1.7

IS Child benefit 73 119 116,339 978 1,594 1.6 LI

NO Family allowances 14,524 29,660,573 2,042

Cash benefits 1,919 5,415,554 2,822 CH

Total ** ** 983,473,205

*

No data available for BG, ES, FR, EL, IT, CY, LT, PT, SI, SE, LI and CH. ** In order to avoid double-counting, only total expenditure is reported. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits
29

Export of family benefits

5.2. Overview of the different options

Status quo

Family benefits are paid at the level of the ‘primarily’ competent Member State. Also, a Member State might have to pay a supplement as the ‘secondarily’ competent

Member State.

Option 1 – Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards

Under this option there is an adjustment of the amount of exported family benefits to the living standard in the Member State of residence of the child(ren). Under Suboption 1a the adjustment of the amount could be upwards as well as downwards. This in contrast to Sub-option 2b, where the adjustment of the amount is limited to the amount paid by the competent Member State.

An adjustment of the family benefit paid by the exporting Member State (not only as primarily competent Member State but also as secondary competent Member State) by a correction coefficient should guarantee a correction for the differences in the cost of living between the exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren).

Table 10 describes different possible cases and their impact on the cost of living (i.e. the benefit level) in the Member State of residence of the children. We observe that in two specific cases the payment of the family benefit under the current rules will result into a higher benefit level in the Member State of residence (cases 1 and 3).

Table 10 The impact of the payment of a supplement on the living standard in the MS of residence

No of cases Member State of Member State of Result

employment/residence EU residence of the

migrant/ cross-border worker children

(MS A) (MS B)

Primarily Secondarily competent competent 1 FB MS A > FB MS No supplement paid by MS of residence Above the ‘benefit

B level' MS of residence

2 FB MS A < FB MS Supplement paid by MS of residence Equal to the ‘benefit

B level' MS of residence

Secondarily Primarily competent competent

3 FB MS A > FB MS Supplement paid by the Member State of employment Above the 'benefit

B level' MS of residence

4 FB MS A < FB MS No supplement paid by the Member State of Equal to the 'benefit

B employment level' MS of residence

Source The authors’ own table based on the current EU provisions

Export of family benefits

Option 2 – No export

This option will be disregarded due to legal reasons.

Option 3 – Reverse order of competence

Under this option the order of priority in order to determine the ‘primarily’ competent Member State would be changed. The Member State of residence of the child should become the ‘primarily’ competent Member State. The Member State of employment of the migrant worker or cross-border worker would top up this amount as the ‘secondarily’ competent Member States if the level of family benefits is higher there. This implies a change in the allocation of the cost between the Member State of residence and the Member State of employment of the migrant/cross-border worker.

Horizontal Option - Different coordination rules for salary-related childraising allowances

This is a horizontal option, which may be applied alone or in conjunction with any of the options above. Under this option salary-related child raising allowances (or any salary-related components of a benefit which comprises of both salary-related and flat rate elements) would continue to be exportable as family benefits, but would be treated as individual and personal rights which may only be claimed by the parent who is subject to the applicable legislation in question (not by other members of their family). In addition, it is proposed that no anti-overlapping rules would apply to such benefits meaning that they would be payable in full to the parent concerned under the applicable national legislation irrespective of whether the Member State concerned has primary or secondary competence.

5.3. The estimated economic impact of the different options

As could be observed, some Member States provided information on the exportability of several types of family benefits. In order to avoid double-counting, most of the time only the child benefit scheme was selected. But it is not always sure that the term covers the same type of benefit. As mentioned before, some Member States reported only the sum of more than one family benefit (e.g. CZ, LU, AT and MT). By selecting only one family benefit scheme per Member State, also a view on the Member State of residence of the children will be obtained.

Status quo

The status quo scenario results in a total reported expenditure on the export of child benefits of € 941.8 million (Table 11). In absolute terms, most child benefits are exported by LU, AT 47 and DE. In particular, Luxembourg spends a high amount on the export of child benefits. In total an amount of € 476.9 million, amounting to somewhat

Austria reported a total exported amount of € 147 million for 2013. However, an amount of € 206 million for 2013 was recently reported in a press article based on a parliamentary question. This amount includes two additional payments: retroactive payments for the last five years based on a national rule and double payments for differential supplements (2012 and 2013). Moreover, the breakdown per Member State of residence reported in this parliamentary question is very informative given that the Austrian delegation did not provide a breakdown per Member State of residence.

Export of family benefits

more than half of public spending reported by the different Member States, was paid by Luxembourg.

This cross-table also provides a more detailed breakdown of the expenditure per Member State of residence of the child(ren). This kind of detailed information will be needed in order to calculate the impact of Option 2 (adjustment of the amount to the ‘living standard’ (i.e. cost of living) in the Member State of residence of the child(ren)). Most child benefits were exported to France and Poland. The high share of France in total expenditure is mainly explained by the fact that most of the child benefits imported by France are exported by Luxembourg. However, the missing data for a number of competent exporting Member States may lead to a distorted view of reality if the export of child benefits is reported per Member State of residence of the child(ren).

Export of family benefits

Table 11 Export of child benefits, expenditure (in million €), 2013/2014 – Status quo

Competent exporting Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO CH Tot

. BE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 13

2.1 0.9 BG 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.9 CZ 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.2 DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.1 DE 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85. 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.6 94.

6 7 EE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.6 8.7 IE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 EL 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.5 ) ES 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 6.2 en FR 53. 0.0 0.0 12. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 31 (r

ld 4 9 0.7 8.3

hi HR 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 c IT 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 4.3 he CY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 t

of LV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0

e LT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.8 6.2 nc LU 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 de HU 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 5.1

si MT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 re NL 11. 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 18. of 8 4 te AT 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.5

ta S PL 9.4 0.0 0.0 70. 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 16. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 14. 12 r 4 3 2 3.0 be PT 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 7.0 em RO 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 M SI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

SK 0.2 0.9 0.9 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 6.4 FI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 SE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.9 5.7 UK 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 1.1 6.5 IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 LI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 CH 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.4 To 83. 1.0 24. 10 0.6 11. 0.0 0.1 47 0.3 35. 14 4.0 1.5 19. 0.1 29. 94 t 6 4 5.8 6 1 6.9 6 7.3 4 7 1.8

*

No data available for BG, DK, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK, LI and CH. The breakdown per Member State of residence provided by

DK was not reported given that for most of the cases the Member State of residence is unknown (for non-Danish citizens in particular).

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

Option 1 – Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards

Under this option there is an adjustment of the amount of the exported family benefits to the cost of living in the Member State of residence of the child(ren). An adjustment of the family benefit paid by the exporting Member State by a correction coefficient should guarantee a correction for the differences in the cost of living between the exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren). By making use of the price level indices for consumer goods and services a correction coefficient between the exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren) could be calculated. “The price level indices provide a comparison of

Member States' price levels relative to the European Union average: if the price level index is higher than 100, the Member State concerned is relatively expensive compared to the EU average, while if the price level index is lower than 100, then the

Member State is relatively cheap compared to the EU average. They provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the price level in one Member State in relation to others.” 48 This correction coefficient will afterwards be multiplied by the amounts reported in the status quo scenario.

Box II – Interpretation of Table 12 – Two examples

The price level of BG is 0.44 times the price level of BE. Therefore, the Belgian family benefit exported to BG will be multiplied by 0.44 in order to correct for the cost of living in BG.

The price level of BE is 2.3 times the price level of BG. Therefore, the Bulgarian family benefit exported to BE will be multiplied by 2.3 in order to correct for the cost of living in BE.

48 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Comparative_price_levels_of_consumer_goods_and_services

Export of family benefits

Table 12 Correction coefficient for the cost of living based on the price level indices for consumer goods and services, 2013

Competent exporting Member State Price 10 48 71 14 10 80 11 89 95 10 68 10 86 71 65 12 60 80 11 10 57 86 57 83 71 12 13 11 10 11 15 15 level 9 0 2 8 9 3 3 0 7 3 0 4 0 2 5 6 (EU=10

0)

B B C D D E IE EL E F H IT C L LT L H M N A P P R SI S FI S U E IS LI N C E G Z K E E S R R Y V U U T L T L T O K E K U O H

10 B 1 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. n. 0. 0. 9 E 3 54 78 07 36 92 22 15 00 60 06 27 54 68 89 82 36 99 02 91 27 91 31 54 89 84 96 09 97 a. 70 70

48 B 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0. G 44 00 68 34 47 60 41 54 51 44 71 47 56 68 74 39 80 60 44 45 84 56 84 58 68 39 37 42 48 43 a. 31 31

71 C 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0. Z 65 48 00 51 70 89 60 80 75 65 04 69 83 00 09 58 18 89 65 66 25 83 25 86 00 58 55 62 71 63 a. 46 46

14 D 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. n. 0. 0. 0 K 28 92 97 00 37 75 19 57 47 28 06 36 63 97 15 14 33 75 27 31 46 63 46 69 97 14 08 23 40 25 a. 90 90

10 D 0. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. n. 0. 0. 2 E 94 13 44 73 00 28 86 15 07 94 50 99 19 44 57 83 70 28 93 95 79 19 79 23 44 83 78 89 02 91 a. 66 65

80 E 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0. E 73 67 13 57 78 00 68 90 84 73 18 78 93 13 23 65 33 00 73 75 40 93 40 96 13 65 62 70 80 71 a. 52 51

) 11 IE 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. n. 0. 0. en 8 08 46 66 84 16 48 00 33 24 08 74 15 37 66 82 96 97 48 07 10 07 37 07 42 66 96 91 04 18 05 a. 76 76 (r

ld 89 EL 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

hi 82 85 25 64 87 11 75 00 94 82 31 86 03 25 37 72 48 11 81 83 56 03 56 07 25 72 68 78 89 79 a. 57 57

95 E 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0. he c S 87 98 34 68 93 19 81 07 00 87 40 92 10 34 46 77 58 19 86 89 67 10 67 14 34 77 73 83 95 85 a. 61 61

f t 10 F 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. n. 0. 0.

ce o 9 R 00 27 54 78 07 36 92 22 15 00 60 06 27 54 68 89 82 36 99 02 91 27 91 31 54 89 84 96 09 97 a. 70 70

en 68 H 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

id R 62 42 96 49 67 85 58 76 72 62 00 66 79 96 05 55 13 85 62 64 19 79 19 82 96 55 52 60 68 61 a. 44 44

es 10 IT 0. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. n. 0. 0.

f r 3 94 15 45 74 01 29 87 16 08 94 51 00 20 45 58 84 72 29 94 96 81 20 81 24 45 84 79 90 03 92 a. 66 66

86 C 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

te o

ta Y 79 79 21 61 84 08 73 97 91 79 26 83 00 21 32 70 43 08 78 80 51 00 51 04 21 70 66 75 86 77 a. 55 55

S 71 L 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

V 65 48 00 51 70 89 60 80 75 65 04 69 83 00 09 58 18 89 65 66 25 83 25 86 00 58 55 62 71 63 a. 46 46

ber 65 LT 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

em 60 35 92 46 64 81 55 73 68 60 96 63 76 92 00 53 08 81 59 61 14 76 14 78 92 53 50 57 65 58 a. 42 42

M 12 L 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. n. 0. 0.

3 U 13 56 73 88 21 54 04 38 29 13 81 19 43 73 89 00 05 54 12 15 16 43 16 48 73 00 95 08 23 10 a. 79 79 60 H 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

U 55 25 85 43 59 75 51 67 63 55 88 58 70 85 92 49 00 75 55 56 05 70 05 72 85 49 46 53 60 54 a. 39 38 80 M 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

T 73 67 13 57 78 00 68 90 84 73 18 78 93 13 23 65 33 00 73 75 40 93 40 96 13 65 62 70 80 71 a. 52 51 11 N 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. n. 0. 0.

0 L 01 29 55 79 08 38 93 24 16 01 62 07 28 55 69 89 83 38 00 03 93 28 93 33 55 89 85 96 10 98 a. 71 71 10 A 0. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. n. 0. 0.

7 T 98 23 51 76 05 34 91 20 13 98 57 04 24 51 65 87 78 34 97 00 88 24 88 29 51 87 82 94 07 96 a. 69 69 57 P 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

L 52 19 80 41 56 71 48 64 60 52 84 55 66 80 88 46 95 71 52 53 00 66 00 69 80 46 44 50 57 51 a. 37 37 86 P 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

T 79 79 21 61 84 08 73 97 91 79 26 83 00 21 32 70 43 08 78 80 51 00 51 04 21 70 66 75 86 77 a. 55 55 57 R 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

O 52 19 80 41 56 71 48 64 60 52 84 55 66 80 88 46 95 71 52 53 00 66 00 69 80 46 44 50 57 51 a. 37 37 83 SI 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

76 73 17 59 81 04 70 93 87 76 22 81 97 17 28 67 38 04 75 78 46 97 46 00 17 67 64 73 83 74 a. 54 53 71 S 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. n. 0. 0.

Export of family benefits

K 65 48 00 51 70 89 60 80 75 65 04 69 83 00 09 58 18 89 65 66 25 83 25 86 00 58 55 62 71 63 a. 46 46 12 FI 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. n. 0. 0.

3 13 56 73 88 21 54 04 38 29 13 81 19 43 73 89 00 05 54 12 15 16 43 16 48 73 00 95 08 23 10 a. 79 79 13 S 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. n. 0. 0.

0 E 19 71 83 93 27 63 10 46 37 19 91 26 51 83 00 06 17 63 18 21 28 51 28 57 83 06 00 14 30 16 a. 84 83 11 U 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. n. 0. 0.

4 K 05 38 61 81 12 43 97 28 20 05 68 11 33 61 75 93 90 43 04 07 00 33 00 37 61 93 88 00 14 02 a. 74 73 10 E 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. n. 0. 0.

0 U 92 08 41 71 98 25 85 12 05 92 47 97 16 41 54 81 67 25 91 93 75 16 75 20 41 81 77 88 00 89 a. 65 64 11 IS 1. 2. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. n. 0. 0.

2 03 33 58 80 10 40 95 26 18 03 65 09 30 58 72 91 87 40 02 05 96 30 96 35 58 91 86 98 12 00 a. 72 72 LI n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n. n.

a.

a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. 15 N 1. 3. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. n. 1. 0.

5 O 42 23 18 11 52 94 31 74 63 42 28 50 80 18 38 26 58 94 41 45 72 80 72 87 18 26 19 36 55 38 a. 00 99 15 C 1. 3. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. n. 1. 1.

6 H 43 25 20 11 53 95 32 75 64 43 29 51 81 20 40 27 60 95 42 46 74 81 74 88 20 27 20 37 56 39 a. 01 00

*

No figures available for LI Source Calculations based on Eurostat figures

Export of family benefits

Sub-option 1a: adjustment of exported family benefit to the living standards (upwards and downwards)

Under Sub-option 1a the adjustment of the amount could be upwards as well as downwards. The application of this option results in a total expenditure of € 792.1 million or a decrease by 15.9% compared to the status quo scenario (Table 13). The budgetary impact of this option will mainly be determined by the distribution of the exported family benefits to the Member States of residence of the child(ren), the cost of living in these Member States and the differences with the exporting Member State.

A higher cost of living in the Member State of residence of the child(ren) compared to the exporting Member State will result in a higher public spending under this option compared to the status quo scenario.

Luxembourg will experience a decrease of public spending related to the export of child benefits of 13% if this option is applied (Table 13). Germany will even spend

33% less under this option compared to the status quo scenario. The fact that Germany experiences a higher decrease of public spending compared to Luxembourg is mainly the result of the export towards a different kind of Member States of residence of the child(ren). Luxembourg exported most family benefits to France

(which has a comparable level of cost of living) while Germany exported most family benefits to Poland (which has a much lower level of cost of living). Member States showing a low cost of living, among others Poland (+75%), Latvia (+41%), Estonia

(+37%), Slovakia (+35%), Hungary (+21%), will experience a (much) higher public spending under this option compared to the status quo scenario.

Export of family benefits

Table 13 Export of child benefits, estimated expenditure (in million €), 2013/2014 – Sub-option 1a (adjustment upwards and downwards)

Competent exporting Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO CH Tot BE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 11

8.2 6.9 BG 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 CZ 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.1 DE 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70. 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.4 79.

9 2 EE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.3 5.6 IE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 ) EL 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 en ES 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 5.1 (r

ld FR 53. 0.0 0.0 13. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 29

hi 4 8 2.2 0.5

c HR 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 he IT 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 4.1 t

of CY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

e LV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.1 nc LT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 2.8 de LU 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 si HU 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 re MT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 of NL 11. 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 18.

te 9 5

S AT 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.9

r PL 4.9 0.0 0.0 39. 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.2 64.

be 3 0

em PT 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.1

M RO 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.7

SI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

SK 0.1 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.6

FI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7

SE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.5 5.5

UK 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.8 6.1

IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4

LI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.9

CH 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.8

Total 77. 0.9 17. 71. 0.8 7.1 0.0 0.2 41 0.4 26. 13 7.0 2.1 15. 0.1 14. 79

6 4 3 3.6 4 7.7 1 6 2.1

Status 83. 1.0 24. 10 0.6 11. 0.0 0.1 47 0.3 35. 14 4.0 1.5 19. 0.1 29. 94

quo 6 4 5.8 6 1 6.9 6 7.3 4 7 1.8

% - - - - 37. - - 40. - 20. - - 75. 34. - - - -

change 7.2 0.4 28. 32. 3 38. 15. 8 13. 9 26. 6.5 4 6 22. 45. 50. 15.

6 6 9 9 3 0 % 2 7 8 9

*

No data available for BG, DK, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK, LI and CH. ** Calculations for DK, PL, LV and AT are based on the price level differences between the EU-28 and DK, PL/LV/AT as no (or an incomplete) breakdown per Member State of residence of the child(ren) is reported. Source The authors’ own calculations based on questionnaire on the export of family benefits and Eurostat

Export of family benefits

Sub-option 1b: adjustment of exported family benefits to the living standards (with ceiling)

Under Sub-option 1b, the adjustment of the amount is limited to the amount paid by the competent exporting Member State. This implies that if the correction coefficient calculated in Table 12 is above 1 the expenditure will be equal to the amount reported under the status quo scenario (Table 11). If the correction coefficient is below 1, the expenditure will be equal to the amount reported under Sub-option 1a (Table 13). The application of this option results in a total expenditure of € 785.8 million or a decrease by 16.6% compared to the status quo scenario (Table 14). This is only a minor difference in total expenditure compared to Sub-option 1a. However, this is not necessarily the case for each of the individual Member States.

Luxembourg (-13%) does almost not experience a higher decrease of their public spending compared to Sub-option 1a (Table 14). This is because Luxembourg almost all the time shows a higher cost of living compared to the Member State of residence of the child(ren) (except for NO and CH). This option corrects especially the public spending for exporting Member States showing a low cost of living. Exporting Member

States which experienced a higher expenditure under Sub-option 1a show under Suboption 1b a (limited) lower expenditure compared to the status quo scenario (for instance, PL, LV, EE, SK and HU).

Export of family benefits

Table 14 Export of child benefits, estimated expenditure (in million €), 2013/2014 – Sub-option 1a (adjustment limited to the amount of the competent MS)

Competent exporting Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO CH Tot. BE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.2 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 116.9 BG 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 CZ 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.0 DE 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.9 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.4 79.2 EE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.3 5.6

) IE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4

en EL 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.2

(r ES 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 5.1

ld FR 53.4 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 222.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 289.6

c HR 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

he IT 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 4.1

t CY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

of LV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.1

ce LT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 2.8

en LU 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3

id HU 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.9

r MT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

of NL 11.8 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 18.0

te AT 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.4

ta PL 4.9 0.0 0.0 39.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.2 64.0

r PT 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.1

be RO 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.7

SI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 em

M SK 0.1 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.6

FI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6

SE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.5 5.2

UK 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.8 6.0

IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4

LI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6

CH 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.4

Total 77.3 0.9 17.4 69.9 0.6 7.1 0.0 0.1 413.4 0.3 26.3 137.7 4.0 1.5 14.7 0.1 14.6 785.8

Status quo 83.6 1.0 24.4 105.8 0.6 11.6 0.0 0.1 476.9 0.3 35.6 147.3 4.0 1.5 19.4 0.1 29.7 941.8

% change -7.5 - - -33.9 - - - 0.0 -13.3 - - - 0.0 - - - - -16.6

0.5 28.6 2.5 38.9 19.9 0.3 26.3 6.5% 0.5 24.2 45.7 50.8

*

No data available for BG, DK, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK, LI and CH. ** Calculations for DK, PL, LV and AT are based on the price level differences between the EU-28 and DK/PL/LV/AT as no breakdown per Member State of residence of the child(ren) is reported. Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits and Eurostat
40

Export of family benefits

Option 2 – No export

This option will be disregarded due to legal reasons.

Option 3 – Reverse order of competence

Under this Option 3 the exporting Member State would only top up the amount as the ‘secondarily’ competent Member State if the level of family benefits is higher than the level of family benefits in the Member State of residence of the child(ren). This implies that the Member State of residence of the child(ren) will become the ‘primarily’ competent Member State of the reference group of 506,123 children involved

(Table 15). However, not all reporting Member States were able to provide a breakdown by Member State of residence (DK, PL, LV and AT). This implies that calculations will be based on a limited group of approximately 385,000 children. Also, as already mentioned the reference group is incomplete, as no view is available of the number of persons who received no supplement from the exporting Member State as the ‘secondarily’ competent Member State under the current rules (Figure 7).

Export of family benefits

Table 15 Export of child benefits, the number of family members involved, 2013/2014

Competent exporting Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO CH Total BE 945 1 4 0 34,971 2 8,929 33 225 123 45,233 BG 84 2,362 19 0 7 157 2 199 261 3,091 CZ 52 5,575 43 0 542 1 255 2,404 59 208 3 9,142 DK 12 226 0 0 18 20 25 147 35 483 DE 399 2 12 24 0 2 26,134 2 7,220 284 767 426 35,272 EE 9 77 66 10 0 2 46 0 5,422 59 3 5,694 ) IE 25 74 3 0 0 13 48 68 105 2,456 2,792 en EL 73 3,387 0 0 5 140 24 144 69 3,842 (r ES 728 243 92 0 76 651 89 790 919 3,588

FR 31,036 16,553 1 31 0 2 62,143 4 484 56 350 1,198 111,858

h il

HR 84 304 0 0 3 35 0 21 5 452 IT 547 3,887 32 0 1 65 2 203 174 296 264 5,471

h e c CY 0 3 1 0 0 6 4 38 56 108

f t LV 24 717 3 197 0 1 143 2 169 1,031 6 2,293

ce o LT 14 817 23 437 0 1 198 1 135 1,588 5 3,219 LU 103 57 2 0 26 33 49 17 287

id HU 64 3,942 44 0 46 239 122 195 223 4,875 es MT 2 2 1 0 0 17 0 10 23 55

f r NL 6,417 6,428 4 16 0 591 102 229 272 14,059 AT 11 12 2,160 0 0 40 59 2,881 122 35 5,320

te o PL 3,807 100 47,273 1 4,473 0 2 1,044 17,181 55 368 22,120 81 96,505 ta PT 492 1,851 28 0 3 1,136 350 1 63 304 4,228 S RO 531 5,727 167 0 38 89 38 200 13 238 393 7,434

b er SI 16 176 0 0 2 5 15 17 21 11 263 SK 103 4,482 2,167 165 0 283 1,555 611 0 39 1,165 16 10,586

em FI 12 105 347 2 0 9 15 14 19 523

M SE 42 107 14 6 0 79 4 84 17 1,411 88 1,852

UK 192 1,043 11 1,625 0 1 74 3 418 242 1,014 4,623 IS 2 4 0 0 9 0 4 15 4 5 43 LI 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 NO 17 30 51 0 0 4 37 88 314 69 610 CH 112 307 2 0 113 137 89 251 112 1,123 Total 45,010 4,596 15,797 106,552 537 7,421 0 49 1,102 127,500 1,616 37,924 104,295 6,846 13,206 33,553 119 506,123

*

No data available for BG, DK, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE, LI, NO and CH. The breakdown per Member State of residence by DK was not reported given that an incomplete breakdown by per Member State of residence of the child(ren) was reported.

Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

In order to calculate the topping up of the exporting Member State more detailed figures on the level of the child benefit should be obtained. However, not all Member States answered the administrative questionnaire. The selection of the level of the child benefit is as a result based on the following criteria (Table 16): 1) the selection of the overall average annual amount per child (column 1), if not available: 2) the selection of the average annual exported amount as primarily competent Member State (column 4), if not available: 3) calculations based on ESSPROS (column 5).

Table 16 Average annual amount per child based on different sources, 2013/2014

Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire ESSPROS * Selected ‘general’ export (total) export

primarily Average amount Average amount Average Average Average Average

per child per entitled person amount per amount per amount per amount per child child child (0-17) child

BE 2,207 3,817 1,857 2,616 2,207

BG 180 180

CZ 1,296 207 212 72 212

DK 1,575 2,690 1,544 2,165 2,165

DE 2,389 3,789 993 3,481 2,389

EE 401 638 1,067 1,496 281 401

IE 1,626 3,108 1,560 2,870 1,626

EL 147 268 611 147

ES 926 1,413 219 215 926

FR 1,603 1,603

HR 575 1,075 287 575

IT 953 688 688

CY 695 1,268 671 695

LV 140 202 98 148 152 140

LT 229 68 229

LU 4,109 7,353 3,740 4,898 8,147 4,109

HU 208 75 679 75

MT 614 973 820 614

NL 940 1,674 939 1,215 1,189 940

AT 2,306 3,769 1,413 2,379 3,650 2,306

PL 733 1,425 127 733

PT 477 739 371 477

RO 162 181 181

SI 706 706

SK 226 196 566 196

FI 1,389 2,531 1,466 1,382 1,389

SE 1,454 1,454

UK 1,113 1,113

IS 1,032 1,158 978 1,044 667 1,032

LI 4,469 4,469

NO 2,457 1,802 1,802

CH 3,004 1,496 1,496

*

See also Table 4 of this report. Source Questionnaire on the export of family benefits and ESSPROS

Afterwards, the level of the child benefit of the exporting Member State was deducted from the level of the child benefit of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) (Table 17). A positive figure points at a higher level in the exporting Member State and should be considered as the annual paid supplement per child. If there is a negative result no supplement should be paid by the exporting Member State. The result of this is reported in Table 18. Especially Member States with a high level family benefit (among others LU, DE, DK, FR, AT, IE, BE, NL, FI, SE UK, LI, NO and CH) have to pay a supplement.

Export of family benefits

Table 17 Difference between the average annual amount per child of the ‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the child(ren), 2013/2014

‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State 22 18 21 15 23 40 16 14 92 16 57 68 69 14 22 41 75 61 94 23 73 47 18 70 19 13 14 11 10 44 18 14 07 0 2 75 89 1 26 7 6 03 5 8 5 0 9 09 4 0 06 3 7 1 6 6 89 54 13 32 69 02 96 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO CH 2 B 0 - - 18 - - - - - - - - - - 1,9 - - - 99 - - - - - - - - - 2,2 - - 2 E 2,0 1,9 - 2 1,8 58 2,0 1,2 60 1,6 1,5 1,5 2,0 1,9 02 2,1 1,5 1,2 1,4 1,7 2,0 1,5 2,0 81 75 1,0 1,1 62 40 71 0 27 95 63 06 1 60 81 4 32 19 12 67 78 32 93 67 74 30 26 01 11 8 3 94 75 5 1 7 2

1 B 2,0 0 32 2,2 22 1,4 -33 74 1,4 39 50 51 -40 49 3,9 - 43 76 2,1 55 29 1 52 16 1,2 1,2 93 85 4,2 1,6 1,3 8 G 27 1,3 09 1 46 6 23 5 8 5 29 10 4 0 26 3 7 6 09 74 3 2 89 22 16 0 95 5 2 C 1,9 -32 0 2,1 18 1,4 -65 71 1,3 36 47 48 -72 17 3,8 - 40 72 2,0 52 26 -31 49 -16 1,1 1,2 90 82 4,2 1,5 1,2 1 Z 95 1,3 77 9 14 4 91 3 6 3 97 13 2 8 94 1 5 4 77 42 1 0 57 90 84 2 63 7 1 D 5 K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 63 1,3 1,3 81 1,1 1,4 64 1,0 88 88 1,4 1,3 2,5 1,5 96 63 73 84 1,0 1,3 86 1,3 18 12 46 54 2,8 22 5 2 95 63 0 4 74 51 28 9 28 00 7 0 35 46 34 00 1 5 1 2 98 94 9 79 6 1 2 3 94 7 -79 2 D - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1,7 - - - -83 - - - - - - - - - 2,0 - - 3 E 18 2,2 2,1 - 1,9 76 2,2 1,4 78 1,8 1,7 1,6 2,2 2,1 20 2,3 1,7 1,4 1,6 1,9 2,2 1,6 2,1 1,0 93 1,2 1,3 80 58 89 8 2 09 77 81 88 4 42 64 6 15 01 95 49 60 14 75 49 56 13 08 83 93 00 5 76 57 7 3 9 4 4 E 1,8 - - 1,9 0 1,2 - 52 1,2 17 28 29 - - 3,7 - 21 53 1,9 33 76 - 30 - 98 1,0 71 63 4,0 1,4 1,0 0 E 06 22 18 1,1 88 25 25 5 02 4 7 4 26 17 08 32 3 9 05 2 22 5 20 8 53 2 1 68 01 95 1 1 9 74 4 1 2 6 0 5 1 I 58 - - 76 - 0 - - -23 - - - - - 2,4 - - - 68 - - - - - - - - - 2,8 17 -

) 6 E 1 1,4 1,4 4 1,2 1,4 70 1,0 93 93 1,4 1,3 83 1,5 1,0 68 0 89 1,1 1,4 92 1,4 23 17 51 59 43 6 13

(r 2 46 14 25 79 0 51 8 1 86 97 51 12 6 3 49 45 0 30 6 2 3 4 0 ld 6 -51 hi

c 1 E 2,0 33 65 2,2 25 1,4 0 77 1,4 42 54 54 -7 82 3,9 -72 46 79 2,1 58 33 34 55 49 1,2 1,3 96 88 4,3 1,6 1,3

he 4 L 60 1,4 42 4 79 8 56 8 1 7 62 7 3 59 6 0 9 42 07 6 5 22 55 49

t 7 28 of 9 E 1,2 - - 1,4 - 70 - 0 67 - - - - - 3,1 - - 14 1,3 - - - - - 46 52 18 10 3,5 87 57

e 2 S 81 74 71 64 64 52 0 77 7 35 23 23 78 69 83 85 31 80 19 44 74 22 73 4 8 7 6 44 6 0 nc 6 6 4 9 5 8 1 8 1 6 7 1 2 2 9 5 0 0

si 1 F 60 - - 78 - 23 - - 0 - - - - - 2,5 - - - 70 - - - - - - - - - 2,8 19 - re 6 R 4 1,4 1,3 6 1,2 1,4 67 1,0 91 90 1,4 1,3 06 1,5 98 66 3 87 1,1 1,4 89 1,4 21 14 49 57 66 9 10 of 0 23 91 02 56 7 28 5 8 63 74 28 9 3 0 26 22 7 07 4 9 0 1 7

te 3 -28 ta 5 H 1,6 - - 1,8 - 1,0 - 35 1,0 0 11 12 - - 3,5 - 39 36 1,7 15 -98 - 13 - 81 87 53 45 3,8 1,2 92 S

r 7 R 32 39 36 1,0 15 17 51 42 1 28 3 0 43 34 34 50 5 31 8 39 1 37 5 9 8 7 94 27 1 be 5 5 3 00 4 8 5 6 0 4 9

6 I 1,5 - - 1,7 - 93 - 23 91 - 0 7 - - 3,4 - -74 25 1,6 45 - - 18 - 70 76 42 34 3,7 1,1 80 em

M 8 T 19 50 47 88 01 28 8 54 8 5 11 54 45 21 61 2 18 21 50 49 1 6 5 4 81 14 8

8 8 6 7 7 1 3 8 9 3 1 7 2 6 C 1,5 - - 1,6 - 93 - 23 90 - -7 0 - - 3,4 - -81 24 1,6 39 - - 11 - 69 75 41 33 3,7 1,1 80 9 Y 12 51 48 88 95 29 1 54 1 8 12 55 46 14 62 5 11 21 51 49 5 9 8 7 75 07 1 5 5 3 0 4 7 0 5 6 0 8 4 9 1 L 2,0 40 72 2,2 26 1,4 7 78 1,4 43 54 55 0 89 3,9 -65 47 80 2,1 59 33 41 56 56 1,2 1,3 97 89 4,3 1,6 1,3 4 V 67 1,4 49 1 86 6 63 5 8 5 69 4 0 66 3 7 6 49 14 3 2 29 62 56 0 35 2 L 1,9 -49 -17 2,1 17 1,3 -82 69 1,3 34 45 46 -89 0 3,8 - 38 71 2,0 50 24 -48 47 -33 1,1 1,2 88 80 4,2 1,5 1,2 2 T 78 1,3 60 2 97 7 74 6 9 6 80 15 5 1 77 4 8 7 60 25 4 3 40 73 67 9 46 4 4 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36 - - 1 U 1,9 3,9 3,8 - 1,7 3,7 2,4 3,9 3,1 2,5 3,5 3,4 3,4 3,9 3,8 4,0 3,4 3,1 1,8 3,3 3,6 3,9 3,4 3,9 2,7 2,6 2,9 3,0 0 2,3 2,6 0 02 29 97 2,5 20 08 83 62 83 06 34 21 14 69 80 34 95 69 03 76 32 28 03 13 20 55 96 77 07 13 9 34 7 H 2,1 10 13 1,5 2,3 32 1,5 72 85 1,5 50 61 62 65 15 4,0 0 53 86 2,2 65 40 10 63 12 1,3 1,3 1,0 95 4,3 1,7 1,4 5 U 32 5 7 00 14 6 51 1 28 0 3 0 4 34 9 5 31 8 2 6 1 1 14 79 38 7 94 27 21 6 M 1,5 - - 1,7 - 1,0 - 31 98 -39 74 81 - - 3,4 - 0 32 1,6 11 - - 92 - 77 84 49 41 3,8 1,1 88 1 T 93 43 40 96 75 21 12 46 2 9 47 38 95 53 6 92 9 13 43 41 6 0 9 8 55 88 2 4 4 2 1 3 7 4 5 9 7 3 8 9 N 1,2 - - 1,4 - 68 - -14 66 - - - - - 3,1 - - 0 1,3 - - - - - 44 51 17 92 3,5 86 55 4 L 67 76 72 63 49 53 6 79 3 36 25 24 80 71 69 86 32 66 20 46 75 23 74 9 4 3 29 2 6 0 0 8 5 9 3 5 2 5 0 1 5 6 7 3 9 4 4

Export of family benefits

2 A -99 - - 83 - - - - - - - - - - 1,8 - - - 0 - - - - - - - - - 2,1 - - 3 T 2,1 2,0 - 1,9 68 2,1 1,3 70 1,7 1,6 1,6 2,1 2,0 03 2,2 1,6 1,3 1,5 1,8 2,1 1,6 2,1 91 85 1,1 1,2 63 50 81 0 26 94 73 05 0 59 80 3 31 18 11 66 77 31 92 66 73 29 25 00 10 7 2 93 74 4 0 6 1

7 P 1,4 - - 1,6 - 89 - 19 87 - -45 -39 - - 3,3 - - 20 1,5 0 - - -27 - 65 72 38 29 3,7 1,0 76 3 L 74 55 52 84 56 33 3 58 2 0 15 59 50 76 65 11 7 73 25 55 53 6 1 0 9 36 69 3 3 3 1 2 2 6 8 3 4 8 9 6 2 7

4 P 1,7 - - 1,9 -76 1,1 - 44 1,1 98 21 21 - - 3,6 - 13 46 1,8 25 0 - 22 - 91 97 63 55 3,9 1,3 1,0 7 T 30 29 26 1,0 13 49 33 9 26 1 8 33 24 32 40 7 3 29 6 29 9 28 3 7 6 5 92 25 19 7 7 5 98 0 7 8 2 6 1

1 R 2,0 -1 31 2,2 22 1,4 -34 74 1,4 39 50 51 -41 48 3,9 - 43 75 2,1 55 29 0 52 15 1,2 1,2 93 85 4,2 1,6 1,3 8 O 26 1,3 08 0 45 5 22 4 7 4 28 10 3 9 25 2 6 5 08 73 2 1 88 21 15 1 94 6

7 S 1,5 - - 1,6 - 92 - 22 89 - -18 -11 - - 3,4 - -92 23 1,6 27 - - 0 - 68 74 40 32 3,7 1,0 79 0 I 01 52 49 86 83 30 0 55 0 7 13 56 47 03 63 4 00 22 52 51 3 8 7 6 63 96 0 6 6 4 9 5 9 1 6 7 1 9 5 0

1 S 2,0 -16 16 2,1 20 1,4 -49 73 1,4 37 49 49 -56 33 3,9 - 41 74 2,1 53 28 -15 51 0 1,1 1,2 91 83 4,2 1,6 1,3 9 K 11 1,3 93 5 30 0 07 9 2 9 13 12 8 4 10 7 1 0 93 58 7 6 73 06 00 6 79 1

1 F 81 - - 1,0 - 23 - - 21 - - - - - 2,7 - - - 91 - - - - - 0 65 - - 3,0 41 10 3 I 8 1,2 1,1 00 98 6 1,2 46 4 81 70 69 1,2 1,1 20 1,3 77 44 7 65 91 1,2 68 1,1 27 35 80 3 7 8 09 77 18 8 42 4 5 1 5 49 60 14 6 9 6 3 08 3 93 6 7

9 6

1 S 75 - - 93 - 17 - - 14 - - - - - 2,6 - - - 85 - - - - - -65 0 - - 3,0 34 42 4 E 3 1,2 1,2 5 1,0 2 1,3 52 9 87 76 75 1,3 1,2 55 1,3 84 51 2 72 97 1,2 74 1,2 34 42 15 8

5 74 42 12 53 07 8 9 6 9 14 25 79 0 4 1 7 73 8 58 1 2

4 1

1 U 1,0 - - 1,2 - 51 - - 49 - - - - - 2,9 - - - 1,1 - - - - - 27 34 0 -81 3,3 68 38 1 K 94 93 90 76 71 3 96 18 0 53 42 41 97 88 96 1,0 49 17 93 38 63 93 40 91 6 1 56 9 3 1 3 1 46 2 6 7 8 5 8 3 4 38 9 3 0 6 2 7 7

3 2

1 I 1,1 - - 1,3 - 59 - - 57 - - - - - 3,0 - - -92 1,2 - - - - - 35 42 81 0 3,4 77 46 0 S 75 85 82 57 63 4 88 10 1 45 34 33 89 80 77 95 41 74 29 55 85 32 83 7 2 37 0 4 3 2 0 54 1 5 6 7 4 7 2 3 7 8 9 5 1 6 6

2 3

4 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - 4 I 2,2 4,2 4,2 - 2,0 4,0 2,8 4,3 3,5 2,8 3,8 3,7 3,7 4,3 4,2 36 4,3 3,8 3,5 2,1 3,7 3,9 4,2 3,7 4,2 3,0 3,0 3,3 3,4 2,6 2,9 6 62 89 57 2,8 80 68 43 22 44 66 94 81 75 29 40 0 94 55 29 63 36 92 88 63 73 80 15 56 37 67 73 9 94

1 N 40 - - 58 - - - - - - - - - - 2,3 - - - 50 - - - - - - - - - 2,6 0 - 8 O 5 1,6 1,5 - 7 1,4 17 1,6 87 19 1,2 1,1 1,1 1,6 1,5 07 1,7 1,1 86 4 1,0 1,3 1,6 1,0 1,6 41 34 68 77 67 30 0 22 90 22 01 6 55 6 9 27 14 07 62 73 27 88 2 69 25 21 96 06 3 8 9 0 6 2 7

1 C 71 - - 89 - 13 - - 10 - - - - - 2,6 - - - 81 - - - - - - -42 - - 2,9 30 0 4 H 1 1,3 1,2 3 1,0 0 1,3 57 7 92 80 80 1,3 1,2 13 1,4 88 55 0 76 1,0 1,3 79 1,3 10 38 46 73 6

9 16 84 95 49 0 1 8 1 56 67 21 2 6 3 19 15 0 00 7 3 4

6 79

*

Negative figure: average amount of the ‘secondarily’ competent Member State is lower than the average amount of the Member State of residence Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits and ESSPROS

Export of family benefits

Table 18 Average annual supplement per child paid by the ‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State, 2013/2014

‘secondary’ competent exporting Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO CH

B 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,9 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,2 0 0

E 2 02 62

B 2,0 0 32 1,3 2,2 22 1,4 0 74 1,4 39 50 51 0 49 3,9 0 43 76 2,1 55 29 1 52 16 1,2 1,2 93 85 4,2 1,6 1,3

G 27 95 09 1 46 6 23 5 8 5 29 4 0 26 3 7 6 09 74 3 2 89 22 16

C 1,9 0 0 1,3 2,1 18 1,4 0 71 1,3 36 47 48 0 17 3,8 0 40 72 2,0 52 26 0 49 0 1,1 1,2 90 82 4,2 1,5 1,2

Z 95 63 77 9 14 4 91 3 6 3 97 2 8 94 1 5 4 77 42 1 0 57 90 84 D 63 81 2,5 73 2,8 22 K 2 0 0 0 4 0 51 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 7 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,0 0 0 E 20 80 E 1,8 0 0 1,1 1,9 0 1,2 0 52 1,2 17 28 29 0 0 3,7 0 21 53 1,9 33 76 0 30 0 98 1,0 71 63 4,0 1,4 1,0 E 06 74 88 25 5 02 4 7 4 08 3 9 05 2 5 8 53 2 1 68 01 95 I 58 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,4 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,8 17 0

E 1 4 83 0 43 6

E 2,0 33 65 1,4 2,2 25 1,4 0 77 1,4 42 54 54 0 82 3,9 0 46 79 2,1 58 33 34 55 49 1,2 1,3 96 88 4,3 1,6 1,3

L 60 28 42 4 79 8 56 8 1 7 62 7 3 59 6 0 9 42 07 6 5 22 55 49

E 1,2 0 0 64 1,4 0 70 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 3,1 0 0 14 1,3 0 0 0 0 0 46 52 18 10 3,5 87 57

S 81 9 64 0 7 83 80 4 8 7 6 44 6 0

) F 60 0 0 0 78 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,5 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,8 19 0

en R 4 6 06 3 66 9

ld H

1,6 0 0 1,0 1,8 0 1,0 0 35 1,0 0 11 12 0 0 3,5 0 39 36 1,7 15 0 0 13 0 81 87 53 45 3,8 1,2 92

hi R

32 00 15 51 1 28 3 0 34 5 31 8 1 5 9 8 7 94 27 1

I 1,5 0 0 88 1,7 0 93 0 23 91 0 0 7 0 0 3,4 0 0 25 1,6 45 0 0 18 0 70 76 42 34 3,7 1,1 80

he c T 19 7 01 8 8 5 21 2 18 1 6 5 4 81 14 8

f t C 1,5 0 0 88 1,6 0 93 0 23 90 0 0 0 0 0 3,4 0 0 24 1,6 39 0 0 11 0 69 75 41 33 3,7 1,1 80 Y 12 0 95 1 1 8 14 5 11 5 9 8 7 75 07 1

ce o L 2,0 40 72 1,4 2,2 26 1,4 7 78 1,4 43 54 55 0 89 3,9 0 47 80 2,1 59 33 41 56 56 1,2 1,3 97 89 4,3 1,6 1,3

en 3 7 6 49 14 3 2 29 62 56

id V

67 35 49 1 86 6 63 5 8 5 69 4 0 66

es L 1,9 0 0 1,3 2,1 17 1,3 0 69 1,3 34 45 46 0 0 3,8 0 38 71 2,0 50 24 0 47 0 1,1 1,2 88 80 4,2 1,5 1,2 f r T

78 46 60 2 97 7 74 6 9 6 80 5 1 77 4 8 7 60 25 4 3 40 73 67

L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0

te o U 0

S H

2,1 10 13 1,5 2,3 32 1,5 72 85 1,5 50 61 62 65 15 4,0 0 53 86 2,2 65 40 10 63 12 1,3 1,3 1,0 95 4,3 1,7 1,4

U 32 5 7 00 14 6 51 1 28 0 3 0 4 34 9 5 31 8 2 6 1 1 14 79 38 7 94 27 21 ber M 1,5 0 0 96 1,7 0 1,0 0 31 98 0 74 81 0 0 3,4 0 0 32 1,6 11 0 0 92 0 77 84 49 41 3,8 1,1 88 em T 93 1 75 12 2 9 95 6 92 9 6 0 9 8 55 88 2 M N 1,2 0 0 63 1,4 0 68 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 3,1 0 0 0 1,3 0 0 0 0 0 44 51 17 92 3,5 86 55

L 67 5 49 6 3 69 66 9 4 3 29 2 6

A 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,1 0 0

T 03 63

P 1,4 0 0 84 1,6 0 89 0 19 87 0 0 0 0 0 3,3 0 0 20 1,5 0 0 0 0 0 65 72 38 29 3,7 1,0 76 L 74 2 56 3 2 0 76 7 73 6 1 0 9 36 69 3 P 1,7 0 0 1,0 1,9 0 1,1 0 44 1,1 98 21 21 0 0 3,6 0 13 46 1,8 25 0 0 22 0 91 97 63 55 3,9 1,3 1,0 T 30 98 13 49 9 26 1 8 32 7 3 29 6 9 3 7 6 5 92 25 19 R 2,0 0 31 1,3 2,2 22 1,4 0 74 1,4 39 50 51 0 48 3,9 0 43 75 2,1 55 29 0 52 15 1,2 1,2 93 85 4,2 1,6 1,3 O 26 94 08 0 45 5 22 4 7 4 28 3 9 25 2 6 5 08 73 2 1 88 21 15 S 1,5 0 0 86 1,6 0 92 0 22 89 0 0 0 0 0 3,4 0 0 23 1,6 27 0 0 0 0 68 74 40 32 3,7 1,0 79

I 01 9 83 0 0 7 03 4 00 3 8 7 6 63 96 0

S 2,0 0 16 1,3 2,1 20 1,4 0 73 1,4 37 49 49 0 33 3,9 0 41 74 2,1 53 28 0 51 0 1,1 1,2 91 83 4,2 1,6 1,3

K 11 79 93 5 30 0 07 9 2 9 13 8 4 10 7 1 0 93 58 7 6 73 06 00

F 81 0 0 18 1,0 0 23 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 2,7 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 3,0 41 10

I 8 6 00 6 4 20 7 80 3 7

S 75 0 0 12 93 0 17 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 2,6 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,0 34 42

E 3 1 5 2 9 55 2 15 8

U 1,0 0 0 46 1,2 0 51 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 2,9 0 0 0 1,1 0 0 0 0 0 27 34 0 0 3,3 68 38

K 94 2 76 3 0 96 93 6 1 56 9 3

Export of family benefits

I 1,1 0 0 54 1,3 0 59 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 3,0 0 0 0 1,2 0 0 0 0 0 35 42 81 0 3,4 77 46

S 75 3 57 4 1 77 74 7 2 37 0 4

L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I

N 40 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,3 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,6 0 0

O 5 7 07 4 67

C 71 0 0 79 89 0 13 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 2,6 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,9 30 0

H 1 3 0 7 13 0 73 6

*

Negative figures of Table 17 are eliminated as this will imply that no supplement will be paid by the exporting Member State. Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits and ESSPROS

Export of family benefits

In order to estimate the budgetary impact of Option 3, the supplement paid by the exporting Member State (Table 18) is multiplied by the number of children involved

(Table 15).

The application of this option results in a total exported amount of € 522.5 million or a decrease by 30.9% compared to the status quo scenario (excluding some Member

States which did not provide a breakdown per Member State of residence of the children) (Table 19). This reflects to a high extent a shift of the expenditure from the exporting Member State towards the Member State of residence of the child(ren).

Some caution is, however, required if these calculations are compared to the status quo scenario. The level of the family benefit, selected in Table 16, is sometimes a proxy of the real figure. As a result, the expenditure for individual exporting Member

States is sometimes higher under Option 3 compared to the status quo scenario (applicable to DE and ES). This is not possible in practice given that a family benefit will no longer be paid as the primarily competent Member State under this option (but only the supplement). Luxembourg, as a main exporting Member State under the current rules, experiences a decrease in expenditure of € 195 million or 41% compared to the status quo scenario.

However, there is also an underestimation of total spending if only the cost of the topping up is taken into account. The expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) as the primarily competent Member State should also be taken into account. It is at the same time an estimate of the total expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits and not only of the narrow scope of the export of family benefits. Under Option 3 this implies that mainly France (€ 179 million), Belgium

(€ 100 million), Germany (€ 84 million) and Poland (€ 71 million) will experience a high cost of expenditure in absolute terms as the Member State of residence of the child(ren) (Table 20 – see row totals). Counting together the expenditure under

Option 3 as the exporting Member State and as the Member State of residence, a total estimated annual expenditure of € 1.2 billion is obtained (for a limited group of approximately 385,000 children) (Table 21). Despite the change of the current order of priority under Option 3, some of the exporting Member States will still have to pay a high share of the expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits. This is because the overall level of the family benefit is in some of the exporting Member

States (in particular LU) (much) higher compared to the level of the main Member States of residence of the child(ren) (in particular FR and PL).

Table 19 Export of child benefits, estimated expenditure (in million €) = supplement paid by the ‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member

State, 2013/2014 – Option 3 (Member State of residence of the child primarily competent)

‘secondary’ competent exporting Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO C Tot

H BE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 66.

5 . 7 0

BG 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 6.0 .

0 CZ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12. 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 14.

1 . 9 0

DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 .

0 DE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 44.

9 . 9 0

EE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 5.6 .

0 IE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1

. 0

) EL 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8.1 en .

(r 0

ld hi ES 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2.1 c . he 0 t

of FR 18. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 187

e 7 0 5.7 . .5 nc 0 de HR 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.7 si . re 0 of IT 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8.1

te .

ta S 0 r CY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 be . em 0 M LV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3.3

. 0

LT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 4.1 .

0 LU 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

. 0

HU 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 10. . 2 0

MT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 .

0 NL 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 19.

. 5 0

AT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.3 .

0 PL 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 78. 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 103

3 . .7 0

49 | P a g e 50

PT 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 9.0 .

0 RO 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 12. 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.

6 . 1 0

SI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.3 .

0 SK 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8.0

. 0

FI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 .

0 SE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.3

. 0

UK 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2.9 .

0 IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

. 0

LI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 .

0 NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

. 0

CH 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.6 .

0 Total 0

37.

16 28 13. . 522 6 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.4 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 .7

Status 83. 0.0 1.0 0.0 10 0.6 11. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 47 0.3 0.0 35. 14 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 19. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 29. 0 941 quo 6 5.8 6 6.9 6 7.3 4 7 . .8

0 % - - 60. - - 18 - - - - - - - change 55. 92. 2 99. 43. 2.0 40. 10 85. 98. 58. 55. 30.

0 5 2 7 9 0 1 9 0 9 9 *

*

Average percentage based on numeration equal to € 509 million (excluding UK since no figures were available on the status quo scenario) and denominator equal to € 736 million (excluding DK, PL, LV, AT and NO since these Member States did not provide a breakdown per Member State of residence). ** The amount related to the export of family benefits to be paid by DE under this option is higher compared to the amount (€ 106 million) under the status quo scenario. This is not possible in practice and is the result of an overestimation of the supplement to be paid by DE (average annual amount per child of € 2,389 applied for DE – see Tables 16 and 17) or an underestimation of the budgetary cost related to the export of family benefits under the status quo scenario reported by the German Delegation. This applies also to ES but involves only a small amount in absolute terms. Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits and ESSPROS
50 | P a g e 51

Table 20 Amount paid by the Member State of residence of the child(ren), 2013/2014

‘secondary’ competent Member State BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK IS LI NO CH To

t.

BE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77. 0.0 0.0 19. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99

2 7 .8 BG 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

6 CZ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.

9 DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

8 DE 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62. 0.0 0.0 17. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84

4 3 .3 EE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.

3 IE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.

5 EL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

6 ES 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.

3 FR 49. 0.0 0.0 0.0 26. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17

8 5 6 9. 3

HR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 3

IT 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3. 8

n)

CY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

(re 1

ld LV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

c 3

of LT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

e 7

nc LU 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.

si 2

HU 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

re 4

te MT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.

ta 0

S NL 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13

r .2

be AT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12

M .3

PL 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 34. 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 12. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 16. 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 70 7 6 2 .7

PT 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. 0

RO 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 3

SI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 2

SK 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. 1

FI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 7

SE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2. 7

UK 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. 1

IS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0

LI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0

NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 1

CH 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. 7

To 49

51 | P a g e 52

tal 7. 4

*

The row totals (expenditure by the Member State of residence) are in this case important. Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits and ESSPROS

52 | P a g e

Export of family benefits

Table 21 Sum of the estimated expenditure as ‘primarily’ competent Member State of residence of the child(ren) and as ‘secondarily’ competent exporting Member State, Option 3, 2013/2014

Member State A = Total

Exporting MS Member State of residence

BE 37,566,519 99,829,231 137,395,750

BG n.a. 556,380 556,380

CZ 71,712 1,938,104 2,009,816

DK n.a. 760,725 760,725

DE 169,428,065* 84,277,282 253,705,347

EE 4,739 2,283,294 2,288,033

IE 6,517,702 4,539,332 11,057,035

EL n.a. 565,132 565,132

ES 30,261* 3,320,787 3,351,048

FR n.a. 179,308,374 179,308,374

HR n.a. 259,750 259,750

IT n.a. 3,764,048 3,764,048

CY n.a. 75,012 75,012

LV n.a. 321,020 321,020

LT n.a. 737,151 737,151

LU 281,947,287 1,179,283 283,126,570

HU 0 365,625 365,625

MT n.a. 33,763 33,763

NL 5,310,060 13,215,460 18,525,520

AT n.a. 12,267,920 12,267,920

PL n.a. 70,746,823 70,746,823

PT n.a. 2,015,136 2,015,136

RO n.a. 1,345,554 1,345,554

SI n.a. 185,678 185,678

SK 16,275 2,074,856 2,091,131

FI 8,134,181 726,685 8,860,866

SE n.a. 2,692,808 2,692,808

UK 13,583,613 5,145,399 18,729,012

IS 51,308 44,376 95,684

LI n.a. 22,345 22,345

NO n.a. 1,099,220 1,099,220

CH n.a. 1,680,008 1,680,008

Tota 522,661,722 497,376,561 1,020,038,283 l

*

The amount related to the export of family benefits to be paid by DE under this option is higher compared to the amount (€ 106 million) under the status quo scenario. This is not possible in practice and is the result of an overestimation of the supplement to be paid by DE (average annual amount per child of € 2,389 applied for DE – see Tables 16 and 17) or an underestimation of the budgetary cost related to the export of family benefits under the status quo scenario reported by the German Delegation (only an average annual amount exported per child of € 993 – see Table 16). This also applies to ES but involves only a small amount in absolute terms (from € 10,729 to € 30,261). Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Horizontal Option - Different coordination rules for salary-related childraising allowances

Only a limited number of Member States have reported separate administrative data on their export of child-raising allowances. By Slovakia, a parental allowance was exported to 2,935 households amounting to a public spending of € 4.3 million

(Table 22). Latvia reported the exportability of a parent’s benefit to 100 households (or 0.8% of the total households entitled) amounting to a public spending of €

303,000 (or 0.4% of total export of family benefits). Romania reported the exportability of a child-raising benefit to 24 households. Finally, Hungary exported a

Export of family benefits

child home care allowance to 118 households and a child-raising allowance to 2 households.

Table 22 Export of child raising allowances, 2013

Name Spending Total Share in Exported Share in related to childspending total child-raising spending raising on family spending on allowances related

allowances benefits family (in €) (C) to child(in Million €) (in Million benefits raising

(A) €) (A/B) allowances (B) (C/A)

DE Parental benefit 5,105 38,805 13.2% (Elterngeld)

LV Parental benefit 71 169 41.9% 303,414 0.4% (Vecaku pabalsts)

HU Child home care 11,403 allowance

(Gyermekgondozási segély)

Child Raising Support 185

(Gyermeknevelési

támogatás)

RO child raising benefit 346 1,001 34.5% 24 in 142,170

(indemnizatie pentru households

cresterea copilului) (0.02%)

SK Parental allowance 4,292,122

(Rodičovský príspevok)

Source Based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

On the basis of the number of cross-border workers and their household composition (by using LFS data) the impact of this horizontal option has been estimated. 49 Under the status quo scenario cross-border workers with child(ren) and their partner will be entitled to a salary-related child-raising allowance. It implies a reference group of some 785 thousand persons at EU-level (by selecting only those cross-border workers with a child aged less than 15 (column A) and by adding their partner 50 (column B)). 51 However, this reference group will be much smaller if only the Member States which have a child-raising allowance calculated by reference to salary or professional income are taken into consideration (17 Member States – see below). Moreover, it should be highlighted that only Bulgaria, Germany, Croatia and Finland permit that a right may be granted to a person despite not factually fulfilling the child-raising activity (i.e.

derived rights). 52

It will result in a considerable decrease of the number of persons entitled if the salary-related child raising allowance would be treated as an individual and personal right (only claimed by the cross-border who is subject to the applicable legislation in question and not by other members of their family) as the reference group would decline by 40% at EU-level compared to the status quo scenario.

A second group of persons concerned are of course intra-EU migrants who live in a Member State other than their child(ren).

As not all cross-border workers with children live together as a couple (e.g. single).

However, in order to determine the competent Member State also the socio-economic position of the partner should be taken into consideration. Moreover, some households will be entitled to a child-raising allowance of the exporting Member State even if this Member State is not primarily competent. All these remarks are not taken into account and implies a possible overestimation of the reference group.

Based on De Coninck, J. (2015), Reply to an ad hoc request for comparative analysis – Salary-related child-raising benefits, FreSsco.

Export of family benefits

Table 23 Estimated number of cross-border workers with children and their family members entitled to a child-raising allowance, impact of horizon option on the number of

persons entitled, 2013

Member State of Crossof which: Total (= status New option % change employment border couple with quo) (A+B) (individual

workers child aged right) (A) with child less than 15 aged less (B) than 15 (A)

BE 26 17 43 26 -39.3%

BG 0 0 0 0 -50.0% CZ 22 13 35 22 -36.2% DK 11 10 21 11 -47.5% DE 106 65 172 106 -38.1% EE 1 1 1 1 -43.7% IE 4 3 6 4 -43.4% EL 4 1 5 4 -25.6% ES 13 8 22 13 -38.5% FR 24 17 41 24 -40.8% HR 0 0 0 0 -45.3% IT 28 13 41 28 -32.4% CY 1 1 2 1 -40.1% LV 0 0 0 0 -50.0% LT 0 0 0 0 -20.0% LU 83 66 149 83 -44.1% HU 1 1 2 1 -39.5% MT 0 0 0 0 -50.0% NL 37 30 67 37 -44.5% AT 50 33 84 50 -39.8% PL 1 1 1 1 -35.4% PT 1 1 2 1 -42.4% RO 1 1 2 1 -50.0% SI 4 1 5 4 -16.7% SK 3 3 5 3 -47.8% FI 7 6 13 7 -44.2% SE 5 3 8 5 -41.3% UK 33 22 55 33 -39.8%

EU-28 469 316 785 469 -40.3% IS 0 0 0 0.0% NO 17 13 30 17 -42.8% CH 112 93 205 112 -45.3%

Source LFS

In addition, it is proposed by this option that no anti-overlapping rules would apply to salary-related child raising allowances meaning that they would be payable in full to the parent concerned under the applicable national legislation irrespective of whether the Member State concerned has primary or secondary competence. According to our information, the countries which have a child-raising allowance calculated by reference to salary or professional income are: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Croatia, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. No data collected within the framework of the Administrative Commission is available for the assessment of this ‘no anti-overlapping rule’. However, based on the data available from ESSPROS and MISSOC some figures on the impact could be provided, but taking several assumptions into consideration. By dividing parental leave spending (figures for 2012 – no distinction could be made among income-related parental leave benefits and flat-rate parental leave benefits) by an assumed reference group of children aged 0 to 3 years an average expenditure per child has been obtained. The same exercise was already reported in Table 4 with regard to the child benefit spending were we assumed a reference group aged 0 to 17 years. Under current rules a supplement will be paid by the secondarily competent Member State if the amount of the income-related child-raising allowance in this country is higher than the amount already paid by the primarily competent Member

Export of family benefits

State. However, under this new option the person concerned will be entitled to the full amount paid by the Member State of employment (= secondarily competent Member State). By confronting the average supplement paid per child (status quo) with the full amount to be paid under the new option the percentage change in expenditure per benefit being exported could be calculated for the secondarily competent Member State. 53 We first only selected the exporting Member states which have an incomerelated child raising allowance or a mixed allowance (Table 24a). Results are reported for the export of the child-raising allowance to all Member States of residence and to a more selective group of Member States of residence which have also an incomerelated or a mixed child-raising allowance. This option will lead to an average increase in expenditure per average exported benefit of 62% in all Member States that provide a child-raising benefit in case the average child-raising allowance from all Member States of residence is taken into account and even to an average increase of 81% if only the Member States of residence which have an income-related or a mixed childraising benefit are selected. 54 The same exercise has been repeated for a broader group of Member States which have an income-related child raising benefit, a flat-rate child raising benefit or a mixed benefit (Table 24b).

Table 24a Estimated impact of disapplying the anti-accumulation rules for income-related child-raising allowance, % change per benefit status quo compared to new option, selection: MSs with a salary-related child raising benefit or a mixed benefit

BG DK DE EE EL ES HR IT LV LT HU AT PT RO SI FI SE Tot al

All MSs of 16 n.a 50 16 14 18 86 n.a 93 55 58 n.a n.a 11 37 57 21 62 residence 1% . % 4% 1% 9% % . % % % . . 7% % % 0% %

Only MSs of 25 n.a 66 26 21 33 11 n.a 12 72 77 n.a n.a 16 46 77 43 81

residence which

have a salary 8% . % 5% 3% 1% 6% . 6% % % . . 3% % % 2% %

related or a mixed child raising benefit

Source ESSPROS and Eurostat

Table 24b Estimated impact of disapplying the anti-accumulation rules for income-related child-raising allowance, % change per benefit status quo compared to new option, selection: MSs with a salary-related child raising benefit, a flat rate child-raising benefit or a mixed benefit

B B C D D E E E F H IT L LT L H A P P R SI FI S N To E G Z K E E L S R R V U U T L T O E O tal

All MSs 15 16 44 n. 50 16 14 18 10 86 n. 93 55 32 58 n. 11 n. 11 37 57 21 10 58

of 8 1 % a. % 4 1 9 4 % a. % % % % a. 0 a. 7 % % 0 1 % % % % % % % % % % %

residenc e

Only MSs of 31 32 61 n. 71 32 26 38 17 13 n. 15 77 43 82 n. 18 n. 20 51 81 47 16 84 residence 3 1 % a. % 7 3 8 4 3 a. 0 % % % a. 6 a. 4 % % 4 6 % which have a % % % % % % % % % % % % salaryrelated child raising benefit, a flat-rate child-raising benefit or a mixed benefit

Source ESSPROS and Eurostat

Also, a case study has been conducted with reference to the German parental allowance (Elterngeld) to analyse the economic impact of this change for Germany as a secondary competent Member State exporting a parental allowance. The parental allowance will differ according to the net income of the recipient. The average net income (taking into consideration the average personal net income for a person living in a family of two working parents with two children (one at 100% and the other at

For instance in case a child-raising allowance is exported from Luxembourg (annual average amount per child: € 2,786) to Germany (annual average amount per child: 1,830) a supplement will be paid by Luxembourg of €955 under the current rules and an amount of € 2,786 under the new option.

The average increase per exporting Member State is based on the percentage change between the sum of supplements paid to an entitled person under the baseline scenario living in another EU-28/EFTA country or in one of the selected countries and the sum of the average amounts paid per entitled person under the new option (will always be the same amount).

Export of family benefits

67% of the average wage in the Member State of residence)) of the Member State of residence has been taken into account as well as the minimum and maximum ceiling

of the benefit. 55 According to this analysis the increase in Germany's expenditure per

benefit would range from 24% to Poland (increase from €383 to €476) to more than 250% in the case of Austria (increase from €405 to €1,428 paid to the family). Please notice, that only 14 Member States have a child-raising allowance calculated by reference to salary or professional income (see above).

Table 25 Estimated impact of disapplying the anti-accumulation rules for income-related child-raising allowance, % change status quo compared to new option

Germany: Parental allowance (Elterngeld): The parental allowance replaces the available monthly net income that the child-raising parent lost after the birth by a percentage rate which is dependent on the amount of the relevant income prior to confinement. For a net income between €1,000 and €1,200 prior to confinement, the percentage rate corresponds to 67%. The replacement rate decreases by 0.1% down to minimum of 65% for every €2 by which the net income exceeds €1,200. Therefore, the replacement rate for a net income of €1,240 or more is 65%. The replacement rate increases by 0.1% up to a maximum of 100% for every €2 by which the income is below €1,000. The parental allowance amounts to at least €300 and at most €1,800. In case of multiple births, the parental allowance is raised by €300 for every sibling from the multiple birth. Families with several children can receive a sibling’s bonus to the amount of 10% of the parental allowance they are entitled to, which is at least €75 per month (MISSOC).

MS of Child-raising Monthly Percentage Amount Status quo New %change residence allowance net (min: 65% and (min: € 300 and option

MS of earnings max: 100%) max: € 1,800) residence

(not exhaustive list) (MISSOC)

BE 771 2,138 65% 1,389 618 1,389 125%

BG 174 289 100% 300 126 300 138%

CZ 707 80% 563

DK 2,439 65% 1,586

DE 2,153 65% 1,399

EE 1,452 697 80% 558 0 558

IE 2,054 65% 1,335

EL 1,269 65% 825

ES 1,468 65% 954

FR 391 1,977 65% 1,285 895 1,285 44%

HR 347 652 82% 537 190 537 182%

IT 1,571 65% 1,021

LV 171 493 90% 445 274 445 62%

LT 425 94% 399

LU 485 3,149 65% 1,800 1,315 1,800 37%

HU 525 89% 466

MT 1,270 65% 826

NL 2,549 65% 1,657

AT 1023 2,197 65% 1,428 405 1,428 253%

PL 93 541 88% 476 383 476 24%

PT 957 67% 643

RO 303 100% 303

SI 937 68% 639

SK 203 592 85% 505 302 505 67%

FI 2,245 65% 1,460

SE 317 2,525 65% 1,641 1,324 1,641 24%

UK 2,339 65% 1,521

IS 1,981 65% 1,288

NO 3,495 65% 1,800

CH 4,456 65% 1,800

Source ESSPROS and Eurostat

Summary

Partial view on the budgetary impact on the exporting Member States

A total amount of exported child benefits of € 941.8 million was reported by 17 exporting Member States under the current rules (Table 26). The budgetary impact

The income earned in the exporting MS is a better indicator. However, no figures are available on the average income of cross-border workers (which is an important reference group). Also because this will be an individual right under the new option.

Export of family benefits

decreases under Sub-option 1a (-15.9%) and even further under Sub-option 1b (- 16.6%) if there is an adjustment of the amount of exported family benefits to the cost of living in the Member State of residence of the child(ren). The budgetary impact of these sub-options will mainly be determined by the distribution of the exported family benefits to the Member States of residence of the child(ren), the cost of living in these Member States and the differences with the exporting Member State. Sub-option 2b even corrects the expenditure for exporting Member States which show a low cost of living compared to the Member States of residence of the child(ren). Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Iceland and Norway already experience a decrease of expenditure under Suboption 1a. Under Sub-option 1b also for Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia a budgetary decrease is observed compared to the status quo scenario. A change of the current priority rules so that a supplement should be paid only by the exporting Member State even results to a decrease by 30.9% of expenditure compared to the status quo scenario (excluding some Member States which did not provide a breakdown per Member State of residence of the children). It reflects to a high extent the shift of the expenditure from the exporting Member State towards the Member State of residence of the child(ren). However, this shift is only partially realised as the level of the family benefit in the main exporting Member States is most of the time (much) higher than this of the main Member States of residence of the child(ren).

Table 26 Estimated budgetary impact of the options on the exporting Member States

Status quo Sub-option 1a Sub-option 1b Option 3**

Amount in € Amount in € % change Amount in € % change Amount in € % change

BE 83,566,755 77,558,696 -7.2% 77,281,208 -7.5% 37,566,519 -55.0%

CZ 951,041 947,065 -0.4% 945,934 -0.5% 71,712 -92.5%

DK 24,383,654 17,416,896 -28.6% 17,416,896 -28.6%

DE 105,759,924 71,251,668 -32.6% 69,861,782 -33.9% 169,428,065 60.2%

EE 573,075 787,109 37.3% 558,900 -2.5% 4,739 -99.2%

IE 11,576,760 7,078,949 -38.9% 7,076,728 -38.9% 6,517,702 -43.7%

ES 10,729 9,018 -15.9% 8,599 -19.9% 30,261 182.0%

LV 107,478 151,377 40.8% 107,478 0.0%

LU 476,900,069 413,610,450 -13.3% 413,438,010 -13.3% 281,947,287 -40.9%

HU 336,232 406,584 20.9% 335,278 -0.3% 0 -100.0%

NL 35,622,000 26,376,682 -26.0% 26,268,245 -26.3% 5,310,060 -85.1%

AT 147,322,836 137,684,893 -6.5% 137,684,893 -6.5%

PL 3,995,406 7,009,485 75.4% 3,995,406 0.0%

SK 1,544,876 2,079,134 34.6% 1,536,648 -0.5% 16,275 -98.9%

FI 19,359,180 15,057,470 -22.2% 14,680,971 -24.2% 8,134,181 -58.0%

UK 13,583,613

IS 116,339 63,209 -45.7% 63,209 -45.7% 51,308 -55.9%

NO 29,660,573 14,578,887 -50.8% 14,578,421 -50.8%

Total 917,403,273 774,650,678 -15.6% 768,421,711 -16.2% 522,661,722 -

30.9%***

*

No data available for BG, FR, HR, IT, CY, LT, MT, AT, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK, LI and CH. ** DK, PL, LV, AT and NO did not provide a breakdown by Member State of residence of the children *** Numeration: excl. UK; denominator: excl. DK, PL, LV, AT and NO. Source The authors’ calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

‘Complete’ view on the budgetary impact related to the coordination of family benefits

The total expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits is broader than only the expenditure related to the export of family benefits. The expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) should also be taken into consideration.

The expenditure of the Member State of residence under Option 3 could be compared with the expenditure of the Member State of residence under the status quo scenario. Therefore, more detailed information on the number of family benefits exported as the primarily and as secondarily competent Member State is required. However, only eight Member States (LU, DE, HU, DK, CZ, EE, NL and IS) provided such detailed information.

Under the status quo scenario the Member State of residence might pay a supplement as the secondarily competent Member State (reference group of 182,825 children reported by eight Member States, including LU) and the family benefit as the primarily competent Member State (reference group of 102,994 children reported by eight Member States, including LU) (Table 27). Only when the amount of the child benefit of the Member of residence of the child(ren) is higher than this of the exporting Member State will a supplement be paid by the Member State of residence of the child(ren) (Table 28). The expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) under the status quo scenario is estimated at €175.6 million (including only eight reporting Member States).

Export of family benefits

Table 27 Export of child benefits, number of family members involved, breakdown per primarily and secondarily competences of the exporting

Member State, 2013/2014

Exporting Member State LU DE HU SK CZ EE NL IS Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. BE 14,297 20,674 34,971 566 379 945 2 2 13 20 33 0 1 1 7,634 1,295 8,929 0 22,512 22,369 BG 1 6 7 1,793 569 2,362 0 2 0 2 0 0 157 0 157 0 1,953 575 CZ 474 68 542 5,008 567 5,575 1 1 2,129 275 2,404 0 0 181 74 255 3 3 7,796 984 DK 13 5 18 140 86 226 0 13 12 25 0 0 20 0 20 0 186 103 DE 12,669 13,465 26,134 0 1 1 2 30 254 284 2 2 12 12 6,528 692 7,220 0 19,230 14,424 EE 2 0 2 61 16 77 0 0 0 0 0 66 66 24 22 46 3 3 156 38 IE 10 3 13 49 25 74 0 37 31 68 0 3 3 47 1 48 0 143 63 ) EL 4 1 5 2,677 710 3,387 0 23 1 24 0 0 131 9 140 0 2,835 721 en ES 62 14 76 81 162 243 0 74 15 89 0 0 544 107 651 0 761 298 (r FR 37,619 24,524 62,143 16,290 263 16,553 5 5 34 22 56 0 1 1 445 39 484 0 54,393 24,849

hi HR 3 0 3 247 57 304 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 1 35 0 284 58 c IT 54 11 65 3,579 308 3,887 3 3 131 43 174 0 0 187 16 203 0 3,954 378 he CY 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 4 0 0 5 1 6 0 11 2 t

of LV 0 1 1 529 188 717 0 2 0 2 0 3 3 85 58 143 4 2 6 620 252

e LT 1 0 1 745 72 817 0 1 0 1 0 23 23 123 75 198 5 5 875 170 nc LU 0 55 2 57 0 7 26 33 0 0 23 3 26 0 85 31 de HU 21 25 46 1,608 2,334 3,942 0 96 26 122 0 0 190 49 239 0 1,915 2,434

si MT 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8 17 0 11 8

re NL 273 318 591 2,357 4,071 6,428 0 53 49 102 0 4 4 0 0 2,683 4,442 of AT 26 14 40 2,035 125 2,160 0 655 2,226 2,881 12 12 0 53 6 59 0 2,781 2,371 te

ta PL 1,013 31 1,044 33,564 13,709 47,273 0 42 13 55 91 9 100 1 1 10,544 6,637 17,181 76 5 81 45,330 20,405

S PT 170 966 1,136 1,379 472 1,851 0 0 1 1 0 0 303 47 350 0 1,852 1,486

r RO 38 51 89 3,303 2,424 5,727 21 20 41 7 6 13 0 0 162 38 200 0 3,531 2,539

be SI 1 1 2 87 89 176 5 5 12 5 17 0 0 14 1 15 0 119 96

em SK 105 178 283 1,010 1,157 2,167 1,062 617 1,679 0 0 0 3,876 606 4,482 0 414 197 611 3 13 16 6,470 2,768

M FI 3 6 9 64 41 105 0 7 7 14 0 347 347 14 1 15 0 88 402

SE 32 47 79 84 23 107 4 4 4 13 17 0 14 14 76 8 84 0 196 109 UK 65 9 74 888 155 1,043 3 3 125 117 242 0 11 11 399 19 418 0 1,477 314 IS 9 0 9 4 0 4 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 20 2 LI 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 NO 0 4 4 23 7 30 0 42 46 88 0 51 51 32 5 37 0 97 113 CH 102 11 113 216 91 307 0 8 81 89 0 0 130 7 137 0 456 190 Tot. 67,067 60,433 127,500 78,450 28,102 106,552 1,100 645 1,745 3,554 3,292 6,846 3,981 615 4,596 66 471 537 28,508 9,416 37,924 99 20 119 182,825 102,994 2

Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

Table 28 Estimated expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) under the status quo scenario, 2013/2014

Exporting Member State LU DE HU SK CZ EE NL IS Total

4, 4,109 2,3 2,389 75 75 196 196 21 212 4 401 940 940 1,03 1,03 10 89 2 0 2 2 9 1 1s 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Total 1s 2nd Total 1 2nd Tota 1st 2nd Total 1st 2nd Tota t comp. co comp. comp. comp. comp. comp. t comp. s com l comp. comp. com com l co mp co t p. p. p. m . m c p. p. o m p .

2,2 B 45,627, 45,627,5 836,453 836,453 4,264 0 4,264 26,143 44,140 70,283 0 2,20 2,20 9,672,2 2,858,065 12,530,343 0 0 59,071,0

07 E 518 18 7 7 78 68

180 B 1,080 1,080 102,420 102,420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103,500 G

212 C 14,416 14,416 120,204 120,204 137 0 137 34,064 58,300 92,364 0 0 0 15,688 15,688 0 0 242,809 Z

2,1 D 7,875 7,875 135,450 135,450 0 0 17,927 18,900 36,827 0 0 0 12,700 0 12,700 0 0 192,852 65 K 2,3 D 32,172, 32,172,6 0 0 2,314 2,389 4,704 65,801 606,89 672,69 4,3 4,355 28,6 28,6 9,461,3 1,653,433 11,114,813 0 0 43,997,8

89 E 647 47 6 6 55 72 72 81 87

401 E 0 0 6,416 6,416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12,936 8,822 -4,114 - 0 - 409

E 1,89 1,89

3 3

1,6 I 4,878 4,878 40,646 40,646 0 0 52,904 50,401 103,30 0 4,87 4,87 32,234 1,626 33,860 0 0 187,566

26 E 5 8 8

147 E 147 147 104,436 104,436 0 0 147 147 0 0 0 1,324 1,324 0 0 106,054 L

926 E 12,957 12,957 149,935 149,935 0 0 53,985 13,883 67,868 0 0 0 99,031 99,031 0 0 329,792 S

1,6 F 39,311, 39,311,9 421,589 421,589 7,640 0 7,640 47,838 35,266 83,104 0 1,60 1,60 295,035 62,517 357,552 0 0 40,183,4

) 03 R 972 72 3 3 60 en 575 H 0 0 32,756 32,756 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 575 575 0 0 33,331 (r R ld 11,008 0 0

hi 688 I

7,568 7,568 211,904 211,904 1,839 0 1,839 64,452 29,584 94,036 0 0 0 11,008 326,355 c T he 695 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,496 695 2,190 0 0 0 695 695 0 0 2,885 t Y

e 140 L 140 140 26,320 26,320 0 0 0 0 0 420 420 8,120 8,120 280 280 35,280 nc V de 229 L 0 0 16,488 16,488 0 0 0 0 0 5,26 5,26 17,175 17,175 0 0 38,930 si T 7 7

re 4,1 L 0 0 94, 8,218 102,799 0 0 27,391 106,83 134,22 0 0 0 72,887 12,327 85,214 0 0 322,238

of 09 U 581 4 5

te 75 H 1,875 1,875 175,050 175,050 0 0 1,950 1,950 0 0 0 3,675 3,675 0 0 182,550 ta

S U

r 614 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,911 4,911 0 0 4,911 be T

em 940 N 298,920 298,920 3,826,7 3,826,7 0 0 39,432 46,060 85,492 0 3,76 3,76 0 0 0 0 0 4,214,91

M L 40 40 0 0 2 2,3 A 32,284 32,284 288,250 288,250 0 0 1,382, 5,133, 6,515, 25, 25,12 0 0 72,398 13,836 86,234 0 0 6,947,10

06 T 050 156 206 12 8 2

733 P 22,726 22,726 10,049, 10,049, 0 0 22,558 9,530 32,088 47, 6,598 54,01 733 733 4,865,516 4,865,516 3,66 3,66 15,028,6

L 927 927 41 7 5 5 73

477 P 460,412 460,412 224,963 224,963 0 0 0 477 477 0 0 0 22,401 22,401 0 0 708,253 T

181 R 9,231 9,231 438,744 438,744 2,226 3,620 5,846 1,086 1,086 0 0 0 6,878 6,878 0 0 461,785 O

706 S 706 706 62,834 62,834 3,155 0 3,155 6,120 3,530 9,650 0 0 0 706 706 0 0 77,051 I

196 S 34,888 34,888 226,772 226,772 128,50 120,93 249,43 0 0 0 118,776 118,7 0 0 38,612 38,612 2,54 2,54 671,030

K 2 2 4 76 8 8

1,3 F 8,337 8,337 56,968 56,968 0 0 8,354 9,726 18,080 0 482, 482, 6,292 1,389 7,682 0 0 573,208 89 I 141 141 1,4 S 68,338 68,338 33,442 33,442 5,816 5,816 5,032 18,902 23,934 0 20,3 20,3 39,064 11,632 50,696 0 0 202,582

54 E 56 56

1,1 U 10,017 10,017 172,515 172,515 3,339 3,339 114,62 130,22 244,84 0 12,2 12,2 21,147 21,147 0 0 464,107

13 K 5 1 6 43 43

1,0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,672 2,064 3,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,736

Export of family benefits

Exporting Member State LU DE HU SK CZ EE NL IS Total

32 S

4,4 L 0 0 6,2 0 6,239 0 0 8,546 0 8,546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,785

69 I 39

1,8 N 7,208 7,208 12,614 12,614 0 0 67,452 82,892 150,34 0 91,9 91,9 27,584 9,010 36,594 0 0 298,662 02 O 4 02 02 1,4 C 16,456 16,456 100 136,136 236,956 0 0 10,400 121,17 131,57 0 0 0 72,280 10,472 82,752 0 0 467,740

96 H ,82 6 6

T 175,495, o 501 t

Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

This expenditure under the status quo scenario could be compared to the expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) under Option 3. If under this option only the eight reporting Member States of the status quo scenario are taken into consideration a total expenditure of € 391.4 million is obtained (compared to a total expenditure for all Member State of residence under this option of € 497.4 million). This implies that the expenditure of the Member States of residence of the child(ren) will increase by 123% under Option 3 compared to the status quo scenario (selecting only eight reporting Member States) (Table 29). Especially France, Poland, Belgium and Germany will experience a much higher expenditure in absolute terms.

Table 29 Estimated expenditure of the Member State of residence of the child(ren) under the status quo scenario and Option 3

Cost as MS of residence under Cost as MS of residence under % change status quo scenario Option 3

(only 8 exporting MSs) (only 8 exporting MSs) BE 59,071,068 99,052,367 67.7% BG 103,500 455,040 339.7% CZ 242,809 1,861,360 666.6% DK 192,852 455,175 136% DE 43,997,887 80,411,307 82.8% EE 409 77,794 18920.5% IE 187,566 334,922 78.6% EL 106,054 523,064 393.2% ES 329,792 980,132 197.2% FR 40,183,460 127,023,323 216.1% HR 33,331 196,536 489.7% IT 326,355 2,979,728 813.0% CY 2,885 9,029 213.0% LV 35,280 122,080 246.0% LT 38,930 239,305 514.7% LU 322,238 476,644 47.9% HU 182,550 326,175 78.7% MT 4,911 11,663 137.5% NL 4,214,912 6,697,500 58.9% AT 6,947,102 11,880,512 71.0% PL 15,028,673 48,189,652 220.7% PT 708,253 1,590,947 124.6% RO 461,785 1,098,127 137.8% SI 77,051 151,790 97.0% SK 671,030 1,786,344 166.2% FI 573,208 680,833 18.8% SE 202,582 443,470 118.9% UK 464,107 1,993,383 329.5% IS 3,736 22,704 507.7% LI 14,785 22,345 51.1% NO 298,662 378,420 26.7% CH 467,740 966,416 106.6% Total 175,495,501 391,438,089 123.0%

Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

By taking together both the expenditure as exporting Member State (see Table 26) and Member State of residence (see Table 29) the total expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits could be estimated. It is to be noted that the expenditure of the Member of residence is only based on the export of eight Member States in order to guarantee the comparability between the status quo scenario and Option 3. Although the total expenditure related to Option 3 without making this

selection is reported as well (see also Table 21). Belgium, Denmark, 23 Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, 56 Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, 23 Slovakia, Finland, Iceland and Norway 23 experience a lower budgetary cost compared to the status quo scenario.

DK, LV, AT, PL and NO: No figures are available as exporting Member State under Option 3. This implies that the total cost under Option 3 is underestimated.

Export of family benefits

This in contrast to the Czech Republic, Germany, 57 Spain 58 and Poland 23 (and probably also France taking into account the high number of exported family benefits to FR) 59 who will experience a higher budgetary cost.

Table 30 Total estimated expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits under the status quo scenario and Option 3

Status quo Option 3 % change (B-A)/A

Exporting MS of Total (A) Exporting MS of Total (B) Total all MSs MS residence MS residence

(only 8 (only 8 exporting MSs) exporting MSs)

BE 83,566,755 59,071,068 142,637,823 37,559,439 99,052,367 136,611,806 137,395,750 -4.2% BG 556,380 CZ 951,041 242,809 1,193,850 71,712 1,861,360 1,933,072 2,009,816 61.9% DK 24,383,654 192,852 24,576,506 n.a. 455,175 455,175 760,725 -98.1% DE 105,759,924 43,997,887 149,757,811 169,294,725 ** 80,411,307 249,706,033 253,705,347 66.7% EE 573,075 409 573,484 4,739 77,794 82,533 2,288,033 -85.6% IE 11,576,760 187,566 11,764,326 6,517,702 334,922 6,852,624 11,057,035 -41.8% EL 565,132 ES 10,729 329,792 *** 340,521 30,261 ** 980,132 *** 1,010,393 3,351,048 196.7% FR 179,308,374 HR 259,750 IT 3,764,048 CY 75,012 LV 107,478 35,280 142,758 n.a. 122,080 122,080 321,020 -14.5%* LT 737,151 LU 476,900,069 322,238 477,222,307 281,936,667 476,644 282,413,311 283,126,570 -40.8% HU 336,232 182,550 518,782 0 326,175 326,175 365,625 -37.1% MT 33,763 NL 35,622,000 4,214,912 39,836,912 5,310,060 6,697,500 12,007,560 18,525,520 -69.9% AT 147,322,836 6,947,102 154,269,938 n.a. 11,880,512 11,880,512 12,267,920 -92.3%* PL 3,995,406 15,028,673 19,024,079 n.a. 48,189,652 48,189,652 70,746,823 153.3%* PT 2,015,136 RO 1,345,554 SI 185,678 SK 1,544,876 671,030 2,215,906 16,275 1,786,344 1,802,619 2,091,131 -18.7% FI 19,359,180 573,208 19,932,388 8,134,181 680,833 8,815,014 8,860,866 -55.8% SE 2,692,808 UK 18,729,012 IS 116,339 3,736 120,075 51307.73334 22704 74,012 95,684 -38.4%

LI 22,345

NO 29,660,573 298,662 29,959,235 n.a. 378420 378,420 1,099,220 -98.7%* CH 1,680,008 Total 941,786,927 132,299,772 1,074,086,699 522,661,722 253,733,922 776,395,644 1,020,038,283 -27.7%*

*

No figures are available for DK, LV, PL, AT and NO as exporting Member State under Option 3. This implies that the total cost under Option 3 is underestimated! If we exclude those countries a total percentage change of -15.4% is obtained. ** The amount related to the export of family benefits to be paid by DE under this option is higher compared to the amount (€ 106 million) under the status quo scenario. This is not possible in practice and is the result of an overestimation of the supplement to be paid by DE (average annual amount per child of € 2,389 applied for DE – see Tables 16 and 17) or an underestimation of the budgetary cost related to the export of family benefits under the status quo scenario reported by the German Delegation (only an average annual amount exported per child of € 993 – see Table 16). This also applies to ES but involves only a small amount in absolute terms (from € 10,729 to € 30,261). *** The cost to be paid as Member State of residence is probably overestimated taking into account the selective income-tested child benefit scheme of Spain. Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

The impact of the export of child benefits on total expenditure is quite limited for most of the Member States under the current rules. On average 1.6% of total public

As already mentioned, the expenditure for DE as exporting Member State is higher under Option 3 compared to the status quo scenario. This is not possible in practice.

ES: The cost to be paid as the Member State of residence is probably overestimated taking into account the selective income-tested child benefit scheme of ES.

The total cost to be paid by FR under Option 3 was estimated at € 179 million (see Table 30). For instance, CLEISS has reported an amount related to the export of family benefits of € 9.5 million for 2013.

Export of family benefits

spending on child benefits of 16 reporting Member States could be related to the export of it. Luxembourg is an important ‘outlier’ with regard to the export of child benefits. Almost 50% of the amount of child benefits paid by Luxembourg was exported abroad. When total expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits is taken into account (amount paid as the exporting Member State but also as the Member State of residence of the child(ren)) the budgetary impact on total expenditure will be higher. A change to another option has on average no significant impact on the public spending on family benefits. Only Luxembourg will experience an important decrease in public spending if the Member State of residence of the child(ren) would become primarily competent. This in contrast to Poland (and probably also FR taking into account the high number of exported family benefits to FR), which will experience a much higher public spending if the Member State of residence of the child(ren) would become primarily competent.

Export of family benefits

Table 31 Budgetary impact as the share of total expenditure on family benefits, 2013/2014

Status quo Sub-option Sub-option Option 3 Status quo Option 3 Option 3 1a 1b (only broad def. broad def. broad def. export) (selective) (selective) (all MSs)

B 1.9% 1.7% 1.7%

E 0.8% 3.2% 3.0% 3.1% B

C 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Z 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% D 1.3% 0.9% 0.9%

K n.a. 1.3% 0.02% * 0.04% * D 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

E 0.5% ** 0.4% 0.7% ** 0.8% ** E 0.6% 0.8% 0.6%

E 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 2.3% I 0.6% 0.4% 0.4%

E 0.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6% E

L 0.7% E 0.001% 0.001% 0.001%

S 0.002% ** 0.03% 0.1% ** 0.3% ** F

L 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%

V n.a. 0.3% 0.3% * 0.7% * L

L 47.4% 41.1% 41.1%

U 28.0% 47.5% 28.1% 28.2% H 19.2% 23.3% 19.2%

U 0.0% 29.7% 18.7% 20.9% M

N 1.1% 0.8% 0.8%

L 0.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.6% A 3.4% 3.2% 3.2%

T n.a. 3.6% 0.3% * 0.3% * P 0.2% 0.4% 0.2%

L n.a. 1.1% 2.8% * 4.1% * P

F 1.3% 1.0% 1.0%

I 0.5% 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% S

I 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

S 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% L

N 1.7% 0.8% 0.8%

O n.a. 1.7% 0.02% * 0.06% * C

Export of family benefits

*

No figures are available for DK, LV, PL, AT and NO as exporting Member State under Option 3. This implies that the total cost under Option 3 is underestimated! ** DE and ES: this is probably an overestimation of the budgetary impact. Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Impact of bilateral flows on the budgetary impact of the exporting Member State and the Member State of residence of the children: 2 specific cases

The budgetary impact of the application of a reversed order of competence (Option 3) on the exporting Member State and on the Member State of residence of the child(ren) is visualised below for two main flows of exported family benefits, representing together almost a third of total reported expenditure on the export of family benefits.

1)

From Luxembourg to France

Luxembourg has exported 62,164 family benefits to children living in France representing an amount of € 250.7 million. 37,619 children living in France received a family benefit from Luxembourg as the primarily competent Member State representing a total amount of € 184.3 million and another group of 24,524 children living in France received a family benefit from Luxembourg as the secondarily competent Member State representing a total amount of € 66.5 million. The latter already received an estimated amount of € 39.3 million from France as the primarily competent Member State. No supplement should be paid by France as the Member State of residence given that the level of the family benefit in Luxembourg (average annual amount of € 4,109 per child) is higher compared to France (average annual amount of € 1,603 per child). Under Option 3 France as the Member State of residence of the children will be competent to pay a family benefit to the total group of 62,164 children. By taking into consideration an average annual amount of € 1,603 per child, France will pay an estimated total amount of € 99.6 million. Afterwards a supplement of € 190.5 million will be paid by Luxembourg in order to ensure that the child receives the same amount under this option as under the current rules. This implies that Luxembourg has to pay a lower but still significant amount under Option 3 despite the fact that it only has to pay a supplement. This is the result of a much higher family benefit paid by Luxembourg compared to France.

Export of family benefits

Figure 8 Estimated budgetary impact of the export of family benefits from Luxembourg to

France

*

The amount paid by LU under Option 3 is higher compared to the amount reported in Table 19 since total spending on the export of family benefits of both options should be equal to each other.

Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

2)

From Germany to Poland

Germany has exported 47,273 family benefits to children living in Poland

representing an amount of € 70.4 million. 33,564 children living in Poland received

a family benefit from Germany as the primarily competent Member State,

representing an estimated total amount of € 57.1 million, and another group of

13,709 children living in Poland received a family benefit from Germany as the

secondarily competent Member State representing a total estimated amount of €

13.3 million. The latter already received an estimated amount of € 10 million from

Poland as the primarily competent Member State. No supplement should be paid

by Poland as the Member State of residence given that the level of the family

benefit in Germany (average annual amount of € 2,389 per child) is higher

compared to Poland (average annual amount of € 733 per child). Under Option 3

Poland as the Member State of residence of the children will be competent to pay a

family benefit to the total group of 47,273 children. By taking into consideration an

average annual amount of € 733 per child, Poland will pay an estimated total

amount of € 34.7 million. Afterwards a supplement of € 45.8 million will be paid by

Germany in order to ensure that the child receives the same amount under this

option as under the current rules. This implies that Germany has to pay a lower

but still significant amount under Option 3 despite the fact that it only has to pay a

supplement. This is the result of a much higher family benefit paid by Germany

compared to Poland.

Export of family benefits

Figure 9 Estimated budgetary impact of the export of family benefits from Germany to Poland

*

The amount paid by DE under Option 3 is lower compared to the amount reported in Table 19 since total spending on the export of family benefits of both options should be equal to each other.

Source The authors’ own calculations based on the questionnaire on the export of family benefits

Export of family benefits

CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 8 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i on the coordination of social security systems covers the EU provisions on the coordination of family benefits. If family members live in a Member State other than where the insured person works and/or resides, family benefits could in some cases be exported to these family members. Since entitlement to family benefits might arise in more than one Member State (based on residence, employment or receipt of a pension) some priority rules are defined in order to determine the ‘primarily competent Member State’. In this respect, rights available on the basis of employment have first priority. However, when there is employment in two different Member States, it is the Member State of residence of the children that will become primarily competent for the payment of the family benefits. Also, a Member State might have to pay a supplement (corresponding to the difference between the two benefits) as the ‘secondarily competent Member State’ if the family benefit paid by the competent Member State is lower than the family benefit the entitled person would have received from the other Member State.

In the framework of an impact assessment of a revision of Regulation (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and 987/2009 by the end of 2015, the Commission requires a preparatory study on the economic impact of an amendment to the rules of the export of family benefits. The Commission proposed several alternative options, to be compared with the current situation, i.e. the ‘status quo’.

 Status quo;  Option 1 – Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards. o Option 1a - Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards (upwards and downwards). o Option 1b - Adjustment of the exported family benefit to the living standards (ceiling).  Option 2 – No export (discarded).  Option 3 – A reverse order of competence.  Horizontal Option - Different coordination rules for salary-related child-raising allowances.

Three different types of public spending on family benefits could be defined, in particular benefits in cash, benefits in kind and tax expenditure towards families. However, the analysis of the economic impact of the options has in particular focused on the characteristics of the child benefit schemes. These benefits vary in many Member States with the child’s age and/or with the number of children, and even eleven Member States have implemented a means-test. Public spending on child benefits varies markedly across the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States, but also across welfare state regimes. Especially the EU-15 Bismarck-oriented countries show a high level of public spending on child benefits. These differences in characteristics of the child benefits schemes, but also the distribution of means between benefits in cash or in kind and the tax system will have an impact on the national expenditure of child benefits and as a consequence on their export.

A questionnaire on the export of family benefits was launched within the Administrative Commission in order to obtain a view on the budgetary impact of the current rules, but also to use the reported figures for the calculation of the alternative options. 19 Member States were able to provide more detailed data on the export of

Export of family benefits

family benefits of which 17 Member States provided data on the amount of exported family benefits. It follows that the same caution is required when drawing general conclusions on the economic impact of the different options.

A total amount of exported child benefits of € 941.8 million was reported by 17 exporting Member States under the current rules. The impact of the export of child benefits on total expenditure is quite limited for most of the Member States under the current rules. On average 1.6% of total public spending on child benefits of 16 reporting Member States could be related to their export. Luxembourg is an important ‘outlier’ with regard to the export of child benefits. Almost 50% of the amount of child benefits paid by Luxembourg was exported abroad.

The budgetary impact decreases under Sub-option 1a (-15.9%) and even further under Sub-option 1b (-16.6%) if there is an adjustment of the amount of exported family benefits to the cost of living in the Member State of residence of the child(ren). The budgetary impact of these sub-options will mainly be determined by the breakdown of the family benefits per Member State of residence of the child(ren), the cost of living in these Member States and the differences with the exporting Member State. Sub-option 1b even corrects the expenditure for exporting Member States which show a low cost of living compared to the Member States of residence of the child(ren).

A change of the current priority rules so that only a supplement should be paid by the exporting Member State even results in a decrease by 30.9% of expenditure by the exporting Member States compared to the status quo scenario (excluding the cost to be paid as the Member State of residence). It reflects to a high extent a shift of the expenditure from the exporting Member State towards the Member State of residence of the child(ren). In that case, France, Poland, Belgium and Germany will experience a much higher expenditure as the Member State of residence of the child(ren) compared to the status quo scenario. However, this shift is only partially realised as the level of the family benefit in the main exporting Member States is most of the time (much) higher than the level of the main Member States of residence of the child(ren).

By taking together both the expenditure as exporting Member State and Member State of residence, the total expenditure related to the coordination of family benefits could be estimated. Luxembourg will experience an important decrease in public spending if the Member State of residence of the child(ren) were to become primarily competent. This in contrast to Poland (and probably also FR taking into account the high number of exported family benefits to FR), which will experience a much higher public spending if the Member State of residence of the child(ren) were to become primarily competent.

Export of family benefits

ANNEX 1 LIST OF FAMILY BENEFITS PER MEMBER STATE

Export of family benefits

Table A1.1 List of family benefits per Member State

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

Austria Universal Child-raising allowance No special No special allowance. Flat-rate Child-raising Child benefit YES Accommodation and housing scheme for all (Kinderbetreuungsgeld) allowance. allowance (Familienbeihilfe) YES allowances according to the residents The Income-related (Kinderbetreuungsgeld): Minimum Resources Acts of financed by Child-raising allowance YES the Länder.

employers' (einkommensabhängiges Tax credit for single parents contributions Kinderbetreuungsgeld) (Alleinerzieherabsetzbetrag): Child tax credit and taxes YES (Kinderabsetzbetrag) providing Child benefit Supplement to the flat-rate (Familienbeihilfe) Child-raising allowance (Beihilfe zum pauschalen Kinderbetreuungsgeld): Families with low income are granted a supplement

Belgium Compulsory Parental leave No special Birth grant (allocation de No special allowance. Supplementary No special allowance. When a child is put under the social insurance allowance. naissance/kraamgeld). allowance for children care of a private person

scheme financed through or at the expense of a

by a federal Adoption grant (prime public authority.

grant and d'adoption/adoptiepremie)

covering any Supplement called back-toperson

school grant.

considered as

active with Annual amounts for children

lump-sum with a supplement for single

benefits or parent families and a social

working as selfsupplement and who are

employed. disabled

Bulgaria A universal Part of the contribution No special Pregnant women whose No special allowance. Mothers of children YES (Министерски съвет). Targeted allowances for pupils

system financed funded scheme allowances. average monthly gross diagnosed before (Целеви помощи за ученици)

by the State providing flat-rate income per family member their 2nd birthday as

budget providing benefit for raising a is equal to or lower than a having more than Targeted allowance for free

flat-rate benefits young child certain level if they are not 50% permanent travel by rail and bus in the

to all (Обезщетение за entitled to maternity disability country for mothers of many

beneficiaries. отглеждане на малко benefit (обезщетение за children (Целева помощ за

дете) or for adoption of бременност и раждане) Monthly benefit for безплатно пътуване с

a child between 2 and 5 under the Social Insurance raising a child with железопътния и автобусния

years of age ( Code (Кодекс за социално permanent транспорт в страната за

Обезщетение при осигуряване) and are disabilities многодетни майки)

осиновяване на дете от permanent residents.

2 до 5 годишна The monthly benefit

възраст). for a child until

completion of

Also two nonsecondary education

contributory child with a permanent

benefits. disability

Croatia Tax-financed Providing a flat-rate No special New-born child assistance No special allowance. Children allowance No special allowance. Partial State subsidies for

scheme covering cash benefit payable allowance. (Doplatak za djecu) children staying in day-care

all residents who during parental leave. for disabled children centres (means tested).

satisfy a means

test and Benefit according to the

providing Income Tax Act (Zakon o

benefits which porezu na dohodak)

vary according

to income.

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

Cyprus Tax financed No special allowance. No special Maternity Grant (Βοήθημα Single parent benefit is No special allowance. No special allowance. No other allowances. scheme based allowance. Τοκετού) granted (Επίδομα Τέκνου).

on habitual residence, Special maternity grant to number of unmarried mothers (Ειδικό dependent βοήθημα τοκετού σε children, family άγαμες μητέρες) income and property assets.

Czech Tax financed Parental Allowance No special Entitlement to Birth Grant No special allowance. Disability of children No special benefit. Foster Care Benefits (Dávky Republic universal (Rodičovský příspěvek): allowance. (Porodné) is related to the is reflected in two pěstounské péče):

scheme covering Tax financed universal first liveborn child and is Foster Care Benefits all residents in system providing a flatonly granted to families (Dávky pěstounské * Foster Child Allowance the Czech rate benefit to a parent whose income does not péče): Foster Child (Příspěvek na úhradu potřeb Republic with who personally provides exceed 2.4 times the Allowance (Příspěvek dítěte), income-tested full-time proper care for family Living Minimum na úhradu potřeb benefits a small child. (Životní minimum). Birth dítěte) and Foster * Foster Parent Allowance depending on Grant is paid to: Parent Allowance (Odměna pěstouna), the age of the (Odměna pěstouna), children. see “Other * Fostering Grant (Příspěvek allowances”. při převzetí dítěte),

*

Motor Vehicle Grant (Příspěvek na nákup motorového vozidla),

*

Grant in Foster Care Termination (Příspěvek při ukončení pěstounské péče).

Denmark Tax financed No special allowance. Child care Amount per child per The general Child allowance Income replacement YES Special allowance for parents universal allowance: quarter until the children's (ordinært børnetilskud) is benefit for domiciliary still studying (børnetilskud til scheme covering Tax financed. 7th birthday, in case of supplemented (ekstra care of a disabled forældre under uddannelse) all residents Municipalities birth of more than one børnetilskud) child

providing can introduce child and in case of Supplementary child benefits such benefit adoption of more than one allowance (supplerende depending on for parents child (flerbørnstilskud). børnetilskud i visse skole- og the age of the taking care of praktikperioder) for parents child and the their own Allowance (single benefit) during internship and school income of the children in case of adoption of a term(statens family. instead of foreign child uddannelsesstøtte) putting them in a day care facility.

Estonia Tax financed Parental Benefit: No special Childbirth Allowance Single Parent's Child Disabled Child YES Conscript's and Alternative universal (vanemahüvitis) allowance. (sünnitoetus) Allowance (üksikvanema Allowance (puudega Civilian Servant’s Child

scheme with flat lapse toetus) lapse toetus) Allowance (ajateenija ja rate benefits Child Care Allowance asendusteenistuja lapse covering all (lapsehooldustasu) The Social Benefit toetus) residents. Rate (sotsiaaltoetuste Foster Care Allowance Supplementary Child määr) (eestkostel või perekonnas Care Allowance Study Allowance hooldamisel oleva lapse (täiendav (õppetoetus) toetus) lapsehooldustasu) Adoption Grant (lapsendamistoetus)

Finland Tax financed flat Parental allowance All children A maternity grant The Child Allowance Disability allowance Maintenance allowance for Means-tested housing rate benefit for (vanhempainraha) (aged 10 (äitiysavustus) (lapsilisä) is supplemented for persons under 16 children (elatustuki) allowances (asumistuki)

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

children resident months – 6 An adoption grant years of age (alle 16- available to families with low in Finland. years) have a (adoptiotuki) vuotiaan income. subjective vammaistuki) right to day care arranged by municipalities. Families who care for their children at home or arrange the care privately are entitled to cash benefits.

France Universal Infant Welcome Benefit Complement Birth or Adoption Grant of Active solidarity income Special education YES New School Year Allowance scheme financed (Prestation d'accueil du for Child Care the Infant Welcome Benefit (revenu de solidarité active, allowance for a (allocation de rentrée scolaire) by contributions jeune enfant, PAJE). Choice of the (Prime à la naissance ou à RSA) disabled child for children aged 6 – 18. from employers, Infant l'adoption de la Prestation (allocation d'éduca Family supplement

from the self Welcome d'accueil du jeune enfant, tion de l'enfant (complément familial) subject employed and Benefit PAJE) handicapé, Aeeh) for to means test from a portion of (Complément Basic Allowance of the persons with a 50% Housing allowance (allocation the Generalised de libre choix Infant Welcome Benefit or more handicap, up de logement) social de mode de (Allocation de base de la to the age of 20 contribution garde de la Prestation d'accueil du Possibility to opt for (contribution Prestation jeune enfant, PAJE) the disability sociale d'accueil du compensation généralisée, jeune enfant, allowance (prestation CSG). PAJE) de compensation du handicap, PCH)

Germany Tax-funded Parental allowance No special No special allowances No special The Advance Payment of The Parental allowance scheme with (Elterngeld) child care allowances. allowances. Maintenance Act (Elterngeld) is treated fixed amounts allowance (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz) separately from Child-raising for tax (Betreuungsgeld) leave (Elternzeit).

exemption of the parental income Grandparents are also entitled to the amount of to child-raising leave. certain needs of Parents are entitled to a child for all supplementary child allowance parents and for (Kinderzuschlag)under specific the promotion of conditions. family, in so far as child benefit is not used for tax exemption.

Greece Compulsory No special allowance. No special Childbirth benefit for The single parent receives Allowance for parent No special allowance. social insurance allowance. obstetrics costs (ΒΟΗΘΗΜΑ the Child benefit of disabled child * Benefit granted to mothers system financed ΤΟΚΕΤΟΥ ) (ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΑΚΑ for the support of unprotected by contributions ΕΠΙΔΟΜΑΤΑ) children who do not have a covering father. employees, and

providing * Single allowance child benefits support (ΕΝΙΑΙΟ ΕΠΙΔΟΜΑ depending on ΣΤΗΡΙΞΗΣ ΤΕΚΝΩΝ) the number of children. * Special benefit for families

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

Benefits are with at least three children granted once (ΕΙΔΙΚΟ ΕΠΊΔΟΜΑ every calendar ΤΡΊΤΕΚΝΩΝ ΚΑΙ year covering ΠΟΛΎΤΕΚΝΩΝ) the whole year.

Hungary Tax financed Child Home Care In-kind Pregnancy-Confinement Entitlement to higher Entitlement to higher Advance on maintenance Regular Child Protection universal Allowance benefit, local Benefit (Terhességiamounts of Family Allowance amounts of Family payments (Tartásdíj Allowance (Rendszeres scheme covering (Gyermekgondozási authority run gyermekágyi segély) (Családi pótlék) Allowance (Családi megelőlegezése) gyermekvédelmi kedvezmény) all residents. segély) crèches and Birth Grant (Anyasági pótlék)

kindergarden támogatás) Family tax allowance (Családi Child Raising Support (co-financed kedvezmény)

(Gyermeknevelési by the parent). támogatás)

Child Care Fee (Gyermekgondozási díj)

Iceland Flat-rate No child-raising No special Flat-rate adoption grant Single parent allowance Home care allowance YES A single flat-rate child pension benefits, based allowance. allowance. (ættleiðingarstyrkur) (mæðralaun) (umönnunargreiðslur) with respect to education

on residency, to Municipalities (barnalífeyrir vegna families with may subsidise skólanáms) children reduced the cost of day when income care for Means-tested housing exceeds a children in allowances (húsaleigubætur) certain level. private homes, e.g. in the case of single parents.

Ireland Tax financed flat No special allowance. Not applicable. No special allowance. One Parent Family Payment Domiciliary Care No special allowance. Family Income Supplements rate universal is available as a separate Allowance (FIS)

scheme covering and specific means-tested all resident scheme Guardian’s Payment (Nonchildren. The Contributory) rate of payment is dependent on the ranking of the child within the family.

Italy System financed Optional supplementary No special Increased family allowance if No specific allowance No special allowance. Social Card mainly by the parental leave (Congedo allowance, but lone parent with a child. for disabled children.

employers' parentale facoltativo) vouchers are Children of severely disabled contributions granted to persons (Erogazione and partly by help meeting integrativa per grandi invalidi) workers’ the additional contributions (as expenses of established in raising the employment children contract) covering the employees with benefits depending on the family income and on the number of family members.

Latvia Tax-financed Child Raising Allowance No special Childbirth Allowance No special allowance. Supplement to the No special allowance. Compensation for taking care

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

universal (Bērna kopšanas allowance. (Bērna piedzimšanas family State benefit of an adoptee scheme with pabalsts) pabalsts) for disabled child Compensation for adoption flat-rate benefits Parental benefit (Vecāku (Piemaksa pie Compensation for the and covering all pabalsts) ģimenes valsts execution of the guardian's permanent pabalsta par bērniu duties residents. invalīdu) Remuneration for the Disabled child raising fulfilment of foster family allowance (Bērna duties invalīda kopšanas Allowance to a foster family for pabalsts) a dependent child Allowance to a foster family for the purchase of clothing and soft furnishings

Liechtenstein Compulsory No child-raising No special Amount at the birth of one Additional monthly Single No special benefit. NO Compensation of differences public system allowance benefit. child, Parent Allowance

financed by Amount per child in the (Alleinerziehendenzulage) contributions for case of multiple births. persons resident or gainfully Birth allowances employed in (Geburtszulagen) are also Liechtenstein. paid in cases of adoption of a child under the age of 5.

Lithuania Tax financed Compulsory insurance No special Child Grant (Vienkartinė Payments for child Social assistance No special allowance. Benefit for a Child of a universal for employees financed allowance. išmoka vaikui) maintenance in pre-school pension (Šalpos Servisman in Mandatory scheme for all by contributions and institution may be reduced pensija) Primary Military Service residents with providing earningsby 50%. (Išmoka privalomosios benefits related pradinės karo tarnybos kario depending on Maternity/Paternity vaikui

family income, Benefit, age and number Motinystės/tėvystės Guardianship (Curatorship) of the children. pašalpa). Benefit (Globos (rūpybos) Child benefit is išmoka) paid to families raising children Settlement grant (Vienkartinė and to children išmoka įsikurti) deprived of parental care.

Luxembourg Universal tax Child-raising Allowance No special Birth Grant (allocation de No special benefit. Supplementary Any maintenance due to the Parental leave (congé financed (allocation d'éducation) allowance. naissance) allowance spouse, an ascendant or a parental)

scheme. Child’s descendant is paid on own right linked request and under certain New School Year Allowance to residence. conditions by the national (allocation de rentrée scolaire) The amount solidarity fund and A child bonus (boni pour varies depending recovered by it. enfant) on the family group and increases according to the age of the child.

Malta A universal No special allowance. No special Maternity Benefit Single Parents are treated as Disabled Child The law courts determine * A head of household who system financed allowance. (Beneficcju tal-Maternita’) a family in their own right Allowance (Allowance whether and how much cares for a child or a person by general and are entitled to Social ghal tfal b'Dizabilita'). maintenance should be whose parents are unknown or taxation Assistance (Ghajnuna paid. If claimant does not have abandoned him/her will providing an Socjali) as well as Child receive maintenance, the be entitled in respect of such a earnings-related Allowance (Allowance tatsocial security department child or person to the

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

allowance to all Tfal). pays the full rate to allowances as a distinct and Maltese citizens claimant. separate entitlement to that whose children applicable in respect of his/her reside in Malta. own children. * A benefit is payable to recognised institutions for the care of children and foster parents for the benefit of children without families or children in foster homes.

Norway Tax financed Compulsory social Monthly Cash Maternity/Adoption Grant * Child benefit for one more Transitional benefit Advance maintenance Means-tested housing support universal insurance scheme for Benefit for (engangsstønad ved child than the single parent (overgangsstønad) payment (bidragsforskott) (bostøtte)

scheme the active population Parents with fødsel/adopsjon) actually has. In addition an providing a flat(employees and self Small Children infant supplement rate benefit for employed) with Parental (kontantstøtte) (småbarnstillegg) is paid all children. Benefit (foreldrepenger) * Transitional benefit (overgangsstønad) . * Education benefit (utdanningsstønad)

*

Child Care Benefit (stønad til barnetilsyn) wsyn).

Poland Tax financed Tax financed universal No special Childbirth lump-sum as Supplement for raising a Medical Care Alimony Fund Benefit Child-minding Allowance universal scheme providing a flatallowance. supplement to Family child alone (dodatek z tytułu Allowance (Zasiłek (Świadczenie z funduszu (Zasiłek opiekuńczy)

scheme covering rate benefit as a Allowance (Dodatek z samotnego wychowywania pielęgnacyjny) alimentacyjnego) all residents with supplement to Family tytułu urodzenia dziecka) dziecka) Commencement of a School benefits Allowance. Training and Year supplement (Dodatek z depending on One-time childbirth grant Rehabilitation of tytułu rozpoczęcia roku the age of the (Jednorazowa zapomoga z Disabled Child szkolnego) children. tytułu urodzenia się supplement (dodatek dziecka) z tytułu kształcenia I Child Education out of the rehabilitacji dziecka Place of Residence supplement niepełnosprawnego) (Dodatek z tytułu podjecia przez dziecko nauki w szkole Special attendance poza miejscem zamieszkania) allowance (Specjalny zasiłek opiekuńczy) Large family supplement (Dodatek z tytułu wychowywania dziecka w rodzinie wielodzietnej)

Portugal Compulsory Extended parental No special No special allowance. Child benefit and related * Supplement to No special allowance. Funeral grant (subsídio de universal benefit (subsídio allowance. allowances and supplements Child Benefit for funeral)

protection parental alargado) are increased disabled children Additional payment (montante

system for all (bonificação, por adicional)

inhabitants deficiência, do

financed by subsídio familiar a Prenatal Child Benefit (abono

taxes, with crianças e jovens): de família pré-natal)

benefits * Monthly life

depending on annuity (subsídio Study grant (bolsa de

household mensal vitalício) estudos)

income, number * Extraordinary

and age of the solidarity supplement

children. (complemento

Individual right extraordinário de

of the child, solidariedade) i

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

related to * Solidarity residence. supplement for the elderly (complemento solidário para idosos)

Romania Social assistance Social assistance Social No birth and adoption Family Support Allowance State Allowance for No advance on maintenance Bonus for Insertion (stimulent scheme, scheme, universal, assistance grants. (alocatie pentru sustinerea Children with payments. de insertie)

universal, financed by the State scheme, familiei) Handicap (alocatie de financed by the Budget, providing both universal, stat pentru copii cu State Budget, cash and in-kind financed by handicap) providing both benefits, including Childthe State cash and in-kind Raising Indemnity Budget, Child-Raising Leave benefits, (indemnizatie pentru providing both (concediu pentru including State cresterea copilului). cash and incresterea copilului) Allowance for kind benefits, and Child-Raising Children including Indemnity (alocatie de stat Placement (indemnizatie pentru pentru copii) and Allowance cresterea copilului) Family Support (alocatie de Allowance plasament). (alocatie pentru sustinerea familiei).

Slovakia Tax financed Tax financed universal State subsidy Birth Grant (Príspevok pri No special allowance. Alimony Benefit (Náhradné Partial refund (State subsidy) universal scheme providing a flatfor narodení dieťaťa) výživné) . of bus/train fares to school or scheme covering rate benefit to all kindergartens. work and boarding costs for all residents with residents with child/ren. Tax Bonus Annual benefit for multiple school or work for those

dependant The State supports (Daňový birth (Príspevok na viac undergoing vocational training. child/ren. entitled persons in the bonus) súčasne narodených detí) ordinary (regular) care Child Care Substitute Child Care Support of children. Allowance Benefits (Príspevky na podporu (Príspevok na náhradnej starostlivosti o starostlivosť o dieťa) dieťa)

Slovenia Tax financed Compulsory parental Reduction in Layette (pomoč ob rojstvu When a child lives in a Special Child care Maintenance Replacement Parental Allowance (starševski universal protection insurance payment of otroka): single-parent family then Allowance (dodatek (nadomestilo preživnine) dodatek)

scheme with with earnings-related nursery school Child Benefit (otroški za nego otroka, ki income-tested benefits for the insured fees (znižanje dodatek) is increased by potrebuje posebno Large Family Allowance benefits person. Financed by plačila vrtca) 30%. nego in varstvo) (dodatek za veliko družino) depending contributions and taxes. among others on Partial Payments for income and Loss of Income ranking of the (delno plačilo za child in the izgubljeni dohodek) family.

Spain Tax financed Contributory benefit in No special Multiple birth grant for two No special allowance. YES No special allowance. No other allowances, but as a non-contributory kind: the first three allowance. or more children. T contributory benefit in kind, benefits for all years of parental leave the first year of leave to take residents with (Excedencia por cuidado care of other relatives

benefits de hijo) (Excedencia para el cuidado de depending on familiares) is considered as income, age and period of contribution. degree of disability.

Sweden Tax financed, Municipal Child care No special No special allowance in Care Allowance for Maintenance support Gender equality bonus compulsory and Allowance Act (lagen allowance. case of birth. Disabled Child (underhållsstöd) (jämställdhetsbonus):

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

universal (2008:307) om (vårdbidrag) scheme covering kommunalt Allowance in case of Housing allowance all resident vårdnadsbidrag) is adoption (bostadsbidrag) c parents and giving the municipalities children the right to introduce, providing a flatfinance and administer rate child municipal child care allowance allowances. (barnbidrag) and a large family supplement (flerbarnstillägg)

Switzerland Federal scheme: No special allowance. No special Federal scheme: No special allowance. Two cantons pay a All cantons have a system Federal scheme:

Scheme for allowance. No birth allowance. special allowance. for advancing support Household allowance agricultural Cantonal schemes: payments. (Haushaltungszulage/allocation workers and 9 cantons provide a birth de ménage) self-employed allowance farmers, (Geburtszulage/allocation financed by de naissance). 8 of these contributions 9 cantons pay a welcome and taxes. allowance (Adoptionszulage/allocation Cantonal d'accueil) for the child schemes: placed to be adopted. Schemes for employees and self-employed not involved in agriculture (financed by contributions) and for persons not engaged in paid employment with low income (financed by taxes).

The General Child No child-raising Under the No special benefit. No special benefit. Invalid youths aged No special benefit. No other allowances.

Netherlands Benefit Act allowances. Child care Act 18 or over are

(Algemene (Wet entitled to a benefit Kinderbijslagwet, Kinderopvang) on account of AKW) and Act on the State, incapacity for work Child-related parents and Compensation under Allowance (Wet employers the Regulations op het together pay governing kindgebonden the costs of Contributions towards budget, WKB): child care in the Upkeep of tax financed the case the Disabled Children universal child is cared living at Home scheme covering for outside the (Tegemoetkoming all residents. home during Onderhoudskosten working hours Thuiswonende of the parents. gehandicapte kinderen TOG).

United Child Benefit: No child-raising Help can be Sure Start Maternity Grant NO Disability Living Working Tax Credit (WTC)

Kingdom Tax financed allowance. given with Allowance (care/

Export of family benefits

Birth and adoption grants Allowance for single parents Special allowances Advance on maintenance Other allowances Child benefit Child-raising allowances Child care for children with payments

allowances disabilities

(nonchild care as mobility benefit) contributory) part of system for all Working Tax parents of Credit. children under

16 (under 20 in certain circumstances).

Child Tax Credit:

Tax financed, noncontributory, income-related system for all parents of children under

16 (under 20 in certain circumstances).

*

Summary of the more detailed MISSOC tables Source MISSOC
81

Export of family benefits

REFERENCES

Barslund, M. and Busse, M. (2014), Making the Most of EU Labour Mobility. Report of a CEPS Task Force in cooperation with the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Centre for European

Policy Studies, Brussels, 45 p.

Bradshaw, J. and Finch, N. (2010), ‘Chapter 32. Family Benefits and Services’, in F.G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger and C. Pierson (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 462-478.

Bundesministerium des Innern (BMI) & Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS)(2014), Rechtsfragen und Herausforderungen bei der Inanspruchnahme der sozialen Sicherungssysteme durch Angehörige der EU-Mitgliedstaaten’, Germany, 139.

Canetta, E., Fries-Tersch, E. and Mabilla, V. (2014), Annual report on statistics on intra-EU movers, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, 76 p.

European Commission (2015), ‘Employment and Social Development in Europe 2014. Chapter 4. Restoring Convergence between Member States in the EU and EMU’, DG

EMPL, p. 205-248.

European Commission (2014a), Migrant access to social security and healthcare: policies and practice. European Migration Network Study 2014, DG Home Affairs,

111 p.

European Commission (2014b), ‘Recent trends in the geographical mobility of workers in the EU – EU Employment and Social Situation – Quarterly Review – Supplement

June 2014’, DG EMPL, 36 p.

European Commission (2011), Mobility in Europe 2011 – Section III: Migration and cross-border commuting, p. 66-108.

Federaal agentschap voor de kinderbijslag (2014), Buiten het rijk opgevoede kinderen, Belgium, 39 p.

Gauthier, A.H. (1999), ‘Historical Trends in State Support for Families in Europe (post 1945)’, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 21, No 11/12, p. 937-965.

Holzmann, R. and Koettl, J. (2014), ‘Portability of Pension, Health, and Other Social Benefits: Facts, Concepts, and Issues’, CESifo Economic Studies, 39 p.

Levy, H., Matsaganis, M. and Sutherland, H. (2013), ‘Towards a European Union Child Basic Income? Within and between country effects’, International Journal of

Microsimulation, Vol. 6, No 1, p. 63-85.

Nerb, G;, Hitzelsberger, F., Woidich, A., Pommer, S., Hemmer, S. and Heczko, P. (2009), Scientific report on the Mobility of Cross-Border Workers within the EU-

27/EEA/EFTA Countries, MKW Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH and Empira Kft., on behalf of EC – DG EMPL, 86 p.

Pacolet, J. and De Wispelaere, F. (2015), Export of family benefits, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, 33 p.

Export of family benefits

Pacolet, J. and De Wispelaere, F. (2014), Posting of workers: Report on A1 portable documents issued in 2012 and 2013, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European

Commission, 40 p.

Sen, A. (1984), ‘The Living Standard’, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 36, p. 74-90.

Stávková, J., Zufan, P. and Birciaková, N. (2012), ‘Standard of Living in the European Union’, MPRA.

Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A. and Fittoussi, J.(2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, 291 p.

Tænketanken Europa (2014), ‘Sociale Ydelser og fri bevægelighed - fire bud på vejen frem. Notat’, Tænketanken Europa, Denmark. See also

http://english.thinkeuropa.dk/society/social-security-and-freedom-movement-four-proposals-road-ahead

Van Lancker, W. (2014), To whose benefit? An empirical and comparative investigation into the (un)intended consequences of family policy in the social investment state, University Press Antwerp, Antwerp, 266 p.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

ANNEX XIV: HIVA REPORT AGGREGATION – ECONOMIC IMPACT

ANNEX XIV

Aggregation of periods or

salaries for unemployment

benefits

Analysis of the economic impact of the options

Prof Dr Jozef Pacolet and Frederic De Wispelaere HIVA-KU Leuven

August 2015

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Directorate B — Employment and Social Legislation, Social Dialogue

Unit B.4 — Free Movement of Workers and Coordination of Social Security Schemes

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Aggregation of periods or

salaries for unemployment

benefits

Analysis of the economic impact of the options

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Network Statistics FMSSFE

Eftheia bvba. Network Statistics FMSSFE is coordinated by HIVA.

Authors:

Prof Dr Jozef Pacolet, Head of the ‘Welfare State’ research group, HIVA Research Institute for Work and

Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Frederic De Wispelaere, Senior research associate, HIVA Research Institute for Work and Society, University of Leuven (KU Leuven).

Peer reviewers:

Prof Dr József Hajdú, Head of the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged University.

Gabriella Berki, Professor Assistant at the Department of Labour Law and Social Security, Szeged University.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................... 6

List of Figures .................................................................................................. 8

Preface ........................................................................................................... 9

Introduction .................................................................................................. 11

1.

Characteristics ...................................................................................... 12

2.

Expenditure .......................................................................................... 15

3.

Reference group .................................................................................... 17

4.

The estimated economic impact of the current rules and the alternative options ......................................................................................................... 20

4.1. Data collection ...................................................................................... 20

4.2. Overview of the different options ............................................................. 21

Option 1 – Status quo ............................................................................... 21

Option 2 – The formalisation of the “one-day rule” ......................................... 21

Option 3 – A threshold for a minimum period for aggregation .......................... 21

Option 4 – A change of the calculation method .............................................. 24

4.3. Estimated economic impact of the different options .................................... 27

Options 1 and 2 – The current rules ............................................................. 27

Option 3 – A threshold for a minimum period for aggregation .......................... 31

Option 4 – A change of the calculation method: salary earned in the Member State

of origin is also taken into account .............................................................. 42

Summary ................................................................................................ 50

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 52

References .................................................................................................... 55 Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Types of intra-EU labour mobility, 2012-2013 10

Table 2 Unemployment benefits – Earnings taken as reference, 2014 14

Table 3 Unemployment benefits – Determination of the duration of the benefits, 2014 14

Table 4 Expenditure unemployment benefits (Full unemployment benefits),

2012 16

Table 5 Migration flows of EU-27 and EFTA movers of working age (15-64), by citizenship, 2012 18

Table 6 Number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, 2013 21

Table 7 Unemployment assistance, EU-28/EFTA, 2014 23

Table 8 Guaranteed minimum resources, cash benefits, 2014 24

Table 9 Unemployment benefit, impact of the earnings on the level of the UB,

2014 27

Table 10 Estimate of the annual budgetary impact under the current rules

(options 1 and 2) 30

Table 11 Estimate of the annual budgetary impact under sub-option 3a 32

Table 12 Annual cost for the previous Member State responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed one month of insurance,

employment or self-employment, average duration of unemployment, three months entitled to an unemployment benefit and maximum duration entitled to an unemployment benefit 35

Table 13 Total cost under sub-option 3a1 36

Table 14 Estimate of the budgetary annual impact under sub-option 3b 38

Table 15 Annual cost for the previous Member State responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed three months of insurance,

employment or self-employment, average duration of unemployment, three months entitled to an unemployment benefit and maximum duration entitled to an unemployment benefit 40

Table 16 Total cost under sub-option 3b1 42 Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 17 Average earnings also taking into account the salaries earned in the

Member State of origin compared to the current situation, threshold of one month 44

Table 18 Average earnings taking into account also the salaries earned in the

Member State of origin compared to the current situation, threshold of three months 45

Table 19 Estimate of the budgetary annual impact under sub-option 4a 47

Table 20 Estimate of public spending for cases less than 30 days under the baseline scenario and under sub-option 4a 47

Table 21 Estimate of the budgetary annual impact under sub-option 4b 49

Table 22 Estimate of public spending for cases less than three months under the baseline scenario and under sub-option 4b 49

Table 23 A comparison of options between Member States, % change compared to the baseline scenario 50

Table 24 A comparison of options between Member States, estimated lowest and highest budgetary impact 51 Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Determination of the reference group and the budgetary impact 12

Figure 2 Unemployment benefits – Qualifying period, 2014 13

Figure 3 Minimum and maximum duration of the unemployment benefit, 2014 15

Figure 4 Full unemployment benefits – expenditure, in € per unemployed person, 2012 16

Figure 5 EU-28/EFTA movers and nationals, by labour market status, 2013 19

Figure 6 Annual gross earnings, single person without children, 67% of average wage, 2013 25 Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

PREFACE

In the framework of an impact assessment of a revision of Regulation (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and 987/2009 by the end of 2015 the Commission requires a preparatory study on the economic impact of an amendment of the aggregation rules for unemployment. The Commission proposed several alternative options, to be compared with a first option representing the current situation, i.e. the ‘status quo’. 60

 Option 1 – Status quo: “maintaining the wording of Article 61”.  Option 2 – The formalisation of the “one-day rule”.  Option 3 – The introduction of a minimum period for aggregating periods of insurance, employment or self-employment; o Sub-option 3a: one month of insurance, employment or selfemployment needs to be completed before aggregation can be applied.  Sub-option 3a1: Previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed one month of insurance, employment or self-employment. o Sub-option 3b: three months of insurance, employment or selfemployment need to be completed before aggregation can be applied.  Sub-option 3b1: Previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed three months of insurance, employment or self-employment.  Option 4 – A change of the calculation method of the unemployment benefit. o Sub-option 4a: the salary earned in the previous Member State is also taken into account for the calculation of the unemployment benefit by the competent Member State, if less than one month of insurance, employment or self-employment is completed. o Sub-option 4b: the salary earned in the previous Member State is also taken into account for the calculation of the unemployment benefit by the competent Member State, if less than three months of insurance, employment or self-employment is completed.

Informing the debate with reliable and recent information is essential. Information could be collected in several ways to gain insight in the current situation. This information should also be useful in order to calculate the different options. Over the past few years, the collection of national administrative data moved ahead as several questionnaires were launched within the framework of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems. In 2015, among others, a questionnaire was launched on the aggregation of unemployment benefits. These data provide already a first overview of the current situation (see Pacolet and De

Wispelaere, 2015). Nonetheless, data collected outside the framework of the Administrative Commission is also highly relevant. These data available at EU level or at national level are especially useful when they are combined or confronted with administrative data of the questionnaire.

Some data sources, interesting for different reasons, which can be extracted at EU level:

 provide information on national social security systems (MISSOC, OECD);

In recent years, several proposals of changes to the current rules (see, for instance, Barslund and Busse, 2014; BMI and BMAS, 2014; Tænketanken Europa, 2014) or for a ‘harmonization’ of the social security schemes (see, for instance, Dullien, 2014) emerged.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

 provide information on intra-mobility (LFS, Eurostat migration statistics, national reports);

 compare total national expenditure with the specific cross-border expenditure (OECD, ESSPROS, Ageing Report 2012 or 2015).

Intra-EU labour mobility has different faces (Table 1): ‘permanent’ stay in another EU Member State as a result of migration; cross-border commuting and ‘temporary’ stay through the posting of workers. A first group are EU migrants of working age who moved to an EU Member State other than their EU Member State of birth or of their citizenship. In 2013, the ‘stock’ of citizens of working age (15 to 64 years) from an EU-28 Member State/EFTA country who resided in another EU-28 Member State was around 3.1% of the total population residing in the EU-28 Member States (Cannetta et al., 2014). In 2013, some 7 million EU citizens worked and lived in an EU Member State other than their own (equal to 3.3% of total employment in the EU) (European Commission, 2014a). However, in order to assess the current aggregation rules a more detailed view on the yearly flow of intra-EU migrants is needed. In 2012, some 1.8 million EU/EFTA citizens of working age migrated to another EU-28 Member State or EFTA country, of which some 700,000 EU-28/EFTA citizens returned to their Member State of citizenship. In addition, in 2013 some 1.3 million EU citizens were employed in an EU Member State other than their EU Member State of residence (i.e.

’cross-border workers’), representing 0.6% of total employment in the EU. 61 Some

65% (about 814 thousand) cross-border workers were employed in a neighbouring Member State (i.e. ‘frontier workers’) 62 . Finally, in 2013 some 1.34 million ‘Portable Documents A1’ 63 were issued to posted workers residing in an EU-28 Member State/EFTA country (Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2014). The reference group to be studied within the context of this report are the new intra-EU migrants of working age.

Table 1 Types of intra-EU labour mobility, 2012-2013

Type Flow/Stock Number % Year

Total stock EU/EFTA migrants Stock 3.1% of total EU-28 2013 of working age * population of working age

Flow of EU/EFTA migrants of Flow 1.8 million 0.5% of total EU-28/EFTA 2012 working age

*

population of working age

Of which ‘return migration’ Flow 714,000 0.2% of total EU-28/EFTA 2012

** population of working age

EU migrants working and Stock 7 million 3.3% of total EU 2013 living in another MS employment

Cross-border workers Stock 1.3 million 0.6% of total EU 2013 in EU-28 employment

Of which ‘frontier workers’ Stock 814,000 2013

Posted workers in Flow 1.34 ± 0.6% of total EU/EFTA 2013

EU28/EFTA *** million employment

*

By citizenship of the migrant. ** We cannot know if someone has ever previously lived in the country of citizenship. *** Number of forms issued. Source Eurostat data on migration, Cannetta et al., 2014; Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2014.

61 Based on Labour Force Survey (LFS) data, an estimation of the number of cross-border workers can be

made (based on the question ‘What is the name and address of the local unit of the enterprise where you work?’ and variables ‘COUNTRYW’ (country of place of work) and ‘COUNTRY’ (country of residence) in the database). However, some interpretation problems appear. While legally a distinction should be made between posted workers and cross-border workers, this distinction is not made by this question in the LFS. For that reason we think that the LFS question covers both cross-border workers (within the rules of free movement of workers) and posted workers (within the rules of free movement of services). Ideally, the LFS should make this distinction to avoid possible interpretation problems. In the further analysis we considered all workers who work in a country other than the country of residence as cross-border workers.

This definition of a frontier worker differs from the definition used in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Portable Document A1 is a formal statement on the applicable social security legislation and proves that the posted worker pays social security contributions in another Member State.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

INTRODUCTION

The unemployment chapter of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i 64 provides for specific coordination rules for the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or selfemployment in case of unemployment. Aggregation will be applied to those unemployed recent migrant workers who have completed their most recent periods of insurance, employment or self-employment in the Member State where the benefit is claimed. In some cases the period of insurance, employment or self-employment is insufficient to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. In that case additional periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed by the person in a Member State other than the competent State are required (by the use of a Portable Document U1 or a Structured Electronic Document U002). 65 Portable Document (PD) U1 or the corresponding Structured Electronic Document (SED) U002 certify periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed by a worker in another Member State, which are to be taken into account for the award of unemployment benefits. PD U1 is issued to the worker, on his or her request, by the institution of the Member State where the person completed the periods of insurance, employment or selfemployment. SED U002 is issued at the request of the competent institution. It should be noted that a migrant worker becomes subject to the legislation of a Member State as soon as he or she starts to work there. Hence, the aggregation rules become fully applicable as from that moment.

Box 1 – Scope of the aggregation rules

The scope of the aggregation rules covered by PD U1 or SED U002 includes unemployed recent migrant workers, unemployed frontier workers and cross-border workers, other than frontier workers. However, the latter two groups fall outside the scope of this study.

-

Frontier workers (i.e. people who work in a Member State other than the Member State of residence, and return home daily or at least once a week) who become wholly unemployed must apply for unemployment benefits in their Member State of residence.

-

Cross-border workers, other than frontier workers (i.e. people who work in a Member State other than the Member State of residence, and do NOT return home daily or at least once a week), may apply for unemployment benefits and register with the employment service in either the Member State of last activity or the Member State of residence.

There is also a reimbursement mechanism between the Member State of last activity and the Member State of residence where unemployment benefits are claimed. The Member State of last activity only reimburses the State of residence the first three months of the unemployment benefits paid by the latter. This is extended to five months if the person has been insured in the Member State of last activity for at least 12 months in the preceding 24 months.

Chapter 6 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i, Article 61-65.

Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

The group of unemployed frontier workers and other cross-border workers involved and the budgetary consequences on public unemployment spending may even be larger compared to the number of unemployed recent migrant workers and the corresponding expenditure.

By quantifying the number of new intra-EU movers who became unemployed after only a short period of employment and the budgetary consequences, an impact assessment of the current rules but also of the several options can be made (Figure 1). Thus, more information on the number of new EU/EFTA movers; the number of new EU/EFTA movers who became unemployed; the period of insurance, employment or self-employment fulfilled in the Member State of last activity; the qualifying period; the average level of the unemployment benefit and the average duration of unemployment will be required.

Figure 1 Determination of the reference group and the budgetary impact

Source The authors’ own figure

1.

CHARACTERISTICS

The analysis of MISSOC (2014) creates the opportunity to obtain an overview of the different dimensions of the national unemployment schemes and in particular of the qualified period, the waiting period, the level of the unemployment benefit, the duration of the unemployment benefit etc. A comparable exercise was recently provided by Esser et al (2013), commissioned by DG EMPL, based on data from the Social Policy Indicator Database (SPIN). 66

The entitlement to unemployment benefits is based upon the completion of periods of insurance, employment or self-employment. The qualifying period varies across Member States, from at least four months in France to 24 months in Slovakia (Figure 2). Nevertheless, many Member States apply a qualifying period of some 12 months

See also EC, 2014b. The report of the European Migration Network maps national rules on social security by using the MISSOC tables.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

(BE, CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, IT, HU, MT, AT, PL, PT, RO, LI and CH). However, it should be noted that there are large differences in the time in which this period must be completed. It will make the accomplishment of the acquired period more severe or less severe. Those national provisions will influence the number of PDs U1 required and the period of insurance, employment or self-employment to be completed by a worker in a Member State other than the competent State in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. This report will provide more information on the links between those elements.

Figure 2 Unemployment benefits – Qualifying period, 2014

Source MISSOC, 2014

In almost all Member States (excluding IE, MT, PL and UK) earnings received before unemployment will be taken into account as reference basis for the calculation of the unemployment benefit (Table 2). However, the applied calculation method varies, from taking into account the last salary earned (BE, NL and LI) to the average earnings of several months (from three months in HR, CZ, DK and LU to 36 months in LT).

These national rules do not apply to earnings acquired in another Member State. Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i has defined the calculation method of the unemployment benefit in case of aggregation of periods. The calculation method should only take into account the salary or professional income received by the person concerned in respect of the last activity as an employed or self-employed person. This implies that the unemployment benefit calculated on the basis of the current EU provisions might differ from the unemployment benefit if national rules would be applied (most of the Member States calculate the unemployment benefit on the basis of an average amount of earnings received during several months). 67

This calculation method of the unemployment benefit has also been changed compared to ‘old’ Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 i. The second part of Article 68 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 i stated that “if the person concerned had been in his last employment in that territory for less than four weeks, the benefits shall be calculated

Barslund and Busse (2014, p. 21) concluded that any revision (in this case the inclusion of actual earnings during the relevant period) should also apply to workers moving from higher to lower salary countries.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

on the basis of the normal wage or salary corresponding, in the place where the unemployment person is residing or staying, to an equivalent or similar employment to his/her last employment in the territory of another Member State”.

Table 2 Unemployment benefits – Earnings taken as reference, 2014

Not based on Variation by level of Last salary earned Average earnin earnings earnings

3 6 8 9

IE; MT; PL; UK EL BE; NL; LI HR; CZ; IS; ES; CH SI EE DK; LU

Source MISSOC, 2014

Another dimension which will influence the budgetary cost is the duration of the unemployment benefits (Table 3). 68 The applied method in order to determine the maximum entitlement period varies across Member States. In many Member States the period of insurance/employment/contribution also determines the duration of the payment while in other Member States a fixed duration of entitlement has been determined. Only Belgium has an unlimited benefit duration .

Table 3 Unemployment benefits – Determination of the duration of the benefits, 2014

No Fixed Unemployment Insurance Employment Insurance Contribution Age limit number rate period (contribution) duration and duration and

period age age BE CY; DK; FI; PL BG; EE; HR; EL; RO; ES; AT; DE; LI; SI PT CZ;

IS; LV; MT; FR; HU; IE; CH; NL IT LU; NO; SK; LT SE; UK

Source MISSOC, 2014

Table 4 provides information on the minimum and maximum duration of the unemployment benefit. The entitlement to an unemployment insurance benefit will be limited to a number of weeks or months (except for BE) and varies markedly across but also within Member States.

Based on LFS data we calculated in previous research the average duration of unemployment (average duration of 15 months). However, this average duration is measured at a certain moment which implies a possible underestimation of the duration of the unemployment (e.g. the person may still remain unemployed).

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Figure 3 Minimum and maximum duration of the unemployment benefit, 2014

*

Belgium: unlimited * Note that for Slovenia the minimum duration has changed due to a new category being introduced so that coverage of least entitled actually increased. Source EC, 2015 (chart 76) based on MISSOC 2014

2.

EXPENDITURE

In 2012, the average EU public spending on unemployment benefits amounted to 1.0% of GDP and varied from 0.1% of GDP in Romania to 2.3% of GDP in Ireland (Table 4). Total expenditure could be divided by the total number of unemployed persons who became unemployed during the reference year. 69 The average annual spending per unemployment varies markedly across the EU Member States from a high amount per unemployed person in the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway to a very low one in Romania, Lithuania and Poland (see also Figure 4). Differences in terms of expenditure across the EU-15 Member States and the EU-13 Member States could be observed as well. These amounts will be important for the calculation of the financial impact of the several options.

The eligibility criteria and the coverage of the national unemployment schemes (discussed above and described more in detail by the MISSOC tables) will influence to a high extent the public unemployment spending. 70 Moreover, the access to guaranteed minimum resources (i.e. social assistance) 71 and the transition to it when there is no longer an entitlement to an unemployment benefit could result in a shift from contribution-financed public unemployment spending towards tax-financed public spending on social assistance.

Note that only data is available on the number of unemployed persons at a certain time or on the average number of unemployed persons over a certain time and not on the total number of unemployed persons who were or became unemployed during the year. This implies also an overestimation of the public spending per unemployed person reported in Table 5 (based on the annual average of 2012).

See also Darvas and Wolff (2014).

These benefits are not part of the branches covered by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 4 Expenditure unemployment benefits (Full unemployment benefits), 2012

Member In million € In percentage In € per In € per In purchasing State of GDP unemployed inhabitant ** power standard

person per inhabitant BE 5,577 1.5 15,113 429 444

BG 181 0.5 442 18 57 CZ 341 0.2 929 24 48

DK 2,696 1.1 12,310 413 332 DE 21,363 0.8 9,606 241 264

EE 37 0.2 540 20 39 IE 3,792 2.3 11,999 828 689

EL 1,279 0.7 1,071 95 130 ES 24,146 2.3 4,155 440 547

FR 31,121 1.5 10,889 425 435 HR 180 0.4 607 34 64

IT 9,929 0.6 3,618 144 163 CY 124 0.7 2,394 121 162

LV 59 0.3 378 19 44 LT 68 0.2 345 16 39

LU 275 0.6 21,189 449 380 HU 208 0.2 439 18 38

MT 23 0.3 2,115 48 74 NL 10,183 1.7 21,712 547 546

AT 2,297 0.7 12,151 235 247 PL 640 0.2 366 14 31

PT 2,482 1.5 2,969 211 283 RO 183 0.1 291 8 19

SI 199 0.6 2,214 82 118 SK 176 0.2 465 21 50

FI 3,189 1.7 15,408 499 480 SE 1,704 0.4 4,227 149 132

UK 6,646 0.3 2,623 102 89 EU-28 129,097 1.0 5,111 227 256

IS 130 1.2 11,810 501 366 NO 1,367 0.4 16,087 223 163

CH 3,266 0.7 15,157 302 246 * Annual average number of unemployed persons

** At constant 2005 prices Source ESSPROS [spr_exp_fun], [une_nb_a] and [lfsa_ugan] (only for CH)

Figure 4 Full unemployment benefits – expenditure, in € per unemployed person, 2012

Source ESSPROS [spr_exp_fun] and [une_nb_a]

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

3.

REFERENCE GROUP

The Annual report on labour mobility (Cannetta, Fries-Tersch and Mabilia, 2014), commissioned by DG EMPL, provides information on the stock and flows of EU citizens residing and/or working in another EU Member State/EFTA country. In 2013, the share of citizens of working age (15 to 64 years) from an EU-28 Member State/EFTA country who resided in another EU-28 Member State was around 3.1% of the total population of working age residing in the EU-28 Member States. However, in order to assess the impact of the aggregation rules a more detailed view on the inflow of EU migrants is required. The labour status during the first year of residence of this group of recent movers and their previous labour status in the Member State of origin will determine if periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed in a Member State other than the competent Member State are taken into account by the unemployment scheme of the competent Member State.

Based on the ‘Migration and migrant population statistics’ published by Eurostat more detailed information could be obtained on the annual flow of immigrants (Table 5). In 2012, some 1.8 million EU-28/EFTA citizens of working age (between 15 and 64) migrated to another EU Member State/EFTA country. Some 700 thousand or 40% of the EU-28/EFTA movers have, however, the same nationality as their new Member

State of residence (so-called ‘return migration’) 72 . This is especially observed for

Romania, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia (higher than 90% of the ‘new’ immigrants). These figures on return migration are also discussed in European Commission, 2014a. 73 The flow of intra-EU movers of working age represents some 0.5% of the total EU population (this percentage is equal to 0.3% of the EU population when movers with the same citizenship as their new Member State are excluded) (Table 5). This percentage varies across Member States, from 3.8% of the population in Luxembourg and 1.8% in Switzerland, to only 0.1% in Portugal and Estonia. This annual flow of intra-EU movers is the reference group which should be studied. Some of them will become unemployed after a ‘short’ period of employment and might need to prove insured periods of another Member State in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit.

However, based on these data we cannot know if someone has ever previously lived in the country of citizenship, although he or she has the same nationality.

However, in this report of the EC (2014a) also third-country nationals are taken into account to calculate the share of ‘return migration’ in total immigration.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 5 Migration flows of EU-27 and EFTA movers of working age (15-64), by citizenship,

2012

Member State EU-27 EFTA Total Citizenship of % citizenship Population % of total % of total (MS of citizenship citizenship reporting MS of reporting population population immigration) MS (excl.

citizenship of reporting MS)

BE 65,073 330 65,403 12,779 19.5% 7,283,976 0.9% 0.7% BG 7,435 33 7,468 3,767 50.4% 4,966,189 0.2% 0.1%

CZ 16,807 47 16,854 6,082 36.1% 7,262,768 0.2% 0.1% DK 32,414 1,851 34,265 14,412 42.1% 3,625,974 0.9% 0.5%

DE 325,216 2,102 327,318 63,291 19.3% 54,131,105 0.6% 0.5% EE 1,185 2 1,187 1,131 95.3% 884,990 0.1% 0.0%

IE 32,352 247 32,599 13,955 42.8% 3,048,552 1.1% 0.6% EL 50,511 196 50,707 31,258 61.6% 7,302,140 0.7% 0.3%

ES 100,800 1,605 102,405 20,970 20.5% 31,613,238 0.3% 0.3% FR 157,355 3,179 160,534 85,800 53.4% 41,976,279 0.4% 0.2%

IT 108,927 349 109,276 19,236 17.6% 38,698,168 0.3% 0.2% CY 10,591 0 10,591 1,203 11.4% 609,334 1.7% 1.5%

LV 8,720 18 8,738 8,235 94.2% 1,373,105 0.6% 0.0% LT 16,293 17 16,310 15,607 95.7% 2,016,247 0.8% 0.0%

LU 13,484 84 13,568 733 5.4% 361,617 3.8% 3.5% HU 20,694 217 20,911 12,081 57.8% 6,815,721 0.3% 0.1%

MT 3,424 0 3,424 1,369 40.0% 287,233 1.2% 0.7% NL 72,298 501 72,799 26,469 36.4% 11,117,321 0.7% 0.4%

AT 50,970 486 51,456 6,305 12.3% 5,687,630 0.9% 0.8% PL 132,639 198 132,837 112,419 84.6% 27,394,455 0.5% 0.1%

PT 9,105 4 9,109 8,030 88.2% 6,961,852 0.1% 0.0% RO 137,886 27 137,913 134,992 97.9% 13,768,151 1.0% 0.0%

SI 3,696 12 3,708 1,834 49.5% 1,416,347 0.3% 0.1% SK 3,881,088

FI 13,987 101 14,088 5,565 39.5% 3,532,645 0.4% 0.2% SE 35,979 2,267 38,246 14,683 38.4% 6,113,917 0.6% 0.4%

UK 219,947 4,968 224,915 68,247 30.3% 41,680,662 0.5% 0.4%

EU 1,647,788 18,841 1,666,629 690,453 41.4% 333,810,704 0.5% 0.3%

IS 1,644 1,565 3,209 1,537 47.9% 212,970 1.5% 0.8% LI 216 230 446 121 27.1% 25,474 1.8% 1.3%

NO 32,176 4,884 37,060 4,006 10.8% 3,294,281 1.1% 1.0% CH 77,839 18,217 96,056 17,889 18.6% 5,394,861 1.8% 1.4%

EU/EFTA 1,759,663 43,737 1,803,400 714,006 39.6% 342,738,290 0.5% 0.3% * By citizenship of the EU/EFTA migrant.

** We cannot know if someone has ever previously lived in the country of citizenship. Source Own calculation based on Eurostat data on migration by age group and citizenship [migr_imm1ctz]

More information on the labour status (employed, unemployed or inactive) of this group of recent movers is therefore needed. This information was extracted from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Three different categories are defined: new EU-28/EFTA movers (= < 1 year of residence), 74 recent EU-28/EFTA movers (= < 10 years of residence) and people who are born in the country. Note that also EU-28/EFTA movers who have the same nationality of their new Member State of residence (but not born in this country) have been taken into consideration. In general, some 11% of the new EU-28/EFTA movers are unemployed (Figure 5). This percentage is comparable to the unemployment rate of recent EU-28/EFTA movers but is higher compared to the unemployment rate of the nationals (7%). The unemployment rate of those three categories varies also markedly across Member States.

However, for this first year the number of new migrants will be underestimated for most of the Member States. Based on the LFS, somewhat more than 500 thousand EU-28/EFTA citizens at working age reside less than one year in a new EU-28 Member State/EFTA country. Compared to 1.8 million EU-28/EFTA citizens based on the Eurostat Migration Statistics.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Figure 5 EU-28/EFTA movers and nationals, by labour market status, 2013

*

Selection of Member States above the reliability levels Source Own calculations based on LFS

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

By taking into account the yearly flow of EU-28/EFTA movers (based on the ‘Migration and migrant population statistics’ published by Eurostat presented in Table 5) and the unemployment rate (based on LFS data – presented in Figure 5) of this group, a first estimate of the number of unemployed new EU-28/EFTA movers could be provided. This group might need to prove periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed in a Member State other than the competent State (dependent on the qualifying period of the competent Member State and the ‘short’ period of employment). Confronting the 1.8 million EU-28/EFTA citizens of working age (between 15 and 64) who migrated in 2012 to another EU Member State/EFTA country with a total EU unemployment rate of 11%, some 200,000 unemployed recent movers might need a PD U1 or an SED U002 in order to acquire a right to unemployment

benefits. 75

4.

THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE CURRENT

RULES AND THE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

4.1. Data collection

Based on the data from the questionnaire on the aggregation of periods for unemployment the budgetary impact of the current rules and the different alternative options can be calculated. However, those data do not cover all EU-28/EFTA countries. A total of 23 Member States provided quantitative data, of which three Member States were not able to provide a breakdown by Member State of origin and two other Member States were not able to provide a breakdown by length of insurance, employment or self-employment in the Member State of last activity. The missing data for a number of large Member States, in particular EU-15 Member States, may lead to a distorted view. As a result, some caution is required when drawing conclusions. For a detailed reporting on the questionnaire on the aggregation of periods for unemployment we refer to Pacolet and De Wispelaere (2015).

These administrative data provided by the questionnaire do not cover all components of the economic impact (e.g. expenditure on social assistance) or are insufficient to calculate the options (e.g. more data is required on average earnings, the calculation method of the unemployment benefit, the qualifying period, the average level of the unemployment benefit, the duration of the unemployment benefit etc). Therefore, these administrative data will be complemented with other data available at EU-level and in particular data of MISSOC and Eurostat.

In total 24,821 cases reported by 23 Member States for 2013 concern unemployed migrant workers whose period of insurance, employment or self-employment completed in the Member State of last activity was insufficient to be entitled to an unemployment benefit (Table 6). This is equal to an estimated share of 0.1% of total unemployment in those Member States and to 2.1% of the annual flow of intra-EU migrants of working age to these Member States. Most aggregations of periods for unemployment were reported by France (8,338 cases or 33.6% of total), Bulgaria (4,118 cases or 16.6% of total) and Spain (2,471 cases or 10.0% of total).

However, based on the LFS only 53,000 new EU-28/EFTA movers have become unemployed (selection of the respondents who migrated one year ago and became unemployed – COUNTRY1Y (not the same country (EU-28) and MAINSTAT (unemployed)). But as mentioned before, these data of the LFS underestimate the number of new migrants for most of the Member States (see previous footnote).

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 6 Number of aggregations of periods in case of unemployment, 2013

MS Cases of Total annual inflow % cases of Number of annual % of aggregation

aggregation of migrants of aggregation (A/B) average (A/C) (A) working age (B) unemployed

persons (in ,000) (C)

BE 2,196 65,403 3.4% 417 0.5%

BG 4,118 7,468 55.1% 436 0.9%

DK 54 34,265 0.2% 202 0.0%

EE 174 1,187 14.7% 59 0.3%

ES 2,471 102,405 2.4% 6,051 0.0%

FR 8,338 160,534 5.2% 3,010 0.3%

HR 16 318 0.0%

CY 3 10,591 0.0% 69 0.0%

LV 19 8,738 0.2% 120 0.0%

LT 225 16,310 1.4% 172 0.1%

LU 48 13,568 0.4% 15 0.3%

HU 1,149 20,911 5.5% 441 0.3%

MT 8 3,424 0.2% 12 0.1%

NL 160 72,799 0.2% 647 0.0%

PL 1,517 132,837 1.1% 1,793 0.1%

PT 9,109 0.0% 855 0.0%

RO 12 137,913 0.0% 653 0.0%

SK 1,160

FI 135 14,088 1.0% 219 0.1%

SE 457 38,246 1.2% 411 0.1%

UK 30 224,915 0.0% 2,441 0.0%

LI 726 446 162.8%

NO 500 37,060 1.3% 95 0.5%

CH 1,305 96,056 1.4% 2,449 0.1%

Total 24,821 1,199,164 2.1% 20,416 0.1%

reporting MS

Source Questionnaire on aggregation of periods of unemployment; LFS; Eurostat data on migration and ESSPROS

4.2. Overview of the different options

Option 1 – Status quo

This option will be disregarded since the wording of Article 61 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i does not provide sufficient clarity on the time period required before aggregation.

Option 2 – The formalisation of the “one-day rule”

Aggregation is possible if any period of insurance, employment or self-employment has been fulfilled in the Member State of last activity. The unemployment benefit is calculated on the basis of the salary earned in the Member State of last activity.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Option 3 – A threshold for a minimum period for aggregation

A threshold is applied for the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or selfemployment fulfilled in the Member State of last activity. A threshold of one month (sub-option 3a) or three months (sub-option 3b) could be implemented.

The application of a threshold will have some important consequences on the situation of the recent migrant worker who became unemployed and has fulfilled a period of insurance, employment or self-employment below the threshold (of one or three months). In that case, there are three possibilities: a) the person tries to find a new job as quickly as possible; b) the person returns to the Member State of origin; or c) the person asks for social assistance (or a special non-contributory benefit) (if he or she is entitled to it). As a result, this option also has to take into account public spending on social assistance. However, to what extent unemployed recent migrant workers who are not entitled to an unemployment benefit will ask for social assistance is of course unclear.

If the unemployed recent migrant worker did not fulfil a minimum period of insurance, employment or self-employment required for an unemployment benefit, this person might ask for social assistance (if he or she is entitled to it). 76 Therefore, the economic impact calculated for one year could also take into account the public spending on social assistance. The person involved might be entitled to an unemployment assistance scheme (Table 7) or to a more general assistance scheme (Table 8). Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Austria, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom have defined a specific unemployment scheme. Besides, almost all Member States have defined a guaranteed minimum scheme. The monthly financial support varies from € 1,348 in Luxembourg to € 32 in Romania.

The host Member State is not obliged to provide social assistance during the first three months of residence. Also, to acquire the right to reside (after three months) movers have to show that they have sufficient resources.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 7 Unemployment assistance, EU-28/EFTA, 2014

MS Unemployment Name Conditions or remarks assistance

scheme?

DK YES Midlertidig Paid after entitlement to unemployment benefit arbejdsmarkedsydelse has expired

EE YES Töötutoetus Same as for unemployment insurance benefit, but unemployment can either be voluntary or

involuntary IE YES

ES YES To have exhausted the entitlement to contributory unemployment benefit; not to have the right to

the contributory benefit because of lack of contributions, other groups (e.g. emigrant workers returning from abroad)

FR YES Régime de solidarité To have exhausted entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits

AT YES Notstandshilfe The unemployed person must have exhausted the right to unemployment benefits and be in a state of need

PT YES To have exhausted entitlement to unemployment benefits or not to have completed the qualifying period required for unemployment benefits; to

fulfil the condition of resources RO

FI YES Työmarkkinatuki Same as for unemployment insurance benefits and in several cases need for assistance

UK YES Income-based From 1 January 2014, claimants must also have Jobseekers' Allowance been living in the UK for 3 months prior to the

claim IS

Source MISSOC, 2014

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 8 Guaranteed minimum resources, cash benefits, 2014

Member Monthly amount Remark

State (in €)

BE 817.36 Single person

BG 24.09 Single person (73% of € 33)

CZ 124 Single

DK 1,433 Basic amount for persons of 30 years and more

DE 391 Single person

EE 90 Single person

IE 806 Single person

ES 426 € 532.5 *0.8 (max. amount)

FR 499.31 Single person

HR 73.20 Single person (120% of € 66.02)

IT 484.90 € 5,818.93 / 12 months

CY 452 Head of the household

LV 128.06 Max. amount (applied by the municipalities)

LT 101 Single person

LU 1,348.18

HU 133.20 Max. amount

MT 426.46 Single person

NL 679 Single person

AT 813.99 Single person or parent

PL Between 4.82 and € 101

PT 178.15 Single person

RO 32 € 113 * 0.283

SI 265.2 Single person

SK 61.6 Single person

FI 480.2 Single person

SE 321 Single person

UK 360 Single person (weekly amount of € 90)

IS Should not be lower than the monthly UB

NO 669 Single person

CH 1,977.4 € 23,693 /12

Source MISSOC, 2014

Under this options unemployed persons who have not completed a period of one or three months of insurance, employment or self-employment risk falling between two stools given that they probably will not be entitled to social assistance. An alternative within option 3 is that the previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed one month (option 3a) or three months (option 3b) of insurance, employment or self-employment.

Option 4 – A change of the calculation method

Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i defines the calculation method of the unemployment benefit in case of aggregation of periods. The current calculation method only takes into account the salary or professional income received by the person concerned in respect of the last activity as an employed or self-employed person.

This calculation method is changed under option 4. If a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than one month (sub-option 4a) or three months (sub-option 4b) has been fulfilled in the Member State of last activity, the calculation of the unemployment benefit will also be based on the salaries earned in the Member State of origin.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

This option implies that more detailed information is required on the unemployed recent migrant worker’s Member State of origin, on the salary earned, but also on the calculation method of the competent Member States (e.g. the ceiling of the earnings taken into account, minimum and maximum unemployment benefit).

For most of the cases reported by the Member States, the period of insurance, employment or self-employment of the Member State of last activity was aggregated by an additional period completed in the United Kingdom (22% of total) and Austria (18% of total) (Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2015). The United Kingdom is the main Member State of origin for unemployed migrants who had to aggregate periods in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta or Poland. New EU Member States such as Bulgaria and Romania never appear as one of the main Member States of origin of the unemployed migrants in the EU-15 who had to prove additional periods of insurance, employment or self-employment. For 76% of the cases an additional period fulfilled in an EU-15 Member State was added to the period already achieved in the Member State of last activity. This might be an indication of return migration for the EU-13 Member States. However, the missing data for a number of Member States may lead to a distorted view of reality if the numbers of cases are presented by the Member State of origin. Therefore, again some caution is required when drawing conclusions.

No information on the salary earned in the competent Member State as well as in the Member State of origin was collected via the administrative questionnaire. 77 Therefore, wage data published by Eurostat should be used. In 2013, the annual gross earnings (of a single person without children and earning 67% of the average wage) for the EU- 28 amounted to € 21,361 (Figure 6). These annual gross earnings vary from a high amount in Switzerland (€ 47,741) and Norway (44,763) to a low amount in Bulgaria (€ 3,332) and Romania (€ 3,915).

Figure 6 Annual gross earnings, single person without children, 67% of average wage, 2013

Source Eurostat [earn_nt_net]

Despite the fact that the calculation of the unemployment benefit will be based on the salaries earned in the Member State of origin, this does not necessarily imply that

The PD U1 form contains a section where more ‘income details’ (gross income) could be reported.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

changing this will result to the same extent in a change of the level of the unemployment benefit. Some Member States apply a maximum ceiling of earnings to be taken into account (BE, BG, DE, ES, HR, FR, IT, CY, NL, AT, SE, LI, NO and CH) (Table 9). Also, a number of Member States apply a minimum and/or a maximum benefit level which flattens a strong increase or decrease in average earnings (BE, BG, CZ (max.), DK (max.), ES, HR, IT (max.), LT, LU (max.), HU (max.), AT, SI, SE and LI (max.)).

Finally, Ireland, Malta, Poland and the United Kingdom do not take previous earnings as a reference for the calculation of the unemployment benefit (see also Table 2), which implies that this option does not influence the unemployment benefit in these Member States.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 9 Unemployment benefit, impact of the earnings on the level of the UB, 2014

MS Ceiling earnings Rate of Lowest Highest taken as the benefits

reference BE € 2,266.59/month 65% of last salary € 36.66/day € 61.66/day BG € 1,227/month 60% of the average daily € 3.68/day 60% of the daily max. amount

contributory income for the of the max. contributory of € last 24 months 1,227 for 2014

CZ 65% of reference earnings 0.58 the national average wage DK 90% of previous earnings € 109/day DE € 5,000 /month 67% of net earnings (with

childeren), 60% of net earnings (without children)

EE 50% of reference earnings

IE € 188/week

EL € 360/month although

variation with previous earnings

ES € 3,597/month 70% of the calculation basis 107% of the Public 175%, 200% or 225% of the

Income Rate of IPREM Multiple Effects (IPREM)

FR 4 times the social 40.4% reference daily wage

security ceiling (RDW) + € 11.72 per day or (€12,516 per 57.4% of the RDW within the month) limit of 75% of the RDW.

HR Ceiling fixed as a 70% of the base salary € 148.63/month € 506.35/month

percentage of the budget base.

IT € 1,192.98/month 75% of the monthly reference € 1,165.58 month

+ supplement

CY Up to 3 times

basic insurable earnings

LV 50% of average contribution

wage

LT € 101 + variable No less than the € 188/month

component/month State Supported Income

LU 80% of previous earnings € 4,802.57 month

HU 60% of the average wage € 329/month

MT € 7.72 per day for a single

person

NL Last daily wage 75% of the daily wage

with a max. of € 198.28

AT € 4,200/month 55% of daily net income € 7.43/day € 48.02/day

PL 80% of the basic

unemployment allowance of € 200

SI 80% of the reference basis € 350/month € 892.5/month

SK 50% of the reference

earnings

FI Basic: € 32,66 + possible

supplement of € 34.44

SE € 2,033/month 80% of reference earnings € 74/day

UK € 90/week

IS € 1,155/month

LI € 103,601/year 80% of insured earnings

NO 6 times the basic 0.24% of the income basis,

amount (€ which normally gives a 63,363) compensation level of 62.4%

CH € 8,633/month 80% of the insured salary

Source MISSOC, 2014

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

4.3. Estimated economic impact of the different options

Options 1 and 2 – The current rules

As mentioned before, in total 24,821 cases were reported by 23 Member States for 2013. 6,741 cases or 28% of total cases relate to a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than 30 days in the Member State of last activity (Table 10). 3,341 cases or 14% of total cases apply to a period between one and three months, and finally 14,014 cases or 58% to a period of three months or longer. So, for most of the cases of aggregation, already a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of more than three months was completed by the unemployed migrant worker in the Member State of last activity. This distribution varies markedly across Member States, but also between the EU-13 and the EU-15. 8,580 cases or 62% of the cases reported by the EU-15 concerned a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than three months compared to only 1,295 cases or 16% of the cases reported by the EU-13. This breakdown by period of insurance, employment or self-employment will have an influence on the budgetary impact of the different options. For example, the different options will have (almost) no impact on Cyprus (100% of the cases), Hungary (97% of the cases) and Bulgaria (96% of the cases) as they have aggregated all or most of their cases on the basis of a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of more than three months.

Under the current rules all cases should be taken into consideration. These could be multiplied by the annual average expenditure per unemployed person in order to estimate the public unemployment spending (amounts reported in Table 5 – column 3). This yearly expenditure assumes to some extent that the unemployed person did not find a job during the first year of unemployment. While the entitlement to an unemployment insurance benefit in most of the Member States (except for BE) will be limited to a number of weeks or months. Therefore, a more ‘realistic’ calculation of the yearly expenditure is calculated by taking into account the annual average duration of

the payment of the unemployment benefit. 78 The average duration of the payment of

the unemployment benefit amounts to 7.5 months, but differs strongly across Member States (Table 10 – column 6). The average duration is multiplied by the average amount reported in Table 5 – column 3 and results in a corrected figure reported in Table 10 – column 7.

The budgetary impact for Lithuania and Norway could be estimated for the baseline scenario, but not for the other options given that these Member States could not provide a breakdown by period of insurance, employment or self-employment. Also for Liechtenstein the budgetary impact is missing, since no information on the annual average expenditure per unemployed person is available.

A total estimate of annual public unemployment spending of € 100 million is obtained for the 22 reporting Member States. In absolute terms, in particular France (€ 53 million) and Belgium (€ 20.5 million) are the main spending Member States. Their expenditure is influenced by the higher number of cases and average expenditure per unemployed person compared to the other Member States (Table 10).

Calculations are based on the duration of the unemployment (which can be calculated using LFS data). If the duration of the unemployment < 1 month, we assume a payment of the unemployment benefit (UB) of 0.5 months; between 1-2 months of unemployment = 1.5 months UB paid; between 3-5 months of unemployment = 4 months UB paid; between 6 and 11 months of unemployment = 8.5 months UB paid; 12 months or longer of unemployment = 12 months UB paid. Based on LFS data we obtained an average duration of unemployment of 15 months. However, this average duration is measured at a certain moment, which implies a possible underestimation of the duration of the unemployment (e.g. the person may still remain unemployed). However, the expenditure is calculated for only one year. This explains the cut-off at 12 months. This will result in an annual average duration of payment of the unemployment of 7.5 months.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

The budgetary impact of the aggregation of periods for unemployment on total unemployment spending is, however, very limited (Table 10). In general, 0.11% of total unemployment spending by the reporting Member States could be related to the aggregation of periods for unemployment. This percentage is similar for EU-13 Member States (0.12%) and EU-15 Member States (0.10%). Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Netherlands, Romania, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom spent less than 0.1% of their unemployment expenditure on unemployed recent migrant workers who completed an insufficient period of insurance, employment or self-employment to be entitled to an unemployment benefit.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 10 Estimate of the annual budgetary impact under the current rules (options 1 and 2)

Number of unemployed persons who needed an Average Annual Expenditure related to the aggregation of periods (in €) C=A*B Total % aggregation of periods (A) duration average expenditure share

Less 1 to 3 3 Total for Total of the expenditure Less than 30 1 to 3 3 months or Total in million € C/D than months months subperiods payment per days months more (D) 30 or more of the unemployed

days UB persons (in €) (B)

BE 736 420 1,040 2,196 2,196 7.4 9,319 6,859,118 3,914,171 9,692,233 20,465,522 5,577 0.37% BG 22 150 3,946 4,118 4,118 8.7 320 7,048 48,052 1,264,077 1,319,176 181 0.73% CZ

DK 34 0 20 54 54 5.7 5,847 198,801 0 116,942 315,743 2,696 0.01% DE

EE 64 31 79 174 174 8.2 369 23,603 11,433 29,135 64,171 37 0.17% IE

ES 1,195 534 742 2,471 2,471 7.6 2,632 3,144,819 1,405,300 1,952,683 6,502,801 24,146 0.03% FR 3,948 1,283 3,107 8,338 8,338 7.0 6,352 25,077,188 8,149,451 19,735,264 52,961,903 31,121 0.17% HR 0 1 15 16 16 9.4 475 0 475 7,130 7,606 180 0.00% IT

CY 0 0 3 3 3 6.5 1,297 0 0 3,890 3,890 124 0.00% LV 6 2 11 19 19 8.2 258 1,550 517 2,841 4,908 59 0.01% LT 0 225 8.2 236 n.a. n.a. n.a. 53,055 68 0.08% LU 1 7 40 48 48 6.2 10,948 10,948 76,634 437,911 525,493 275 0.19% HU 29 6 1,114 1,149 1,149 8.0 293 8,493 1,757 326,255 336,506 208 0.16% MT 1 1 6 8 8 7.8 1,375 1,375 1,375 8,250 11,000 23 0.05% NL 26 27 107 160 160 6.3 11,399 296,371 307,770 1,219,680 1,823,821 10,183 0.02% AT

PL 164 379 974 1,517 1,517 7.4 226 36,983 85,466 219,642 342,091 640 0.05% PT

RO 2 2 8 12 12 7.4 180 359 359 1,438 2,157 183 0.00% SI

SK 217 218 725 1,160 1,160 9.8 380 82,434 82,814 275,413 440,660 176 0.25% FI 23 50 62 135 135 4.6 5,906 135,847 295,319 366,196 797,363 3,189 0.03% SE 156 122 179 457 457 4.8 1,691 263,777 206,287 302,667 772,731 1,704 0.05% UK 17 1 12 30 30 6.6 1,443 24,523 1,443 17,310 43,275 6,646 0.00% IS

LI 96 75 555 726 726 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

NO 500 4.6 6,167 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,083,353 1,367 0.23% CH 4 32 1,269 1,305 1,305 6.1 7,705 30,819 246,554 9,777,402 10,054,775 3,266 0.31% Total 6,741 3,341 14,014 24,096 24,821 36,204,056 14,835,177 45,756,359 99,932,000 92,248 0.11% EU-13 505 790 6,881 8,176 8,401 161,845 232,248 2,138,071 2,585,220 2,078 0.12% EU-15 6,136 2,444 5,309 13,889 13,889 36,011,392 14,356,375 33,840,886 84,208,653 85,537 0.10% EFTA 100 107 1,824 2,031 2,531 30,819 246,554 9,777,402 13,138,128 4,634 0.28%

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, LT, PT, SI, NO and IS. Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS
30

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Option 3 – A threshold for a minimum period for aggregation

Sub-option 3a – A threshold of one month

If a threshold of one month is applied, 6,741 cases or 28% of the total reported cases will no longer have an impact on public unemployment spending (Table 11). The remaining 17,355 cases are again multiplied by the annual average expenditure per unemployed person in order to estimate the public unemployment spending.

The application of this sub-option results in a total estimate of annual public unemployment spending of € 60.6 million for 20 reporting Member States. This implies a decrease of expenditure by 37% compared to the baseline scenario (excl. LT and NO).

This option will in particular have an influence on competent Member States confronted with a high percentage of aggregated cases during the first month. For example, the length of insurance, employment or self-employment of most of the cases completed in Denmark and the United Kingdom is less than one month. In contrast, Croatia and Cyprus did not report any cases below a period of one month (see also Table 10). The expenditure for Denmark will decrease by 63% compared to the baseline scenario. This option has no or almost no budgetary impact on Croatia (0%), Cyprus (0%), Bulgaria (-0.5%) and Switzerland (-0.3%). The expenditure of France and Belgium, two Member States which show a high expenditure in absolute terms under the baseline scenario, will decrease by 47% and 34% respectively compared to the baseline scenario (Table 11).

Under this option, 0.07% of total unemployment spending by the reporting Member States will be related to the aggregation of periods for unemployment (Table 11). However, as mentioned above, also spending on social assistance could be added to the budgetary cost.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 11 Estimate of the annual budgetary impact under sub-option 3a

Number of unemployed persons who Annual average Expenditure related to the aggregation of % Total % share Excluded needed an aggregation of periods expenditure per periods (in €) change unemployment C/D aggregated cases (A) unemployed C= A*B compared spending in

1 to 3 3 Total for person (in €) (B) 1 to 3 3 months or Total to the million € (D) Less than 30 months months subperiods months more baseline days

or more scenario BE 420 1,040 1,460 9,319 3,914,171 9,692,233 13,606,403 -33.5% 5,577 0.24% 736 BG 150 3,946 4,096 320 48,052 1,264,077 1,312,129 -0.5% 181 0.72% 22 CZ

DK 0 20 20 5,847 0 116,942 116,942 -63.0% 2,696 0.00% 34

EE 31 79 110 369 11,433 29,135 40,568 -36.8% 37 0.11% 64

ES 534 742 1,276 2,632 1,405,300 1,952,683 3,357,982 -48.4% 24,146 0.01% 1,195

FR 1,283 3,107 4,390 6,352 8,149,451 19,735,264 27,884,715 -47.3% 31,121 0.09% 3,948

HR 1 15 16 475 475 7,130 7,606 180 0.00% 0

CY 0 3 3 1,297 0 3,890 3,890 0.0% 124 0.00% 0

LV 2 11 13 258 517 2,841 3,358 -31.6% 59 0.01% 6

LT n.a. n.a.

LU 7 40 47 10,948 76,634 437,911 514,545 -2.1% 275 0.19% 1

HU 6 1,114 1,120 293 1,757 326,255 328,012 -2.5% 208 0.16% 29

MT 1 6 7 1,375 1,375 8,250 9,625 -12.5% 23 0.04% 1

NL 27 107 134 11,399 307,770 1,219,680 1,527,450 -16.3% 10,183 0.02% 26

PL 379 974 1,353 226 85,466 219,642 305,108 -10.8% 640 0.05% 164

RO 2 8 10 180 359 1,438 1,797 -16.7% 183 0.00% 2

SK 218 725 943 380 82,814 275,413 358,226 -18.7% 176 0.20% 217

FI 50 62 112 5,906 295,319 366,196 661,516 -17.0% 3,189 0.02% 23

SE 122 179 301 1,691 206,287 302,667 508,954 -34.1% 1,704 0.03% 156

UK 1 12 13 1,443 1,443 17,310 18,753 -56.7% 6,646 0.00% 17

LI 75 555 630 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 96

NO n.a. n.a.

CH 32 1,269 1,301 7,705 246,554 9,777,402 10,023,956 -0.3% 3,266 0.31% 4

Total - 6,741

3,341 14,014 17,355 14,835,177 45,756,359 60,591,536 37.4% ** 90,614 0.07% EU-13 790 6,881 7,671 232,248 2,138,071 2,370,319 1,810 0.13% 505 EU-15 2,444 5,309 7,753 14,356,375 33,840,886 48,197,261 85,537 0.06% 6,136 EFTA 107 1,824 1,931 246,554 9,777,402 10,023,956 3,266 0.31% 100

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, LT, PT, SI, NO and IS. ** Compared to the reporting Member States under the baseline scenario (excl. LT and NO). Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS
32

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Sub-option 3a1 – A threshold of one month AND the previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the

Member State of last activity, have not completed one month of insurance, employment or self-employment

Under this sub-option the previous Member State (i.e. Member State of origin) will be responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the

Member State of last activity, have not completed one month of insurance, employment or self-employment. The Member State of last activity will still be responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who have completed more than one month of insurance, employment or self-employment.

The missing data for a number of reporting Member States may lead to a distorted view of reality if the number of cases are reported by the previous Member State. As has been pointed out, most of the aggregated cases apply to a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of more than three months. It implies that the previous Member State only for a limited number of cases will be responsible for paying the unemployment benefit if a threshold of one month is applied. Moreover, only 1,534 of the 13,113 aggregated cases which could be allocated to a previous

Member state of residence have to be taken into account (see also Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2015). Most of the cases with a period of insurance, employment of selfemployment of less than one month were aggregated with an additional period completed in an EU-15 Member State and mainly completed in the United Kingdom

(263 cases), the Netherlands (179 cases) and France (165 cases) (Table 12).

The calculation of the budgetary cost for the previous Member State could be based on the average duration of unemployment (see also Table 10), the entitlement to an unemployment benefit up to 3 or 6 months or for the maximum duration of the entitlement (see also Figure 3). Please notice that the average duration of unemployment not necessarily corresponds to the duration of the entitlement to an unemployment benefit (e.g. the period of unemployment could be longer than the entitlement to an unemployment benefit). The total annual budgetary cost for the

Member States of origin varies from € 3.4 Million (entitlement up to 3 months) to € 13.7 Million (maximum duration of the entitlement) for the 1,534 reported cases depending on the calculation method used (Table 12). The Netherlands and France will probably be confronted with the highest budgetary cost in absolute figures. However, this cost is marginal if we confront the budgetary cost of paying an unemployment benefit for those unemployed persons who, in their Member State of last activity, have not completed one months of insurance, employment or self-employment with total unemployment spending (for instance equal to 0.005% of total public spending if the average duration of unemployment is taken into account).

The additional cost to be paid as previous Member State should be added to the budgetary cost Member States will experience as Member State of last activity

(Table 13). However, the additional cost as previous Member state will hardly influence the total cost. Only the Netherlands shows a higher cost as Member State of origin than as Member State of last activity. The real budgetary impact is, however, underestimated given that under the baseline scenario 6,741 aggregated cases of a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than 1 month have been taken into consideration compared to only 1,534 cases under sub-option 3a1 (Table

12)

and even only 986 cases when selecting only the 20 reporting Member States (Table 13). Nevertheless, these figures show already that this option will lead to a higher budgetary impact for some Member States compared to the current rules (for instance the United Kingdom). If we extrapolate the 986 cases to the total group of

6,741 cases an estimated amount of € 32.2 Million (assuming an average expenditure Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

per unemployed person) or € 14,912,546 (assuming the entitlement for 3 months) will be paid by the Member States of origin (Table 13). It implies that the loss of an unemployment benefit in the Member State of last activity is compensated considerably by the Member State of origin (compared to an expenditure of € 36.2

Million under current rules for those 6,741 cases – see also Table 10).

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 12 Annual cost for the previous Member State responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member

State of last activity, have not completed one month of insurance, employment or self-employment, average duration of unemployment, three months entitled to an unemployment benefit and maximum duration entitled to an unemployment benefit

Previous Cases Average duration of unemployment Three months entitled Six months entitled Maximum duration of entitlement

MS less

than 30 Annual Expenditure Total % share Annual Expenditure % share Annual Expenditure % share Annual Expenditure % share days average (in €) unemployment (C/D) average (in €) (C/D) average (in €) (C/D) average (in €) (C/D)

(A) expenditure (C=A*B) spending (in expenditure (C=A*B) expenditure (C=A*B) expenditure (C=A*B)

(in €) (B) Million euro) (in €) (B) (in €) (B) (in €) (B) (D)

BE 23 9,319 214,347 5,577 0.004% 3,778 86,898 0.002% 7,556 173,795 0.003% 15,113 347,590 0.006% BG 6 320 1,922 181 0.001% 110 663 0.000% 221 1,326 0.001% 442 2,651 0.001% CZ 50 588 29,407 341 0.009% 232 11,608 0.003% 464 23,216 0.007% 696 34,824 0.010% DK 28 5,847 163,719 2,696 0.006% 3,077 86,168 0.003% 6,155 172,336 0.006% 12,310 344,671 0.013% DE 94 5,844 549,294 21,363 0.003% 2,401 225,737 0.001% 4,803 451,475 0.002% 9,606 902,949 0.004% EE 8 369 2,950 37 0.008% 135 1,079 0.003% 270 2,159 0.006% 540 4,318 0.012% IE 51 9,099 464,053 3,792 0.012% 3,000 152,985 0.004% 5,999 305,969 0.008% 7,999 407,959 0.011% EL 29 803 23,285 1,279 0.002% 268 7,762 0.001% 535 15,524 0.001% 1,071 31,047 0.002% ES 153 2,632 402,642 24,146 0.002% 1,039 158,938 0.001% 2,078 317,875 0.001% 4,155 635,751 0.003% FR 165 6,352 1,048,059 31,121 0.003% 2,722 449,168 0.001% 5,444 898,336 0.003% 10,889 1,796,672 0.006% HR 2 475 951 180 0.001% 152 303 0.000% 303 607 0.000% 607 1,214 0.001% IT 115 2,533 291,284 9,929 0.003% 905 104,030 0.001% 1,809 208,060 0.002% 3,618 416,121 0.004% CY 9 1,297 11,669 124 0.009% 598 5,386 0.004% 1,197 10,771 0.009% 997 8,976 0.007% LV 2 258 517 59 0.001% 95 189 0.000% 189 378 0.001% 284 567 0.001% LT 7 236 1,651 68 0.002% 86 604 0.001% 173 1,208 0.002% 259 1,812 0.003% LU 32 10,948 350,329 275 0.127% 5,297 169,514 0.062% 10,595 339,028 0.123% 42,378 1,356,111 0.492% HU 12 293 3,514 208 0.002% 110 1,318 0.001% 220 2,636 0.001% 110 1,318 0.001% MT 3 1,375 4,125 23 0.018% 529 1,587 0.007% 1,058 3,173 0.014% 881 2,644 0.011% NL 179 11,399 2,040,400 10,183 0.020% 5,428 971,619 0.010% 10,856 1,943,238 0.019% 21,712 3,886,475 0.038% AT 110 5,468 601,493 2,297 0.026% 3,038 334,163 0.015% 6,076 668,326 0.029% 12,151 1,336,651 0.058% PL 20 226 4,510 640 0.001% 91 1,828 0.000% 183 3,657 0.001% 366 7,314 0.001% PT 18 2,004 36,077 2,482 0.001% 742 13,362 0.001% 1,485 26,724 0.001% 7,423 133,620 0.005% RO 23 180 4,134 183 0.002% 73 1,676 0.001% 146 3,352 0.002% 291 6,704 0.004% SI 2 1,458 2,915 199 0.001% 554 1,107 0.001% 1,107 2,214 0.001% 2,214 4,428 0.002% SK 6 380 2,279 176 0.001% 116 698 0.000% 233 1,395 0.001% 233 1,395 0.001% FI 10 5,906 59,064 3,189 0.002% 3,852 38,520 0.001% 7,704 77,040 0.002% 15,408 154,080 0.005% SE 18 1,691 30,436 1,704 0.002% 1,057 19,022 0.001% 2,114 38,045 0.002% 4,227 76,090 0.004% UK 263 1,443 379,380 6,646 0.006% 656 172,445 0.003% 1,311 344,891 0.005% 1,311 344,891 0.005% IS 5 0 0 130 0.000% 2,953 14,763 0.011% 5,905 29,525 0.023% 0 0 0.000% LI 0

NO 67 6,167 413,169 1,367 0.030% 4,022 269,458 0.020% 8,044 538,916 0.039% 16,087 1,077,833 0.079% CH 24 7,705 184,915 3,266 0.006% 3,789 90,942 0.003% 7,579 181,884 0.006% 15,157 363,768 0.011% Total 1,534 7,322,492 133,861 0.005% 3,393,539 0.003% 6,787,078 0.005% 13,690,444 0.010%

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS as reporting Member State and given that some Member states did not provide a breakdown by the Member State of origin (FR, ES and EE). Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS
35

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 13 Total cost under sub-option 3a1

As Member Average duration Three months State of last

activity As Member Total cost (in % As Member Total cost (in % (in €) State of €) differenc State of €) differenc

(n: 17,355) origin (in €) e origin (in e

(n: 986) baseline €) baseline scenario (n: 986) scenario

BE 13,606,40 214,347 13,820,7 - 86,898 13,693,3 -

3 51 32.5 01 33.1 % %

BG 1,312,129 1,922 1,314,05 - 663 1,312,79 -

1 0.4% 1 0.5% CZ

DK 116,942 163,719 280,661 - 86,168 203,110 -

11.1 35.7 % %

EE 40,568 2,950 43,518 - 1,079 41,647 -

32.2 35.1 % %

ES 3,357,982 402,642 3,760,62 - 158,93 3,516,92 -

5 42.2 8 0 45.9 % %

FR 27,884,71 1,048,05 28,932,7 - 449,16 28,333,8 -

5 9 74 45.4 8 83 46.5 % %

HR 7,606 951 8,556 12.5 303 7,909 4.0%

% IT

CY 3,890 11,669 15,559 300.0 5,386 9,275 138.5

% % LV 3,358 517 3,875 - 189 3,547 -

21.1 27.7 % %

LU 514,545 350,329 864,874 64.6 169,51 684,059 30.2

% 4 % HU 328,012 3,514 331,527 - 1,318 329,330 -

1.5% 2.1% MT 9,625 4,125 13,750 25.0 1,587 11,212 1.9%

% NL 1,527,450 2,040,40 3,567,85 95.6 971,61 2,499,06 37.0

0 0 % 9 9 % AT

PL 305,108 4,510 309,618 - 1,828 306,936 -

9.5% 10.3 %

RO 1,797 4,134 5,932 175.0 1,676 -

% 100% SI 0

SK 358,226 2,279 360,506 - 698 358,924 -

18.2 18.5 % %

FI 661,516 59,064 720,579 - 38,520 700,035 -

9.6% 12.2 %

SE 508,954 30,436 539,390 - 19,022 527,977 -

30.2 31.7 % %

UK 18,753 379,380 398,132 820.0 172,44 191,198 341.8

% 5 % IS

CH 10,023,95 184,915 10,208,8 1.5% 90,942 10,114,8 0.6%

6 71 98

Total 60,591,53 4,909,86 65,501,3 - 2,257,9 62,849,4 -

6 2 98 32.3 60 96 35.1 % %

Extrap 32,177,913 14,912,5 olation 46

(n:

6,741)

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS as reporting Member State and given that some Member states did not provide a breakdown
by the Member State of origin (FR, ES and EE). Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire

Sub-option 3b – A threshold of three months

In case a threshold of three months is applied, the remaining 14,049 cases are multiplied by the annual average expenditure per unemployed person in order to estimate the public unemployment spending.

Under this sub-option, the total estimated annual public unemployment spending for 20 reporting Member States amounts to € 45.8 million or to a decrease of expenditure by 53% compared to the baseline scenario (Table 14).

This sub-option 3b almost does not result in any further decrease of expenditure compared to sub-option 3a in Denmark (0 p.p.), 79 Cyprus (0.0 p.p.), Hungary (-0.5 p.p.), Switzerland (-2.5 p.p.), the United Kingdom (-3.3 p.p.), Bulgaria (-3.6 p.p.) and Croatia (-6.3 p.p.) (Table 14). Especially Finland (-37.0 p.p.), Sweden (-26.7 p.p.) and Poland (-25.0 p.p.) will experience a higher decrease of expenditure compared to sub-option 3a. This option will consequently lead to a further decrease of public unemployment spending to 0.05% of total unemployment spending by the reporting Member States (Table 14).

p.p. = percentage points.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 14 Estimate of the budgetary annual impact under sub-option 3b

Number of Annual average Expenditure related to the % change Change in p.p. Total UB % Excluded aggregated cases unemployed expenditure per aggregation of periods compared to the compared to subspending in share persons who unemployed C=A*B baseline scenario option 3a million euro C/D needed aggregated persons (in €) (D)

cases (A) (B) 3 months or 3 months or more Less than 1 to 3 Total

more 30 days months number BE 1,040 9,319 9,692,233 -19.1 5,577 0.17 736 420 1,156

-52.6% p.p. % BG 3,946 320 1,264,077 181 0.70 22 150 172

-4.2% -3.6 p.p. % CZ 0 DK 20 5,847 116,942 2,696 0.00 34 0 34

-63.0% 0.0 p.p. % DE 0 EE 79 369 29,135 -17.8 37 0.08 64 31 95

-54.6% p.p. % IE 0 EL 0 ES 742 2,632 1,952,683 -21.6 24,146 0.01 1,195 534 1,729

-70.0% p.p. % FR 3,107 6,352 19,735,264 -15.4 31,121 0.06 3,948 1,283 5,231

-62.7% p.p. % HR 15 475 7,130 180 0.00 0 1 1

-6.3% -6.3 p.p. % IT 0 CY 3 1,297 3,890 124 0.00 0 0 0

0.0% 0.0 p.p. % LV 11 258 2,841 -10.5 59 0.00 6 2 8

-42.1% p.p. % LT n.a. n.a. 0 LU 40 10,948 437,911 -14.6 275 0.16 1 7 8

-16.7% p.p. % HU 1,114 293 326,255 208 0.16 29 6 35

-3.0% -0.5 p.p. % MT 6 1,375 8,250 -12.5 23 0.04 1 1 2

-25.0% p.p. % NL 107 11,399 1,219,680 -16.9 10,183 0.01 26 27 53

-33.1% p.p. % AT 0 PL 974 226 219,642 -25.0 640 0.03 164 379 543

-35.8% p.p. % PT 0 RO 8 180 1,438 -16.7 183 0.00 2 2 4

-33.3% p.p. % SI

SK 725 380 275,413 -18.8 176 0.16 217 218 435 -37.5% p.p. %

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

cases (A) (B) 3 months or 3 months or more Less than 1 to 3 Total

more 30 days months number FI 62 5,906 366,196 -37.0 3,189 0.01 23 50 73

-54.1% p.p. % SE 179 1,691 302,667 -26.7 1,704 0.02 156 122 278

-60.8% p.p. % UK 12 1,443 17,310 6,646 0.00 17 1 18

-60.0% -3.3 p.p. % IS 0 LI 555 n.a. n.a. n.a. 96 75 171 NO n.a. 6,167 n.a. 0 CH 1,269 7,705 9,777,402 3,266 0.30 4 32 36

-2.8% -2.5 p.p. % Total -52.7%** -15.3 0.05 10,08

14,014 45,756,359 p.p. 90,614 % 6,741 3,341 2 EU-13 0.12

6,881 2,138,071 1,810 % 505 790 1,295 EU-15 5,309 33,840,886 54,416 0.06 6,136 2,444 8,580

% EFTA 1,824 9,777,402 3,266 0.30 100 107 207

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, LT, PT NO and IS. ** Compared to the reporting Member States under the baseline scenario (excl. LT and NO). Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS
39

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Sub-option 3b1 – A threshold of three months AND the previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the

Member State of last activity, have not completed three months of insurance, employment or self-employment

Under this sub-option the previous Member State (i.e. Member State of origin) will be responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the

Member State of last activity, have not completed three months of insurance, employment or self-employment. The Member State of last activity will still be responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who have completed more than three month of insurance, employment or self-employment.

As mentioned before, the missing data for a number of reporting Member States may lead to a distorted view of reality if the number of cases are reported by the previous

Member State. Also, most of the aggregated cases apply to a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of more than three months. It implies that the previous Member State only for a limited number of cases will be responsible for paying the unemployment benefit if a threshold of three months is applied. Moreover, only 3,027 of the 13,113 aggregated cases which could be allocated to a previous

Member state of residence have to be taken into account (see also Pacolet and De Wispelaere, 2015). Most of the cases with a period of insurance, employment of selfemployment of less than three months were aggregated with an additional period completed in an EU-15 Member State and mainly completed in the United Kingdom

(577 cases), the Netherlands (371 cases) and Spain (328 cases) (Table 15).

Member States of origin varies from € 14.2 Million (entitlement up to 3 months) to € 26.2 Million (maximum duration of the entitlement) for the 3,027 reported cases depending on the calculation method used (Table 15). Again, The Netherlands and

France will probably be confronted with the highest budgetary cost in absolute figures. This cost is still marginal if we confront the budgetary cost of paying an unemployment benefit for those unemployed persons who, in their Member State of last activity, have not completed three months of insurance, employment or selfemployment with total unemployment spending (for instance equal to 0.01% of total public spending if the average duration of unemployment is taken into account).

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 15 Annual cost for the previous Member State responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member

State of last activity, have not completed three months of insurance, employment or self-employment, average duration of unemployment, three months entitled to an unemployment benefit and maximum duration entitled to an unemployment benefit

Previous Cases Average duration of unemployment Three months entitlement Six months entitlement Maximum duration of entitlement MS less

than Annual Expenditure Total % share Annual Expenditure % share Annual Expenditure % share Annual Expenditure % share

three average (in €) unemployme (C/D) averag (in €) (C/D) average (in €) (C/D) average (in €) (C/D)

month expenditur (C=A*B) nt spending e (C=A*B) expenditur (C=A*B) expenditu (C=A*B)

s (A) e (in Million expen e (in €) re (in €)

(in €) (B) euro) diture (B) (B) (D) (in €)

(B) BE 41 9,319 382,098 5,577 0.0069 3,7 154,904 0.0028 7,556 309,809 0.0056 15,11 619,618 0.0111

% 78 % % 3 % BG 6 320 1,922 181 0.0011 11 663 0.0004 221 1,326 0.0007 442 2,651 0.0015

% 0 % % % CZ 11 588 69,400 341 0.0204 23 27,395 0.0080 464 54,790 0.0161 696 82,184 0.0241

8 % 2 % % % DK 55 5,847 321,590 2,696 0.0119 3,0 169,258 0.0063 6,155 338,516 0.0126 12,31 677,032 0.0251

% 77 % % 0 % DE 22 5,844 1,326,48 21,363 0.0062 2,4 545,131 0.0026 4,803 1,090,263 0.0051 9,606 2,180,526 0.0102

7 7 % 01 % % % EE 31 369 11,433 37 0.0312 13 4,183 0.0114 270 8,365 0.0228 540 16,731 0.0456

% 5 % % % IE 11 9,099 1,028,19 3,792 0.0271 3,0 338,966 0.0089 5,999 677,932 0.0179 7,999 903,909 0.0238

3 7 % 00 % % % EL 39 803 31,315 1,279 0.0024 26 10,438 0.0008 535 20,877 0.0016 1,071 41,753 0.0033

% 8 % % % ES 32 2,632 863,180 24,146 0.0036 1,0 340,729 0.0014 2,078 681,458 0.0028 4,155 1,362,916 0.0056

8 % 39 % % % FR 23 6,352 1,479,98 31,121 0.0048 2,7 634,280 0.0020 5,444 1,268,559 0.0041 10,88 2,537,119 0.0082

3 6 % 22 % % 9 % HR 2 475 951 180 0.0005 15 303 0.0002 303 607 0.0003 607 1,214 0.0007

% 2 % % % IT 20 2,533 529,378 9,929 0.0053 90 189,064 0.0019 1,809 378,127 0.0038 3,618 756,254 0.0076

9 % 5 % % % CY 19 1,297 24,635 124 0.0198 59 11,370 0.0091 1,197 22,740 0.0183 997 18,950 0.0152

% 8 % % % LV 6 258 1,550 59 0.0026 95 567 0.0010 189 1,134 0.0019 284 1,701 0.0029

% % % % LT 9 236 2,122 68 0.0031 86 776 0.0011 173 1,553 0.0023 259 2,329 0.0034

% % % % LU 47 10,948 514,545 275 0.1868 5,2 248,973 0.0904 10,595 497,947 0.1808 42,37 1,991,788 0.7231

% 97 % % 8 % HU 25 293 7,322 208 0.0035 11 2,746 0.0013 220 5,491 0.0026 110 2,746 0.0013

% 0 % % % MT 6 1,375 8,250 23 0.0355 52 3,173 0.0136 1,058 6,346 0.0273 881 5,289 0.0227

% 9 % % % NL 37 11,399 4,228,98 10,183 0.0415 5,4 2,013,80 0.0198 10,856 4,027,604 0.0396 21,71 8,055,209 0.0791

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

1 5 % 28 2 % % 2 % AT 19 5,468 1,082,68 2,297 0.0471 3,0 601,493 0.0262 6,076 1,202,986 0.0524 12,15 2,405,972 0.1048

8 8 % 38 % % 1 % PL 38 226 8,569 640 0.0013 91 3,474 0.0005 183 6,948 0.0011 366 13,896 0.0022

% % % % PT 40 2,004 80,172 2,482 0.0032 74 29,693 0.0012 1,485 59,387 0.0024 7,423 296,933 0.0120

% 2 % % % RO 31 180 5,572 183 0.0030 73 2,259 0.0012 146 4,518 0.0025 291 9,036 0.0049

% % % % SI 3 1,458 4,373 199 0.0022 55 1,661 0.0008 1,107 3,321 0.0017 2,214 6,642 0.0033

% 4 % % % SK 13 380 4,938 176 0.0028 11 1,512 0.0009 233 3,024 0.0017 233 3,024 0.0017

% 6 % % % FI 17 5,906 100,409 3,189 0.0031 3,8 65,484 0.0021 7,704 130,968 0.0041 15,40 261,936 0.0082

% 52 % % 8 % SE 26 1,691 43,963 1,704 0.0026 1,0 27,477 0.0016 2,114 54,954 0.0032 4,227 109,907 0.0065

% 57 % % % UK 57 1,443 832,327 6,646 0.0125 65 378,331 0.0057 1,311 756,661 0.0114 1,311 756,661 0.0114

7 % 6 % % % IS 7 0 0 130 0.0000 2,9 20,668 0.0159 5,905 41,335 0.0318 0 0 0.0000

% 53 % % % LI

NO 15 6,167 943,506 1,367 0.0690 4,0 615,330 0.0450 8,044 1,230,660 0.0900 16,08 2,461,320 0.1800 3 % 22 % % 7 %

CH 39 7,705 300,488 3,266 0.0092 3,7 147,781 0.0045 7,579 295,562 0.0090 15,15 591,123 0.0181 % 89 % % 7 %

Total 3,0 14,240,3 133,861 0.0106 0 6,591,88 0.0049 13,183,76 0.0098 26,176,36 0.0196 27 49 % 3 % 7 % 9 %

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS as reporting Member State and given that some Member states did not provide a breakdown by the Member State of origin (FR, ES and EE). Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS
42

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

The additional cost to be paid as previous Member State should be added to the budgetary cost Member States will experience as Member State of last activity

(Table 16). Especially the United Kingdom and the Netherlands show in absolute figures a higher cost as Member State of origin than as Member State of last activity.

The real budgetary impact is, however, underestimated given that under the baseline scenario 10,082 aggregated cases of a period of insurance, employment or selfemployment of less than three month have been taken into consideration compared to only 3,027 under sub-option 3b1 (Table 15) and even only 1,911 cases when selecting only the 20 reporting Member States (Table 16). Nevertheless, these figures show already that this option will lead to a higher budgetary impact for some Member

States compared to the current rules (for instance the United Kingdom). If we extrapolate the 1,911 cases to the total group of 10,082 cases an estimated amount of € 47.4 Million (assuming an average expenditure per unemployed person) or

€ 21,955,523 (assuming the entitlement for 3 months) will be paid by the Member States of origin (Table 16). It implies that the loss of an unemployment benefit in the

Member State of last activity is compensated considerably by the Member State of origin (compared to an expenditure of € 51.0 Million under current rules for those

10,082 cases – see also Table 10).

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 16 Total cost under sub-option 3b1

As Member Average duration Three months State of

last activity As Member Total cost % As Member Total cost % (in €) State of (in €) differenc State of (in €) difference

(n: 14,014) origin (in €) e origin (in baseline (n: 1,911 ) baseline €) (n: scenario

scenario 1,911 ) BE 9,692,233 382,098 10,074,33 - 154,904 9,847,137 -51.9%

0 50.8%

BG 1,264,077 1,922 1,265,999 -4.0% 663 1,264,740 -4.1%

DK 116,942 321,590 438,532 38.9% 169,258 286,200 -9.4%

EE 29,135 11,433 40,568 - 4,183 33,318 -48.1%

36.8%

ES 1,952,683 863,180 2,815,863 - 340,729 2,293,412 -64.7%

56.7%

FR 19,735,26 1,479,986 21,215,25 - 634,280 20,369,54 -61.5%

4 0 59.9% 4

HR 7,130 951 8,081 6.3% 303 7,434 -2.3%

CY 3,890 24,635 28,524 633.3 11,370 15,260 292.3%

LV 2,841 1,550 4,391 - 567 3,408 -30.6%

10.5%

LU 437,911 514,545 952,456 81.3% 248,973 686,884 30.7%

HU 326,255 7,322 333,577 -0.9% 2,746 329,001 -2.2%

MT 8,250 8,250 16,501 50.0% 3,173 11,423 3.8%

NL 1,219,680 4,228,985 5,448,665 198.8 2,013,8 3,233,482 77.3%

% 02

PL 219,642 8,569 228,211 - 3,474 223,116 -34.8%

33.3%

RO 1,438 5,572 7,010 225.0 2,259 3,697 71.4%

SK 275,413 4,938 280,351 - 1,512 276,924 -37.2%

36.4%

FI 366,196 100,409 466,605 - 65,484 431,680 -45.9%

41.5%

SE 302,667 43,963 346,630 - 27,477 330,144 -57.3%

55.1%

UK 17,310 832,327 849,637 1,863. 378,331 395,641 814.2%

CH 9,777,402 300,488 10,077,88 0.2% 147,781 9,925,183 -1.3%

Tota 45,756,35 9,142,713 54,899,07 - 4,211,2 49,967,62 -48.4% l 9 1 43.3% 68 7

Extrapo 47,430,196 21,955,52

lation (n:

10,082) 3

*

This is an incomplete picture due to missing data for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS as reporting Member State and given that some Member states did not provide a breakdown
by the Member State of origin (FR, ES and EE). Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire

Option 4 – A change of the calculation method: salary earned in the Member State of origin is also taken into account

For this option the calculation of the unemployment benefit will also be based on the salaries earned in the Member State of origin. The average wage earned during the qualifying period laid down in national legislation will be calculated. As mentioned

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

above (see also Figure 2), many Member States apply a qualifying period of some 12 months.

Box 2 – An example

An unemployed migrant worker worked for one month (option 4a) in the Member State of last activity and received a salary of € 2,000. The qualifying period in the Member State of last activity is 12 months. Therefore, a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of 11 months completed by the unemployed migrant worker in the Member State of origin has to be taken into account for the award of an unemployment benefit by the Member State of last activity. During this period of 11 months the unemployed migrant worker received a monthly salary of € 1,000. The unemployment benefit of the Member State of last activity is calculated as a certain percentage of the average salary of the previous 12 months (i.e. the qualifying period). The average salary will amount to € 1,083 (= (€ 2,000*1 + € 1,000*11) /12). In accordance with the current rules, the calculation of the unemployment benefit would be based on the salary received in the Member State of last activity only, i.e. € 2,000.

If the unemployed migrant worker worked for three months (option 4b) in the Member State of last activity, the average salary would amount to € 1,250 (=(€ 2,000*3 + € 1,000*9) /12).

Tables 17 (threshold of one month) and 18 (threshold of three months) provide bilateral information on the impact of the average wage when also salaries earned in the Member State of origin are taken into account compared to the current situation. Figures are expressed as x times the average salary under the current rules. For example, consider the changes between Belgium and Bulgaria. The average wage in option 4a (Table 17) for an unemployed migrant worker who is employed only one month in Belgium as Member State of last activity (qualifying period = 12 months) and requiring an aggregation of a period of 11 months from Bulgaria as Member State of origin is equal to 0.2 times the average wage under the current rules. This in contrast to an unemployed worker employed in Bulgaria as Member State of last activity (qualifying period = 9 months) and requiring an aggregation of a period of eight months from Belgium as Member State of origin, where the average wage in option 4a will be equal to 8.4 times the average wage under the current rules. These cross-tables could be used to estimate the decrease or increase of the amount of the unemployment benefit. However, this should be corrected by the ceiling of earnings taken into account and the minimum and maximum unemployment benefits. For example, Bulgaria applies a maximum amount of the monthly contributory income of € 1,227. This implies that the salary earned in the Member of origin by unemployed migrant workers coming from high-wage Member States will be flattened to this ceiling. Also, unemployed migrant workers entitled to an unemployment benefit from Belgium will receive at least a daily amount of € 36.6 despite the fact that their average wage is decreased many times by taking into account also the salary earned in low-wage Member States of origin.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 17 Average earnings also taking into account the salaries earned in the Member State of origin compared to the current situation, threshold of one month

Member State of last activity

Reference period 1 9 1 1 1 1 9 5 1 4 9 1 6 9 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 9 2 6 6 6 3 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2

Gross monthly 2, 27 63 2, 2, 65 1, 1, 1, 2, 68 1, n. 52 43 2, 54 1, 2, 2, 54 98 32 98 55 2, 2, 2, 2, n. 3, 3, earnings 57 8 9 94 49 5 85 15 45 05 4 67 a. 0 0 98 5 17 70 34 9 5 6 7 8 35 51 32 11 a. 73 97

9 8 6 1 9 3 5 7 6 5 4 2 9 7 5 8 0 8

B B C D D E IE E E F H IT C L L L H M N A P P R S S FI S U I LI N C E G Z K E E L S R R Y V T U U T L T L T O I K E K S O H

BE 2,5 1. 8. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 2. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 0. 4. 2. 1. 1. 4. 2. 7. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

79 0 4 8 9 0 7 3 0 7 2 5 5 5 7 9 4 1 0 1 4 5 3 4 5 1 0 1 1 7 7

BG 278 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

2 0 5 2 2 5 2 4 3 4 5 2 6 7 2 6 3 3 2 5 3 9 4 5 3 3 3 4 2 1

CZ 639 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3 2 0 3 3 0 4 6 5 5 9 4 2 5 3 2 6 4 3 2 7 9 7 1 4 4 4 5 2 2

DK 2,9 1. 9. 4. 1. 1. 4. 1. 2. 1. 1. 3. 1. 5. 6. 1. 5. 2. 1. 1. 5. 2. 8. 2. 5. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

48 1 5 3 0 2 2 5 2 9 3 9 7 1 5 0 0 4 1 2 0 8 4 8 1 2 1 2 3 8 8

DE 2,4 1. 8. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 0. 4. 2. 0. 1. 4. 2. 7. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

96 0 1 7 9 0 6 3 9 7 2 4 4 4 5 9 3 0 9 1 3 4 1 4 3 0 0 1 1 7 7

EE 655 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3 2 0 3 3 0 4 7 5 5 0 4 2 5 3 2 6 4 3 2 7 9 7 2 4 4 4 5 2 2

IE 1,8 0. 6. 2. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 0. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 3. 1. 5. 1. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

51 7 0 7 7 8 7 0 5 3 9 5 1 3 1 7 2 5 7 8 2 8 3 8 2 8 8 8 9 5 5

EL 1,1 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 2. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 3. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

59 5 8 7 4 5 7 7 0 8 7 6 7 1 6 5 0 0 5 5 0 2 3 2 0 6 6 6 7 4 4

ES 1,4 0. 4. 2. 0. 0. 2. 0. 1. 1. 0. 2. 0. 2. 3. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 4. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

53 6 8 2 5 6 1 8 2 0 8 0 9 6 2 6 5 2 6 7 5 4 2 4 5 7 6 7 8 4 4

FR 2,0 0. 6. 3. 0. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 3. 2. 5. 2. 3. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

55 8 7 0 7 8 0 1 6 4 0 8 2 6 6 7 5 7 8 9 5 0 9 0 6 9 8 9 0 6 6

HR 684 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3 3 1 3 3 0 4 7 5 5 0 5 3 6 4 2 6 4 4 2 7 0 7 2 4 4 4 5 3 2

IT 1,6 0. 5. 2. 0. 0. 2. 0. 1. 1. 0. 2. 1. 3. 3. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 4. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

77 7 5 5 6 7 4 9 4 1 9 3 0 0 7 6 9 4 7 7 9 6 8 6 9 8 7 8 9 5 5

CY 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 3 1 1

LV 520 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3 8 8 2 3 8 4 6 4 4 8 4 0 2 3 0 5 3 3 0 6 5 6 9 4 3 4 5 2 2

LT 430 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

2 5 7 2 2 7 3 5 4 4 7 3 8 0 3 8 4 3 3 8 5 3 5 8 3 3 3 5 2 2

LU 2,9 1. 9. 4. 1. 1. 4. 1. 2. 2. 1. 4. 1. 5. 6. 1. 5. 2. 1. 1. 5. 2. 8. 2. 5. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

86 1 7 4 0 2 3 5 3 0 3 0 7 2 6 0 1 4 1 3 1 9 5 8 2 2 2 2 3 8 8

HU 545 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3 9 9 3 3 8 4 6 4 4 8 4 0 3 3 0 5 3 3 0 6 6 6 0 4 3 4 5 2 2

MT 1,1 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 2. 2. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 3. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

75 5 9 8 4 5 7 7 0 8 7 6 7 1 6 5 1 0 5 5 0 2 4 2 1 6 6 6 7 4 4

NL 2,7 1. 8. 4. 0. 1. 3. 1. 2. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 6. 0. 4. 2. 1. 1. 4. 2. 7. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

04 0 8 0 9 1 9 4 1 8 2 6 6 7 0 9 6 2 0 1 6 6 7 5 7 1 1 1 2 7 7

AT 2,3 0. 7. 3. 0. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 0. 4. 1. 0. 1. 4. 2. 6. 2. 4. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Member State of last activity

Reference period 1 9 1 1 1 1 9 5 1 4 9 1 6 9 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 9 2 6 6 6 3 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2

9 8 6 1 9 3 5 7 6 5 4 2 9 7 5 8 0 8

B B C D D E IE E E F H IT C L L L H M N A P P R S S FI S U I LI N C E G Z K E E L S R R Y V T U U T L T L T O I K E K S O H

42 9 6 4 8 9 4 2 8 6 1 2 4 1 2 8 0 9 9 0 0 3 7 2 1 0 9 0 1 7 6

PL 549 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3 9 9 3 3 9 4 6 4 5 8 4 0 3 3 0 5 3 3 0 6 6 6 0 4 3 4 5 2 2

PT 985 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

4 3 5 4 4 5 6 9 7 6 4 6 8 2 4 7 9 5 5 7 0 9 0 7 5 5 5 6 3 3

RO 326 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

2 2 6 2 2 5 3 4 3 4 5 3 7 8 3 6 3 3 2 6 4 0 4 6 3 3 3 4 2 2

SI 987 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

4 3 5 4 4 5 6 9 7 6 4 6 8 2 4 7 9 5 5 7 0 9 0 7 5 5 5 6 3 3

SK 558 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3 9 9 3 3 9 4 6 4 5 8 4 1 3 3 0 5 3 3 0 6 7 6 0 4 4 4 5 2 2

FI 2,3 0. 7. 3. 0. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 0. 4. 1. 0. 1. 4. 2. 6. 2. 4. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0.

59 9 7 5 8 9 4 2 8 6 1 2 4 1 2 8 0 9 9 0 0 3 7 2 1 0 9 0 1 7 6

SE 2,5 1. 8. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 0. 4. 2. 0. 1. 4. 2. 7. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

17 0 2 7 9 0 6 3 9 7 2 4 5 4 6 9 3 0 9 1 3 4 2 4 4 1 0 1 1 7 7

UK 2,3 0. 7. 3. 0. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 0. 4. 1. 0. 1. 4. 2. 6. 2. 4. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0.

25 9 6 4 8 9 3 2 8 6 1 1 4 1 2 8 0 9 9 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 9 0 1 7 6

IS 2,1 0. 6. 3. 0. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 3. 2. 6. 2. 3. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

18 8 9 1 7 9 0 1 7 4 0 9 2 7 7 8 6 7 8 9 6 1 0 0 7 9 9 9 0 6 6

LI 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 3 1 1

NO 3,7 1. 1 5. 1. 1. 5. 1. 2. 2. 1. 5. 2. 6. 8. 1. 6. 3. 1. 1. 6. 3. 1 3. 6. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0.

30 4 2. 4 2 5 3 9 8 4 6 0 1 5 2 2 4 0 3 5 3 6 0. 5 4 5 4 5 5 0 9 1 6

CH 3,9 1. 1 5. 1. 1. 5. 2. 2. 2. 1. 5. 2. 6. 8. 1. 6. 3. 1. 1. 6. 3. 1 3. 6. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

78 5 2. 8 3 5 7 0 9 6 7 3 3 9 8 3 8 2 4 6 7 8 1. 7 9 6 5 6 6 1 0 8 3

Source Own calculations based on Eurostat

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 18 Average earnings taking into account also the salaries earned in the Member State of origin compared to the current situation, threshold of three months

Member State of last activity

Reference 1 9 1 1 1 1 9 5 1 4 9 1 6 9 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 9 2 6 6 6 3 1 1 1

period 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2

Gross monthly 2, 27 63 2, 2, 65 1, 1, 1, 2, 68 1, 0 52 43 2, 54 1, 2, 2, 54 98 32 98 55 2, 2, 2, 2, 0 3, 3, earnings 57 8 9 94 49 5 85 15 45 05 4 67 0 0 98 5 17 70 34 9 5 6 7 8 35 51 32 11 73 97

9 8 6 1 9 3 5 7 6 5 4 2 9 7 5 8 0 8

B B C D D E IE E E F H IT C L L L H M N A P P R S S FI S U I LI N C E G Z K E E L S R R Y V T U U T L T L T O I K E K S O H

BE 2,57 1. 6. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 5. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 3. 2. 6. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

9 0 5 3 9 0 2 3 5 6 1 8 4 6 2 9 8 9 0 1 8 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 8 7

BG 278 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

3 0 6 3 3 6 4 7 4 8 6 4 7 7 5 6 4 6 3 6 5 9 5 6 6 6 6 0 3 3

CZ 639 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

4 9 0 4 4 0 6 8 6 8 0 5 2 4 6 1 7 6 5 1 7 7 8 1 6 6 6 0 4 4

D 2,94 1. 7. 3. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 1. 4. 2. 1. 1. 4. 2. 7. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

K 8 1 4 7 0 1 6 4 6 8 1 2 6 1 9 0 3 1 0 2 3 5 0 3 7 1 1 1 0 8 8 DE 2,49 1. 6. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 5. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 3. 2. 6. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

6 0 3 2 9 0 1 2 5 5 1 8 4 5 0 9 7 8 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7

EE 655 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

4 9 0 4 4 0 6 8 6 8 0 5 2 4 6 2 7 6 5 1 7 8 8 2 6 6 6 0 4 4

IE 1,85 0. 4. 2. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 4. 1. 3. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

1 8 8 4 7 8 4 0 2 2 0 1 1 7 8 8 8 4 8 8 8 7 5 6 0 9 9 9 0 6 6

EL 1,15 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

9 6 1 6 5 6 6 8 0 8 9 5 8 8 4 7 8 0 7 6 8 1 9 1 9 7 7 7 0 5 5

ES 1,45 0. 3. 2. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 2. 3. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 3. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

3 7 8 0 6 7 9 9 1 0 9 8 9 2 0 7 2 2 8 7 2 4 6 3 4 8 8 8 0 5 5

FR 2,05 0. 5. 2. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 3. 1. 5. 1. 3. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

5 8 3 7 8 9 6 1 3 3 0 3 2 0 1 8 1 6 9 9 1 8 0 7 3 9 9 9 0 7 6

HR 684 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

4 0 1 4 5 0 6 8 6 8 0 6 2 5 6 2 7 6 5 2 8 8 8 2 6 6 6 0 4 4

IT 1,67 0. 4. 2. 0. 0. 2. 0. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 2. 1. 4. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

7 7 4 2 7 8 2 9 2 1 0 0 0 5 4 8 6 3 8 8 5 5 1 5 8 9 8 9 0 6 6

CY 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 8 3 3 3 2 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 5 5 0 3 3

LV 520 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

4 6 9 4 4 8 5 8 5 8 8 5 0 2 6 0 6 6 4 0 6 4 7 9 6 6 6 0 4 3

LT 430 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

4 4 8 4 4 7 5 7 5 8 8 4 9 0 6 8 5 6 4 8 6 2 6 8 6 6 6 0 3 3

LU 2,98 1. 7. 3. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 4. 5. 1. 4. 2. 1. 1. 4. 2. 7. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

6 1 5 8 0 1 7 4 6 8 1 2 6 2 9 0 4 2 1 2 3 5 1 4 8 1 1 1 0 9 8

H 545 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. U 4 6 9 4 4 9 5 8 5 8 9 5 0 2 6 0 6 6 4 0 7 5 7 0 6 6 6 0 4 4 MT 1,17 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 1. 3. 1. 2. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

5 6 2 6 5 6 6 8 0 9 9 5 8 8 4 7 9 0 7 6 9 1 0 1 0 7 7 8 0 5 5

NL 2,70 1. 6. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 3. 5. 1. 4. 2. 1. 1. 3. 2. 6. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

4 0 8 4 9 1 3 3 5 6 1 0 5 8 4 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 5 2 4 1 0 1 0 8 8

AT 2,34 0. 6. 3. 0. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 1. 3. 2. 5. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

2 9 0 0 8 0 9 2 4 5 0 6 3 3 7 9 5 7 9 0 5 0 6 9 8 0 0 0 0 7 7

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Member State of last activity

Reference 1 9 1 1 1 1 9 5 1 4 9 1 6 9 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 9 2 6 6 6 3 1 1 1

period 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2

Gross monthly 2, 27 63 2, 2, 65 1, 1, 1, 2, 68 1, 0 52 43 2, 54 1, 2, 2, 54 98 32 98 55 2, 2, 2, 2, 0 3, 3, earnings 57 8 9 94 49 5 85 15 45 05 4 67 0 0 98 5 17 70 34 9 5 6 7 8 35 51 32 11 73 97

9 8 6 1 9 3 5 7 6 5 4 2 9 7 5 8 0 8

B B C D D E IE E E F H IT C L L L H M N A P P R S S FI S U I LI N C E G Z K E E L S R R Y V T U U T L T L T O I K E K S O H

PL 549 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

4 7 9 4 4 9 5 8 5 8 9 5 0 2 6 0 6 6 4 0 7 5 7 0 6 6 6 0 4 4

PT 985 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

5 7 4 5 5 4 7 9 8 9 3 7 6 1 7 6 9 7 6 6 0 5 0 7 7 7 7 0 4 4

R 326 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

O 3 1 6 3 3 6 5 7 4 8 7 4 8 8 6 7 5 6 4 7 5 0 6 6 6 6 6 0 3 3

SI 987 0. 2. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

5 7 4 5 5 4 7 9 8 9 3 7 6 1 7 6 9 7 6 6 0 5 0 7 7 7 7 0 4 4

SK 558 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

4 7 9 4 4 9 5 8 5 8 9 5 0 2 6 0 6 6 4 0 7 5 7 0 6 6 6 0 4 4

FI 2,35 0. 6. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 1. 3. 2. 5. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

9 9 0 0 9 0 0 2 4 5 0 6 3 4 7 9 5 8 9 0 5 0 7 9 8 0 0 0 0 7 7

SE 2,51 1. 6. 3. 0. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 5. 0. 3. 1. 1. 1. 3. 2. 6. 2. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

7 0 4 2 9 0 1 2 5 5 1 8 4 6 0 9 7 9 0 1 7 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 7

UK 2,32 0. 5. 3. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 1. 3. 2. 5. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0.

5 9 9 0 8 9 9 2 4 5 0 6 3 3 7 9 4 7 9 0 4 0 6 9 8 0 0 0 0 7 7

IS 2,11 0. 5. 2. 0. 0. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 0. 3. 1. 0. 0. 3. 1. 5. 1. 3. 0. 0. 1. 1. 0. 0.

8 9 4 7 8 9 7 1 3 3 0 4 2 0 3 9 2 6 9 9 1 9 1 8 4 9 9 0 0 7 6

LI 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0.

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 8 3 3 3 2 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 5 5 0 3 3

N 3,73 1. 9. 4. 1. 1. 4. 1. 1. 2. 1. 4. 1. 5. 7. 1. 5. 2. 1. 1. 5. 3. 8. 2. 6. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. O 0 3 3 6 2 4 5 7 9 2 2 0 9 1 4 1 4 6 2 4 4 1 8 9 0 3 2 3 0 0 0

CH 3,97 1. 9. 4. 1. 1. 4. 1. 2. 2. 1. 4. 2. 5. 7. 1. 5. 2. 1. 1. 5. 3. 9. 3. 6. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

8 4 9 9 3 4 8 8 0 3 2 2 0 4 9 2 7 8 2 5 7 3 4 0 4 3 3 4 0 0 0

Source Own calculations based on Eurostat

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Option 4a – A threshold of one month

In order to calculate option 4a the following definition is applied:

=

(Cases of less than 30 days * average spending per unemployed person * correction coefficient) + (cases more than 30 days * average spending per unemployed person).

The correction coefficient is defined in Table 17 (assuming a period of employment of one month in the Member State of last activity and 11 months in the Member State of origin). The unemployment expenditure related to the cases of a period of more than one month is already reported in Table 11 under sub-option 3a.

For six of the reporting Member States the budgetary impact could not be estimated: Lithuania and Norway could not provide a breakdown by period of insurance, employment or self-employment; France, Spain and Estonia could not provide a breakdown by Member State of origin and for Liechtenstein the average spending per unemployed person is not known.

The estimated budgetary impact does not take into account the ceiling of earnings taken as a reference defined by some Member States, or the lowest and highest levels of the unemployment benefits. Therefore, these estimates should be considered as a maximum impact, given that the real impact will be flattened for some Member States. As already mentioned, also some Member States do not take previous earnings as a reference for the calculation of the unemployment benefit and as a result this option will not affect these Member States (Ireland, Malta, Poland and the United Kingdom).

Under this sub-option 0.10% of total yearly unemployment spending by the reporting Member States will be related to the aggregation of periods for unemployment (Table 19).

If the calculation of the unemployment benefit will also be based on the salaries earned in the Member State of last activity for those unemployed recent migrant workers who fulfilled a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than one month in their Member State of last activity, in particular ‘low-wage’ competent Member States (compared to the Member States of origin) will be confronted with an additional budgetary cost (e.g. BG (+2.7%), LV (+94.7%), HU (+ 1.5%), SK (+43.7%) and SE (+3.2%)) (Tables 15 and 16). This of course in contrast to ‘high-wage’ competent Member States (e.g. BE (-6.8%), DK (-24.7%); NL (-1.4%), FI (-4.3%) and CH (-0.2%)).

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 19 Estimate of the budgetary annual impact under sub-option 4a

MS Less than 30 More than one Expenditure % change Total % share days month related to the compared to unemployment

aggregation the baseline spending of periods (in scenario (in million €)

€) BE 5,457,818 13,606,403 19,064,221 -6.8% 5,577 0.34% BG 43,216 1,312,129 1,355,345 2.7% 181 0.75% CZ 0

DK 120,852 116,942 237,794 -24.7% 2,696 0.01% DE

HR 0 7,606 7,606 0.0% 180 0.00% IT

CY 0 3,890 3,890 0.0% 124 0.00% LV 6,196 3,358 9,554 94.7% 59 0.02% LT n.a. LU 8,103 514,545 522,648 -0.5% 275 0.19% HU 13,621 328,012 341,634 1.5% 208 0.16% MT (2,100) (9,625) (11,725) 6.6% 23 0.05% NL 270,987 1,527,450 1,798,437 -1.4% 10,183 0.02% AT

PL (152,136) (305,108) (457,244) 33.7% 640 0.07% PT

RO 30 1,797 1,827 -15.3% 183 0.00% SI

SK 275,080 358,226 633,306 43.7% 176 0.36% FI 101,483 661,516 762,999 -4.3% 3,189 0.02% SE 288,706 508,954 797,660 3.2% 1,704 0.05% UK (19,467) (18,753) (38,219) -11.7% 6,646 0.00% IS

LI n.a.

NO n.a.

CH 12,454 10,023,956 10,036,409 -0.2% 3,266 0.31% Tot

al -3.2* 6,772,249 29,308,270 36,080,519 35,310 0.10%

*

Only selecting Member States for which figures are available under sub-option 4a. ** ( ) = Member States which do not take previous earnings as a reference for the calculation of the Unemployment Benefit. Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 20 Estimate of public spending for cases less than 30 days under the baseline scenario and under sub-option 4a

MS Number of Baseline Sub-option 4a % change cases scenario (in €) (in €)

BE 736 6,859,118 5,457,818 -20.4%

BG 22 7,048 43,216 513.9%

DK 34 198,801 120,852 -39.2%

HR 0 0 0

CY 0 0 0

LV 6 1,550 6,196 299.8%

LU 1 10,948 8,103 -26.0%

HU 29 8,493 13,621 60.4%

MT 1 1,375 2,100 (52.7%)

NL 26 296,371 270,987 -8.6%

PL 164 36,983 152,136 (311.4%)

RO 2 359 30 -91.7%

SK 217 82,434 275,080 233.7%

FI 23 135,847 101,483 -25.3%

SE 156 263,777 288,706 9.5%

UK 17 24,523 19,467 (-20.6%)

CH 4 30,819 12,454 -59.6%

*

( ) = Member States which do not take previous earnings as a reference for the calculation of the

Unemployment Benefit.

Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS

Option 4b – A threshold of three months

In order to calculate option 4b the following definition is applied:

=

(Cases of less than 30 days * average spending per unemployed person * correction coefficient) + (cases more than one month but less than three months * average spending per unemployed person * correction coefficient) + (cases more than three months * average spending per unemployed person).

The correction coefficient for the cases of less than 30 days is defined in Table 17 (assuming a period of employment of one month in the Member State of last activity and 11 months in the Member State of origin) and for the cases of more than one month but less than three months in Table 84 (assuming a period of employment of three months in the Member State of last activity and nine months in the Member State of origin). The unemployment expenditure related to the cases of a period of more than three months is already reported in Table 15 under sub-option 3b.

For six reporting Member States the budgetary impact could not be estimated: Lithuania and Norway could not provide a breakdown by period of insurance, employment or self-employment; France, Spain and Estonia could not provide a breakdown by Member State of origin and for Liechtenstein the average spending per unemployed person is not known.

Under this sub-option, 0.10% of total unemployment spending by the reporting Member States will be related to the aggregation of periods for unemployment

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

(Table 21). Also, a similar view on the budgetary impact of ‘low-wage’ and ‘high-wage’ Member States as described under sub-option 4a is obtained.

Table 21 Estimate of the budgetary annual impact under sub-option 4b

MS Less than 30 More than 1 More than 3 Expenditure % change Total % share days month but months related to the compared unemployment

less than 3 aggregation of to the spending (in months periods (in €) baseline million €) scenario

BE 5,457,81 3,182,44 9,692,23 -

8 7 3 18,332,498 10.4% 5,577 0.33%

BG 1,264,07

43,216 237,859 7 1,545,152 17.1% 181 0.85%

DK -

120,852 0 116,942 237,794 24.7% 2,696 0.01%

HR 0 1,315 7,130 8,446 11.0% 180 0.00%

CY 0 0 3,890 3,890 0.0% 124 0.00%

LV 118.4

6,196 1,680 2,841 10,717 % 59 0.02%

LT n.a.

LU 8,103 62,786 437,911 508,800 -3.2% 275 0.18%

HU 13,621 2,424 326,255 342,300 1.7% 208 0.16%

MT (2,100) (721) (8,250) (11,072) 0.6% 23 0.05%

NL 1,219,68

270,987 292,771 0 1,783,439 -2.2% 10,183 0.02%

PL (152,136 (293,485 (219,642

) ) ) (665,263) 94.5% 640 0.10%

RO 30 575 1,438 2,043 -5.3% 183 0.00%

SK 275,080 248,899 275,413 799,392 81.4% 176 0.45%

FI -

101,483 222,066 366,196 689,745 13.5% 3,189 0.02%

SE 288,706 238,894 302,667 830,267 7.4% 1,704 0.05%

UK -

(19,467) (1,955) (17,310) (38,732) 10.5% 6,646 0.00%

LI n.a.

O n.a.

CH 9,777,40

12,454 134,820 2 9,924,675 -1.3% 3,266 0.30%

Tot 6,772,24 4,922,69 24,039,2

al 9 8 77 35,734,224 -4.1* 35,310 0.10%

*

Only selecting Member States for which figures are available under sub-option 4b. ** ( ) = Member States which do not take previous earnings as a reference for the calculation of the

Unemployment Benefit.

Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 22 Estimate of public spending for cases less than three months under the baseline scenario and under sub-option 4b

MS Number of Baseline Sub-option 4b (in €) % change cases scenario (in €)

BE 1,156 10,773,289 8,640,265 -19.8%

BG 172 55,099 281,123 410.2%

DK 34 198,801 120,852 -39.2%

HR 1 475 1,315 176.7%

CY 0 0 0

LV 8 2,066 7,876 281.1%

LU 8 87,582 70,889 -19.1%

HU 35 10,250 16,045 56.5%

MT 2 2,750 2,821 (2.6%)

NL 53 604,141 563,759 -6.7%

PL 543 122,449 445,621 (263.9%)

RO 4 719 605 -15.8%

SK 435 165,248 523,979 217.1%

FI 73 431,166 323,549 -25.0%

SE 278 470,064 527,599 12.2%

UK 18 25,965 21,422 (-17.5%)

CH 36 277,373 147,274 -46.9%

*

( ) = Member States which do not take previous earnings as a reference for the calculation of the

Unemployment Benefit.

Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS

Summary

All Member States will experience the lowest budgetary impact on their public unemployment spending if option 3b – application of a threshold of three months – is applied (Tables 23 and 24). The budgetary impact differs for each of the Member States and depends on the percentage of aggregated cases applicable to a period of insurance, employment of self-employment below three months compared to the total number of aggregated cases. For instance, Cyprus and Hungary will experience almost no decrease of public unemployment spending under option 3b. These estimates only include the budgetary impact on public unemployment spending. However, also public spending on social assistance applicable to recent unemployed migrant workers who fall below the threshold could be taken into account. This will also limit the financial ‘gain’ when applying a threshold of one or three months. The impact of option 4 – the calculation of the unemployment benefit will also be based on the salaries in the Member State of origin if a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than one month (sub-option 4a) or three months (sub-option 4b) has been fulfilled in the Member State of last activity – depends strongly on the breakdown by Member State of origin. If average earnings in the Member State of origin are higher than the average earnings in the Member State of last activity, competent Member States will experience a higher budgetary cost compared to the baseline scenario. However, the real impact will be flattened for some competent Member States given that they have defined a ceiling of earnings taken as a reference and/or a minimum and/or a maximum level of the unemployment benefit.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 23 A comparison of options between Member States, % change compared to the baseline scenario

MS Baseline Option 3a Option 3b Option 4a Option 4b

Amount Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % (in €) (in €) change (in €) change (in €) change (in €) change

BE 20,465,5 13,606,4 18,332,4

22 03 -33.5%

9,692,23

3 -52.6%

19,064,2

21 -6.8% 98 -10.4%

BG 1,319,17 1,312,12 1,264,07 1,355,34

6 9 -0.5% 7 -4.2% 5 2.7%

1,545,15

2 17.1%

DK 315,743 116,942 -63.0% 116,942 -63.0% 237,794 -24.7% 237,794 -24.7% DE

EE 64,171 40,568 -36.8% 29,135 -54.6% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. IE

ES 6,502,80 3,357,98

1 2 -48.4%

1,952,68

3 -70.0% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

FR 52,961,9 27,884,7

03 15 -47.3%

19,735,2

64 -62.7% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

HR 7,606 7,606 0.0% 7,130 -6.3% 7,606 0.0% 8,446 11.0% IT

CY 3,890 3,890 0.0% 3,890 0.0% 3,890 0.0% 3,890 0.0% LV 4,908 3,358 -31.6% 2,841 -42.1% 9,554 94.7% 10,717 118.4% LT 53,055 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. LU 525,493 514,545 -2.1% 437,911 -16.7% 522,648 -0.5% 508,800 -3.2% HU 336,506 328,012 -2.5% 326,255 -3.0% 341,634 1.5% 342,300 1.7% MT 11,000 9,625 -12.5% 8,250 -25.0% 11,725 6.6% 11,072 0.6% NL 1,823,82 1,527,45 1,219,68 1,798,43

1 0 -16.3% 0 -33.1% 7 -1.4%

1,783,43

9 -2.2%

PL 342,091 305,108 -10.8% 219,642 -35.8% 457,244 33.7% 665,263 94.5% PT

RO 2,157 1,797 -16.7% 1,438 -33.3% 1,827 -15.3% 2,043 -5.3% SI

SK 440,660 358,226 -18.7% 275,413 -37.5% 633,306 43.7% 799,392 81.4% FI 797,363 661,516 -17.0% 366,196 -54.1% 762,999 -4.3% 689,745 -13.5% SE 772,731 508,954 -34.1% 302,667 -60.8% 797,660 3.2% 830,267 7.4% UK 43,275 18,753 -56.7% 17,310 -60.0% 38,219 -11.7% 38,732 -10.5% IS

LI n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. NO 3,083,35

3 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

CH 10,054,7 10,023,9 9,777,40

75 56 -0.3% 2 -2.8%

10,048,4

55 -0.2%

9,924,67

5 -1.3%

Tota

l -37.4% -52.7% -3.2% -4.1%

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, LT, PT, SI, NO and IS. Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

Table 24 A comparison of options between Member States, estimated lowest and highest budgetary impact

MS Lowest budgetary impact Highest budgetary impact

Baseline Option 3a Option 3b Option 4a Option 4b Baseline Option 3a Option 3b Option

BE X X

BG X

DK X X X DE

EE X n.a. n.a. X n.a IE

ES X n.a. n.a. X n.a FR X n.a. n.a. X n.a HR X

CY X X X X X X X X X LV X

LT n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a LU X X HU X

MT X X NL X X AT

PL X

RO X X

SK X

FI X X

SE X

UK X X

LI n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a NO

CH X X

*

No data available for CZ, DE, IE, EL, IT, AT, PT, SI and IS. Source Own calculations based on the administrative questionnaire and ESSPROS

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

CONCLUSIONS

The unemployment chapter of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i provides for specific coordination rules for the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or selfemployment in the case of unemployment. Aggregation will be applied to those unemployed recent migrant workers who have completed their most recent periods of insurance, employment or self-employment in the Member State where the benefit is claimed. In some cases the period of insurance, employment or self-employment is insufficient to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. In that case additional periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed by the person in a Member State other than the competent State are required.

In the framework of an impact assessment of a revision of Regulation (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and 987/2009 by the end of 2015 the Commission requires a preparatory study on the economic impact of an amendment of the aggregation rules for unemployment. The Commission proposed several alternative options, to be compared with a first option representing the current situation, i.e. the ‘status quo’.

 Option 1 – Status quo: “maintaining the wording of Article 61”;  Option 2 – The formalisation of the “one-day rule”;  Option 3 – The introduction of a minimum period for aggregating periods of insurance, employment or self-employment; o Sub-option 3a: one month of insurance, employment or selfemployment needs to be completed before aggregation can be applied.  Sub-option 3a1: Previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed one month of insurance, employment or self-employment. o Sub-option 3b: three months of insurance, employment or selfemployment needs to be completed before aggregation can be applied.  Sub-option 3b1: Previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed three months of insurance, employment or self-employment.  Option 4 – A change of the calculation method of the unemployment benefit. o Sub-option 4a: the salary earned in the previous Member State is also taken into account for the calculation of the unemployment benefit by the competent Member State, if less than one month of insurance, employment or self-employment is completed. o Sub-option 4b: the salary earned in the previous Member State is also taken into account for the calculation of the unemployment benefit by the competent Member State, if less than three months of insurance, employment or self-employment is completed.

Different components (the number of new EU-28/EFTA movers; the number of unemployed new EU-28/EFTA movers; the period of insurance, employment or selfemployment completed in the last Member State of activity; the qualifying period; the amount of the unemployment benefit and the duration of unemployment) will determine the budgetary cost of new EU-28/EFTA movers who became unemployed after a short period of insurance, employment or self-employment.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

In 2012, some 1.8 million EU-28/EFTA citizens of working age moved to another EU Member State/EFTA country and some one in ten of these new EU-28/EFTA movers were unemployed. This group might need to prove periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed in a Member State other than the competent Member State in order to be entitled to an unemployment benefit. To which extent aggregation is required (expressed by the number of PDs U1 or SEDs U002) will also depend on the qualifying period required under the legislation of the competent Member State. Most Member States apply a qualifying period of some 12 months. However, it should be noted that there are also large differences in the time in which this period must be completed. It will make the accomplishment of the acquired period more severe or less severe.

In almost all Member States the earnings preceding unemployment are taken into account as a reference basis for the calculation of the unemployment benefit. Nonetheless, the applied calculation methods vary from taking into account the last salary earned to the average earnings of several months. In case of aggregation the calculation method (as defined in Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 i) provides that only the salary or professional income received by the person concerned in respect of the last activity in the competent Member State is taken into account. However, option 4 is revising this by also taking into account the salary earned in the previous Member State of origin if a period of insurance, employment or selfemployment of less than one month (sub-option 4a) or three months (sub-option 4b) has been fulfilled in the Member State of last activity .

The budgetary impact of the aggregation of periods for unemployment on total unemployment spending is very limited. Approximately 0.11% of total unemployment spending by the reporting Member States could be related to the aggregation of periods for unemployment.

All Member States will experience the lowest budgetary impact on their public unemployment spending if option 3b – application of a threshold of three months – is applied. The budgetary impact differs for each of the Member States and depends on the percentage of aggregated cases applicable to a period of insurance, employment of self-employment below three months compared to the total number of aggregated cases. These estimates only include the budgetary impact on public unemployment spending. However, also public spending on social assistance applicable to unemployed recent migrant workers who fall below the threshold could be taken into account. This will also limit the financial ‘gain’ when applying a threshold of one or three months.

In case the previous Member State is responsible for paying the unemployment benefits for those workers who, in the Member State of last activity, have not completed one or three months of insurance, employment or self-employment this additional cost should be added to the budgetary cost Member States will experience as Member State of last activity. However, most of the aggregated cases apply to a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of more than three months and implies that the previous Member State only for a limited number of cases will be responsible for paying the unemployment benefit. Nevertheless, figures show already that this will lead to a higher budgetary impact for some Member States compared to the current rules.

The impact of option 4 – the calculation of the unemployment benefit will also be based on the salaries in the Member State of origin if a period of insurance, employment or self-employment of less than one month (sub-option 4a) or three

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

months (sub-option 4b) has been fulfilled in the Member State of last activity – depends strongly on the breakdown by Member State of origin. If average earnings in the Member State of origin are higher than the average earnings in the Member State of last activity, competent Member States will experience a higher budgetary cost compared to the baseline scenario. However, the real impact will be flattened for some competent Member States given that they have defined a ceiling of earnings taken as a reference and/or a minimum and/or a maximum level of the unemployment benefit.

Aggregation of periods or salaries for unemployment benefits

REFERENCES

Barslund, M. and Busse, M. (2014), Making the Most of EU Labour Mobility. Report of a CEPS Task Force in cooperation with the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels, 45 p.

Canetta, E., Fries-Tersch, E. and Mabilla, V. (2014), Annual report on statistics on intra-EU movers, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, 76 p.

Doherty, R., Vandresse, B., Bulté, S., Bardaji Horno, M., Ulrich, M., Pacolet, J. and De Wispelaere, F. (2013), Study for an impact assessment for revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 and 987/2009, Deloitte – HIVA KU Leuven, 295 p.

Darvas, Z. and Wolff, G.B. (2014), ‘Europe’s social problem and its implications for economic growth’, Breugelpolicybrief, Issue 2014/03, Brussels, 8 p.

Dullien, S. (2014), A European Unemployment Benefits Scheme. How to Provide for More Stability in the Euro Zone, Bertelsmann Stiftung, 143 p.

Esser, I., Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Palme, J. & Sjöberg, O. (2013), Unemployment Benefits in EU Member States, European Commission – DG EMPL, 25 p.

European Commission (2015), Employment and Social Development in Europe 2014, DG EMPL, 33 p.

European Commission (2014a), ‘Recent trends in the geographical mobility of workers in the EU – EU Employment and Social Situation – Quarterly Review – Supplement June 2014’, DG EMPL, 36 p.

European Commission (2014b), Migrant access to social security and healthcare: policies and practice. European Migration Network Study 2014, DG Home Affairs, 111 p.

European Commission (2011), Mobility in Europe 2011 – Section III: Migration and cross-border commuting, p. 66-108.

Pacolet, J. and De Wispelaere, F. (2015), Aggregation of periods for unemployment,

Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, May 2015, 17 p.

Pacolet, J. and De Wispelaere, F. (2014), Posting of workers: Report on A1 portable documents issued in 2012 and 2013, Network Statistics FMSSFE, European Commission, 40 p.

Tænketanken Europa (2014), ‘Sociale Ydelser og fri bevægelighed - fire bud på vejen frem. Notat’, Tænketanken Europa, Denmark. See also

http://english.thinkeuropa.dk/society/social-security-and-freedom-movement-four-proposals-road-ahead

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions:

• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

ANNEX XV: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 2014 PACKAGE

ANNEX XV A DMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE OPTIONS 80

For the assessment of the administrative and implementation costs, a limited number of Member States has been selected as a sample.

For long-term care benefits, these countries are:

-

Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom.

For unemployment benefits, these countries are:

-

Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and the United Kingdom.

The selection criteria applied are:

1)

The high number of cross-border workers in these countries and experience with managing cross-border cases;

2)

The efficiency level and the degree of automation in place;

3)

The geographic balance;

4)

The willingness of the national administrations to collaborate.

L ONG - TERM CARE BENEFITS

For long-term care, it appears that the situation is very complex, as it encompasses different cares that are not understood in the same way in the whole EU and that imply a fragmented landscape of responsible and implementing actors in some Member States (e.g. over 70 different bodies are involved in Germany, while each of the 17 regions of Spain also has a different system; in many Member States, local entities are a dominant actor, etc.). The different national specificities result in a large variety of situations which may have a significant impact on the administrative burden when dealing with cross-border cases for long-term care.

There a number examples demonstrating the complexity of the processing of cross-border cases for long-term care which can result in administrative cost and burden for Member States’ authorities:

According to the interviewees, there is legal uncertainty about which benefits should be coordinated under the Sickness Chapter. Some countries still do not consider the care (social

assistance) they provide as being included in the Sickness Chapter;

In our survey to the national administrations, around 50% of national administrations that are opposed to changes to the current coordination rules state that the current rules need only to be better applied in practice and to be better explained. National administrations who are in favour of a change of the current rules say that the identified problems (legal uncertainty, complex regulation and uneven applications of the rules by Member States) will persist if no

change occurs;

Not in all Member States (particularly not in Member States that generally are in favour of keeping the status quo such as Germany, Austria and the Netherlands) administrative burden

80 Source: Deloitte, Consulting Study for the impact assessment for revision of Regulations (EC) Nos 883/2004 i and

987/2009, 6 December 2013.

was perceived a major concern by national administrations. One Danish interviewee gave the following argument to put the administrative burden into perspective:

“Before 2009, Germany did not ask reimbursement to Denmark for costs that it incurred by provision of LTC services to citizens that fell under the Danish system, based on a special agreement between both Member States. However, recently, Germany asked to reintroduce a reimbursement system again between both countries. The fact that Germany asked to reinstall a reimbursement system again shows that other aspects seem more important for Germany than administrative burden from reimbursement claims, for example the financial impact of LTC services provided by Germany.”

A German health insurance considered the reimbursement of LTC benefits to be slow and problematic from an administrative point of view:

“There are EUR 500 000 – 600.000 interest costs per year that my organisation has to bear because of non- or late payment. The reimbursement mechanism is not functioning well and needs a substantial revision of the rules. There is an outstanding amount of EUR 12-13 million in 2013. Late payments can be the result of checks/scrutiny of services rendered by the country of residence; however, the checks do not justify a waiting period of up to 18 months in some cases. The time needed for checks should be reduced substantially. The reimbursement mechanism could be made more efficient by using lump sum compensation mechanism. However, the views about its effectiveness are divided amongst the insuring companies.”

An Austrian representative of a health insurance fund confirms the long processing time of reimbursement:

“Particularly the reimbursement of LTC benefits in kind by the competent MS poses difficulties. Often, the information about the amount/costs of benefits in kind rendered by the Member State of residence reaches the competent Member State (which reimburses these costs) very late. Regularly, it takes 1-1.5 years to reimburse such claims. The rules stipulating information procedures should be more detailed (e.g. duty for monthly information provision of the value of the benefits in kind rendered by the MS of residence). The time-bound provision of information by all Member States is of key importance as to ensure an effective application of the reimbursement mechanism”.

In general, regardless if they believed that administrative burden from the current rules is a major problem or not, only a small minority of national administrations have a good view on the actual administrative burden or are able to support their arguments with quantitative data or a detailed description of the burden. The lack of concrete (quantitative) evidence adds to the difficulty for making a sound judgment about this issue.

In terms of substantiation of the administrative costs related to the current rules and considering the limitations of the application of the SCM methodology in this exercise, we present in the table below the estimated costs related to processing of the PD S1 document.

Despite the data limitations resulting from the problems discussed in this chapter, the assessment of the administrative cost (baseline scenario) for the PD S1 document provides a robust basis for assessing the theoretical impact (positive or negative) of the different policy options on the administrative cost.

The methodology for assessing the administrative cost is based on the following formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

The hourly rate is EUR 18 per hour. We provide an estimate for the total number of cases for processing PD S1 documents for the EU-27.

Estimated current administrative cost (Baseline Scenario)

The PD S1 form allows a person to register for healthcare in the country of residence. This form is delivered per person (not per family). The number of PD S1 forms issued provides insight into the number of people who (may) receive LTC benefits in another Member State. In the framework of this study, we have collected data on the number of PD S1 documents ‘issued’ by category of citizen and have estimated expenditure on LTC benefits. In addition, we have collected data on the number of PD S1 documents issued for Poland and Belgium by means of a workshop with experts in the respective countries. In this section, we use the data available to calculate the estimated administrative cost for processing a number of documents related to long-term care in a cross-border case.

In order to assess the administrative costs for the EU-27 stemming from the processing of the PD S1 documents, we have carried out the following steps according to the Standard Cost Model (SCM):

1.

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The unit cost per case (processing/handling of a PD S1 form by the administrative staff – clerk) provides insight into the total cost for processing one PD S1 document. It is based on the following formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W)

During the workshops in the Member States, we have collected data on the average standard time spent for processing/handling a PD S1 document. Robust data are available only for Poland. The estimated time for processing one PD S1 document in Poland is estimated at 60 minutes.

The hourly rate for processing the administrative tasks is EUR 18; this results in a rate per minute of EUR 0.3

(EUR 18/60 minutes). The average unit cost for the EU-27 per case of handling a PD S1 document is EUR 18 81 .

It is calculated on the following basis: Time (60 minutes) x Wage (EUR 0.3).

Caution should be paid when interpreting this estimated unit cost as the result is based on an example of one country only (Poland) which seems to have a rather efficient way of processing PD documents (see also the discussion on the processing of PD U1 documents above). It can be expected that the time for processing a PD S1 document in the other Member States may differ (substantially). Due to data limitation, however, we have calculated the administrative cost on the basis of the Polish example.

2.

Number of cases:

In our research, we have estimated data for the number of PD S1 documents ‘issued’ for the EU-27 countries on the basis of our own calculations based on data from LFS (for a detailed discussion on the estimated number of PD S1 issued by category of citizen, see section 4.2.5 in this report). The total estimated number of PD S1 documents ‘issued’ in the EU-27 is estimated at around 1 980 000.

3.

Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD S1 documents on the basis of this formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD S1 documents. The estimated total cost for the EU-27 is EUR 35 632 000. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing PD S1 documents was highest (˃ EUR 3 000) in a number of the old Member States (in descending order): Germany, the UK, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Italy. It was lowest (˂ EUR 100) in a number of the new Members States (in descending order): Cyprus, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Estonia, Malta, Lithuania and Latvia.

81 Standard time (60 minutes) x EUR 0.30 (average wage – clerk level) = EUR 18

Table 1: Estimated administrative cost - PD S1 'issued', EU-27, EUR, 2013, in 000

Competent country Total number of PD S1

Country issued Total cost (EUR)

BE 113 2043

BG 4 79

CZ 101 1821

DK 57 1025

DE 368 6622

EE 2 27

IE 29 515

GR 23 407

ES 71 1277

FR 102 1839

IT 167 3013

CY 5 98

LV 1 14

LT 1 16

LU 207 3726

HU 28 496

MT 1 23

NL 203 3650

AT 177 3180

PL 17 299

PT 10 171

RO 6 111

SI 3 49

SK 11 203

FI 33 597

SE 23 414

UK 218 3917

EU-27 1980 35632

Source: Own calculations HIVA based on data from LFS and workshop in Poland

We have also calculated the administrative cost for processing a number of other documents related to long-term care benefits for Poland by applying the following formula: Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N). Data were collected for the following documents:

Member State of residence:

• Service of E125 forms.

Competent Member State:

• Request for the issue of S1 document/ E100 series form (service of E107/E001 forms); • Registration of the S1 document; • Registration of the E100 -series form (part B); • Service of SED S001 documents; • Issuing E125 forms.

There are no data available for the EU-27 for these documents; a calculation of administrative cost for these documents is therefore not possible at this stage. We present the data only for Poland, where robust data are available. The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing the documents for Poland presented according to ‘Member State of residence’ and ‘Former working Member State’:

Table 2: Estimated administrative Cost – Competent Member State, E125, Poland, EUR, 2013

Service of E125 forms

Unit cost per case (EUR) 28.5

Number of cases 99504

Total cost (EUR) 2835864

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Table 3:Estimated administrative Cost – Member State of residence, E125, S1/E100/E107/E001,

S001, Poland, EUR, 2013

Service of E125 forms

Unit cost per case (EUR) 28.5

Number of cases 99504

Total cost (EUR) 2835864

Request for the issue of S1 document/ E100 series form (service of E107/E001 forms)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 10.5

Number of cases 1704

Total cost (EUR) 17892

Registration of the S1 document (EUR)

Unit cost per case 16.5

Number of cases 45048

Total cost (EUR) 743292

Service of SED S001 documents

Unit cost per case (EUR) 13.5

Number of cases 1.5

Total cost (EUR) 20.25

Issuing E125 forms

Unit cost per case (EUR) 12

Number of cases 324924

Total cost (EUR) 3899088

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland Summary – Estimated current administrative cost - Baseline scenario

The table below summarises the administrative cost for the EU-27 for the following documents for the baseline scenario: PD U1 ‘received’, PD U” ‘issued’ and PD S1 ‘issued’.

Table 4: Baseline scenario – estimated administrative cost: PD U1 (in €), PD U2 (in €), PD S1 (in € 000)

Country PD U1 'received' PD U2 'issued' PD S1 'issued'

BE 102,720 4,865 2,043

BG 237,141 1,732 79

CZ 247,911 1,811 1,821

DK 124,194 4,986 1,025

DE 1,911,564 13,965 6,622

EE 89,110 288 27

IE 182,221 1,331 515

EL 432,895 3,163 407

ES 2,979,503 21,767 1,277

FR 2,140,128 12,854 1,839

IT 1,342,577 9,809 3,013

CY 17,635 129 98

LV 140,092 1,023 14

LT 194,083 1,418 16

LU 6,699 666 3,726

HU 319,826 2,337 496

MT 6,805 50 23

NL 219,708 2,867 3,650

AT 114,016 5,337 3,180

PL 831,690 531 299

PT 391,099 2,857 171

RO 462,453 50 111

SI 49,032 358 49

SK 467,034 356 203

FI 131,834 963 597

SE 94,246 1,188 414

UK 1,368,111 9,995 3,917

EU27 14,604,326 106,695 35,632

Source: Own calculations based on collected administrative data and 2012 Ageing Report and data provided during the workshops on administrative burden (Poland, Belgium and Romania).

The number of cases is multiplied by standard stylized estimated cost per case. Standard because we use for each country the same cost, stylized because round figures are used and estimated because we have only partial and anecdotic information for two countries, Belgium and Poland. Those parameters can however easily be changed in this kind of calculations when more solid information becomes available. Stylized is also the fact that we do not reproduce all administrative steps for this kind of benefits: the intake of the patient, the decision process to allocate a benefit, the administrative burden to pay a patient, to claim in needed the reimbursement, to verify the entitlements, to reimburse, or claim reimbursement of some of the administrative burden etc. Here we make the hypothesis that in the country of residence the administrative burden for the intake for a benefit in kind is € 60, as it is also € 60 for the benefit in cash. This intake is here to take place in the country of residence, although situations are thinkable that people were already entitled to this benefit before they moved (as a pensioner for instance) from the previous country of residence to a new one. In the case of a benefit in kind also in the competent state an additional cost needs to be made for the handling of this process. On top of that for the payment in kind, based on the level of the country of residence and organised in the country of residence, a reimbursement process is needed, here supposed at € 20 euro per case, triggering at the same time a similar cost in the competent country. Multiplying those standard costs with the number of cases results to an average administrative cost for the in kind cases of € 4.8 million, and € 3.6 million for the in cash cases. The % of this administrative cost to the total budgetary cost is some 0.8% for the in kind benefits, and 1.0% for the in cash benefits. The grand total is some 0.9 % of which the major part of the administrative burden is at the expense of the country of residence while the budgetary cost is completely to be paid or reimbursed by the competent country.

Table 5: Estimated administrative cost and burden baseline scenario and options where country of residence or competent country are providing LTC benefits

Unit administrative cost In kind In cash In kind In cash In total Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Resident Competent Country state state state state state state state state state state

Baseline scenario Number of users (in thousand) 48 48 45 45 93 93 Administrative cost assessment (in thousand € - except unit cost) 60 60 20 2.892 2.700 900 5.580 Administrative cost reimbursement (in thousand € - except unit cost) 20 20 964 964 1.860 1.860 Total (in thousand €) 3.856 964 2.700 900 7.440 1.860 Grand total (in thousand €) 4.820 3.600 9.300 Budget (in million €) 618 618 376 376 995 995 As share of budget for benefits 0,6% 0,2% 0,7% 0,2% 0,7% 0,2%

0,8% 1,0% 0,9% Scenario number of users and benefit on level of country of residence

Number of users (in thousand) 48 48 41 41 89 89 Administrative cost assessment (in thousand € - except unit cost) 60 60 20 2.892 2.460 820 5.340

Administrative cost reimbursement (in thousand € - except unit cost) 20 20 964 964 1.780 1.780 Total (in thousand €) 3.856 964 2.460 820 7.120 1.780 Grand total (in thousand €) 4.820 3.280 8.900 As % of Baseline scenario 100% 91% 96% Budget (in million €) 618 618 192 192 810 810 As share of budget for benefits 0,6% 0,2% 1,3% 0,4% 0,9% 0,2%

0,8% 1,7% 1,1% Scenario number of users and benefit on level of competent country

Number of users (in thousand) 58 58 45 45 103 103 Administrative cost assessment (in thousand € - except unit cost) 60 60 20 3.470 2.700 900 6.180

Administrative cost reimbursement (in thousand € - except unit cost) 20 20 1.157 1.157 2.060 2.060 Total (in thousand €) 4.626 1.157 2.700 900 8.240 2.060 Grand total (in thousand €) 5.783 3.600 10.300 As % of Baseline scenario 120% 100% 111% Budget (in million €) 900 900 376 376 1.277 1.277 As share of budget for benefits 0,5% 0,1% 0,7% 0,2% 0,6% 0,2%

0,6% 1,0% 0,8%

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report, additional data delivered by DG ECFIN input from the work shops

U NEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Estimated current administrative costs and burden

Data limitations

In order to allow the stakeholders to identify the time spent on the information obligations related to the Regulations, we have defined prior to our visits in the Member States a standard legal process stemming from the Regulations, in cooperation with the Commission.

During our first visits, we noticed several issues concerning this process:

National administrations have developed their own administrative processes for

processing/handling documents related to cross-border cases for unemployment benefits and

long-term care. These differ substantially between the Member States. As a result, the experts

in the respective countries faced difficulties in plugging the suggested administrative

processes into their national way of working (processing documents);

The legal process encompassed several sub-administrative processes and documents and therefore Information Obligations (IOs). The complexity of the different processes proved to be an obstacle in making precise estimations of the (estimated) time spent for each of the processes. The experts were often not able to provide robust data on the time spent per each of the steps defined by the legal process.

Moreover, as the Regulations impose “principles” of coordination more than specific information obligations in the sense of the SCM, and as the principles were already applied partly or integrally by the administrations or applied still differently, it proved to be impossible for the stakeholders to differentiate the specific administrative

burden 82 created by the Regulations from the business-as-usual (the administrative tasks they would perform

anyway in the absence of the Regulations).

Another consequence of the nature of the Regulations is that each national process is different, meaning that it results in different requirements, documents, times and complexity. It makes impossible to standardize one process that fits all national specificities.

There are examples demonstrating the complexity of the processing of cross-border cases for unemployment benefits which can result in administrative cost and burden for Member States’ authorities:

The occasionally ‘blurry’ distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers, the distinction between wholly and partially unemployed frontier workers, the highly interpretable character of the criteria to determine the residence of a worker, the provisions on the aggregation of periods of insurance, employment and self-employment, and the reimbursement mechanism were mentioned as factors rendering the current coordination rules as complex;

While these regulatory distinctions intend to reflect the complexities of real situations and account for the actual differences between different types of cross-border workers and different types of national systems, the result is a striking variety of possible cases in which the interpretation of the rules carried out by each institution plays a significant role;

There are notable differences in the interpretation and application of the rules on the aggregation of periods and the extension of the period of export of unemployment benefits;

The classic distinction between frontier workers and other cross-border workers has become more problematic. Inter alia, the improvement and reduction in the cost of different means of

82 The administrative burden is burden created by a legal requirement while the administrative cost is the full cost of an administrative process, including the business as usual.

transportation has allowed workers to cover ever larger differences to commute daily or weekly for work. The elements fixed in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 i are broad enough to prevent mobile workers to know with certainty their country of residence and hence the legal regime applicable to them in case of unemployment;

The reimbursement mechanism was often criticized, including claims considering that it should be made more transparent (Belgium) and that clear guidelines should be provided to each country (Luxembourg).

While the interviewees in certain countries defended that the current rules are sufficiently clear (e.g. the German Employment Services), the prevalent view was that the current coordination rules do not facilitate transparency and could be simplified. The burdensome character of the current rules was also criticized in countries which did not call for a revision of the coordination rules.

The diversity of opinions and practices in the application of certain aspects of the coordination rules is a testimony to the complexity of the rules and the lack of transparency they generate (since, given a similar situation in different regions, the similar outcome is not guaranteed). This complexity and incoherent understanding and application of the rules create a substantial (administrative) burden for the (national) administrations. This ‘burden’ is inherent to the management of cases where different understanding and national administrative processes apply; it goes beyond the definition of the administrative burden of the SCM where it is related to legal information obligations.

Around 40% of the participating public administrations reported that the EU rules create significant administrative costs and burden for national administrations. They consider the different types of forms/documents used per country, the varying requirements/understanding in terms of the information needed to fill out the documents, their mandatory or optional character and advance the procedures, and the different delays in the completion and transmission of documents as some of the most salient and recurrent problems. The reimbursement mechanism was repeatedly mentioned as a source of burden mainly due to the slow and ineffective communication between Member States.

“There are high administrative costs in what concerns to the reimbursement of the unemployment benefits that were paid. Moreover, we would highlight the delay on the treatment of the processes and the requests for payment that are denied. Because the EU rules create significant administrative costs and burdens for national administrations, EU law is not uniformly "understood" and applied by Member States and vice versa. … Paper SEDs are not always suitable for the exchange of information and not all MS use the same documents/forms. Reimbursement procedures create high administrative burden and important costs for both the MS of last activity and the MS of residence and the cost/benefit ratio is not effective, mainly for the MS of residence. The communications between institutions is slow and needs to be more effective.”

Several public officials expect the administrative burden to decrease in the next couple of years as a result of learning effects after the successful implementation and alignment of the rules. While the adoption of the Regulations took place ten years ago, it has taken time to fine-tune the implementation of the new rules and procedures. The lack of sound implementation of the new rules and procedures is particularly visible in a number of Member States. According to the online survey, 64% of the administrations stated that the communication (with other Member States) works well in general. However, there are problems with specific Member States. These reported problems are expected to be the main source of administrative costs.

Technological evolution could resolve some of the problems related to cooperation and communication. However, divergent interpretations of the rules and the information requirements for the completion of portable documents will continue to pose difficulties in the proper application of the Regulations.

In light of the limitations associated with the quantification of information obligations stemming from the application of the Regulations, we have adapted our approach for quantifying the IOs resulting from the Regulations and for assessing the (potential) impact of the policy options on the overall administrative process. In our analysis, we focused on a selected number of documents for which the stakeholders were able to provide robust information on a) the time spent to process/handle a document and b) the (approximate) number of cases.

We have collected useful information on the processing of documents related to cross-border cases for unemployment benefits on a) the estimated time and b) the number of cases in the following countries: Belgium, Poland, Luxembourg and Romania by means of a workshop. Other countries have provided a wealth of qualitative information which is useful for understanding the underlying problems related to the processing of the different documents and for assessing the (potential) impacts of the different options.

Despite the data limitations resulting from the problems discussed in this chapter, the assessment of the administrative cost (baseline scenario) for a number of key documents provides a robust basis for assessing the theoretical impact (positive or negative) of the different policy options on the administrative cost.

Aggregation of periods of employment/insurance/self-employment 83

The number of PD U1/E301 documents received/issued provides insight into the extent to which periods of insurance and (self-) employment in another Member State were taken into account when granting unemployment benefits. For the purpose of the assessment of the administrative costs, we do not make any distinction between PD U1 documents and E301 documents (Member States are using either of the documents, depending on their national administrative processes). Both documents are treated interchangeably for the purpose of this exercise.

In the framework of this study, we have collected data on the number of PD U1 documents ‘issued’ and ‘received’. The following countries provided data on the total number of PD U1 documents ‘issued’: Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg and Romania. With regards to the number of PD U1 forms ‘received’, we have collected data for Belgium, Estonia, France, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the UK. In addition, we have collected data on the aggregation of periods of employment/insurance/self-employment by means of a workshop in the following countries: Belgium, Poland and Romania (data provided for E301 only).

In order to assess the administrative costs for the EU-27 stemming from the processing of the PD U1 documents,

we have carried out the following steps according to the Standard Cost Model (SCM) 84 :

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The unit cost per case (processing/handling of a PD U1 form by the administrative staff – clerk level) provides insight into the total cost for processing one single PD U1 document (in a given Member State). It is based on the following formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W)

During the workshops and interviews in the Member States, we have collected data on the average standard time spent for processing/handling a PD U1 document for the following countries: Poland (5 minutes), Belgium (60

minutes) and Romania (363 minutes) 85 . As the data show, there are stark differences between the lowest time for

processing data/information (Poland - 5 minutes) and countries where the processing time is relatively higher (Romania - 363 minutes). Belgium (60 minutes) ranges in the middle.

In Poland, for example, the process for handling PD U1 documents is automatized - Poland uses the portable documents efficiently (the administrative staff faces less administrative burden). According to the interviewees (national administration), the handling of the documents is reported to be less burdensome.

In Romania, on the other hand, the administration of E301 documents (note: not PD U1 in this case) is reported to be more burdensome. According to the interviewees, the administration of simple cases, with limited or no clarifications requested from the beneficiary or employer, may take minimum 1 hour of work in total for the

83 See also 10.8

84 Based on the following formula: Number of cases (N) x Wage (hourly tariff) (W) x Time (minutes) (T).

85 We have also received a rough, undetailed estimation of the issuance of E 301/PD U1 document for the Netherlands (source: public

employment service UWV). The average administrative burden to issue this document is estimated at 30 minutes (comparable to Belgium’s estimates). 90% of the cases is processed within 8 weeks.

person in charge 86 . The administration of complex cases, with a lot of missing, inadequate or incorrect

information in the dossier, may request up to 8 hours of effort from the person in charge. In such cases, the respective civil servant assumes an active role in the completion of a correct dossier and starts giving phone calls, researching different taxes and employment data bases etc.

Based on the interviewees’ responses for Poland, Belgium and Romania, it can be assumed that these three countries give good indications for calculating the average unit cost for processing/handling a PD U1 document: Poland (low administrative burden – 5 minutes), Belgium (average administrative burden – 60 minutes) and Romania (high administrative burden – 363 minutes).

For consistency and comparability with other SCM assessments of EU regulation, the tariff variable used in this study is based on hourly labour costs (plus overheads) per category of employment that has previously been used in recent SCM studies for DG EMPL87 and our recent Impact Assessment studies we have conducted for the Commission. We have applied an average tariff/hour of EUR18. It results in a rate per minute of EUR 0.3 (EUR 18/60 minutes).

The average unit cost for the EU-27 is EUR 42.8. It is calculated on the following basis: Time ((5 minutes (Poland) + 60 minutes (Belgium) + 363 minutes (Romania)) / 3) x Wage 0.3 = EUR 42.8

1.

Number of cases:

We have collected data for the number of PD U1 documents ‘received’ for the following countries: Belgium, Estonia, France, Poland, Slovak Republic and the UK. We have estimated the number of PD U1 documents for the other EU-27 countries on the basis of our own calculations based on collected administrative data and the 2012 Ageing Report (see section 4.1.2.1 for more detailed information on the number of PD U1/E301 forms ‘received’ and ‘issued’). We were able to calculate the estimated administrative cost for the EU-27 on the basis of this data. The total estimated number of PD U1 documents ‘received’ in the EU-27 in 2010 is around 340 000.

2.

Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents on the basis of this formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents. The estimated total cost for the EU-27 in 2010 was EUR 14 604 326. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing PD U1 documents was highest (˃ EUR 1 million) in a number of the old Member States (in descending order): Spain, France, Germany and Italy. It was lowest (˂ EUR 100 000) in descending order in Sweden, Estonia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta.

86 There are no legislation/manual/ instructions/guidelines explaining step by step what the Romanian authorities need to do specifically for each procedure for unemployment under the Regulation; in fact, no other Romanian authority has prepared any specific national legislation/manual/instructions/guidelines related to the implementation of the Regulation, with the exception of the Pensions Authority. The Regulation 883/2004 i is implemented in Romania via the Intermediary Body (National Labour Office) and Competent Institutions (County Labour Offices – 42 in total). The Intermediary Body mainly acts as a facilitator of contacts between Romanian institutions and foreign ones, as well as trainer and day-to-day support to county offices meeting difficulties in implementation of the Regulation. In the Intermediary Body there are two persons working on the Regulation (one person is 100% dedicated to the activities related to the Regulation, the other one dedicates approximately 70% of his/her time to the Regulation).

87 For instance: Review of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC i: measuring administrative costs and burdens of various possible options. Economisti Associati srl, 21/12/2011. This study presents a tariff per MS and per level (managerial and clerical staff) that we have averaged. The result is in line with the tariff we use in other SCM that we have conducted for other European Commission DGs.

Table 6: Estimated administrative Cost - PD U1 (‘received’), EU-27, EUR, 2010

PD U1 (received) Unemployed

persons (20-64) - 2010/2011/2012 2010

Country 2010 (in .000) Survey Estimate Total Total cost (in EUR)

BE 385 2,400 2,400 102,720

BG 351 5,541 5,541 237,141

CZ 367 5,792 5,792 247,911

DK 184 2,902 2,902 124,194

DE 2,826 44,663 44,663 1,911,564

EE 111 2,082 2,082 89,110

IE 269 4,258 4,258 182,221

EL 640 10,114 10,114 432,895

ES 4,405 69,615 69,615 2,979,503

FR 2,601 50,003 50,003 2,140,128

IT 1,985 31,369 31,369 1,342,577

CY 26 412 412 17,635

LV 207 3,273 3,273 140,092

LT 287 4,535 4,535 194,083

LU 10 157 157 6,699

HU 473 7,473 7,473 319,826

MT 10 159 159 6,805

NL 325 5,133 5,133 219,708

AT 169 2,664 2,664 114,016

PL 1,696 19,432 19,432 831,690

PT 578 9,138 9,138 391,099

RO 684 10,805 10,805 462,453

SI 72 1,146 1,146 49,032

SK 374 10,912 10,912 467,034

FI 195 3,080 3,080 131,834

SE 340 2,202 2,202 94,246

UK 2,023 31,965 31,965 1,368,111

EU27 21,593 341,223 14,604,326

Source: Estimate based on collected administrative data and 2012 Ageing Report and data provided during the workshops on administrative burden (Belgium, Poland and Romania).

We have also calculated the average administrative cost for processing/handling a number of other documents, based on the data available. We were only able to produce the administrative cost for processing PD U1 documents (‘received’) for the EU-27 as we had data available for the EU-27 on the basis of our own calculations (there are no calculations for the other documents presented below).

We have calculated the administrative cost for ‘issuing’ a PD U1 document (‘issued’) for Poland and Belgium (based on the data we have collected during the workshops in the different countries). The total estimated cost for ‘issuing’ a PD U1 document in Poland is estimated at EUR 19 800. The amount is EUR 103 698 in Belgium. The table below presents the estimated cost for ‘issuing’ a PD U1 document for Poland and Belgium.

Table 7: Estimated administrative Cost – PD U1 (‘issued’), Poland and Belgium, EUR, 2013

Poland Belgium

Unit cost per case (EUR) 6.6 9

Number of cases 3000 11522

Total cost (EUR) 19800 103698

Source: Deloitte, Workshop, Poland and Belgium

We have also estimated the cost for the following documents for Poland 88 :

• SED U004 'Salary Info' (answer on SED U003); • SED U006 'Family Info' (answer on SED U005).

88 Poland has provided the most comprehensive data set on the administrative burden resulting from the information obligations stemming from the Regulation during the workshop.

The table below presents the estimated cost for processing the above-mentioned documents in Poland. The total estimated cost for processing a SED U004 document ‘Salary Info’ in Poland is EUR 402. The cost for processing SED U006 documents ‘Family Info’ is estimated at EUR 825.

Table 8: Estimated administrative Cost –SED U004 ‘Salary Info’, SED U006 ‘Family Info’,

Poland EUR, 2013

SED U004 'Salary Info' (answer on SED U003)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 4.2

Number of cases 100

Total cost (EUR) 420

SED U006 'Family Info' (answer on SED U005)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 7.5

Number of cases 110

Total cost (EUR) 825

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Export of unemployment benefits 89

The PD U2 form is the authorisation which an unemployed person needs to export his/her unemployment benefit if (s)he wishes to move to another EU country to look for work. The competent national institution is responsible for granting this authorisation. There is a wide variety of practices in the EU-27 with regard to granting (and prolonging) authorisation to export unemployment benefit.

We have collected data on the number of PD U2 documents ‘issued’ for ten EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and the UK. Taking together both components (survey data and own estimates) we estimate that 23.7 thousand unemployed persons have exported their unemployment benefits in 2010 (see section 4.1.3.3 for a detailed discussion on the calculation of the number of PD U2 ‘received’ and on the methodology for calculating missing data).

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing/handling a PD U2 document for the EU-27 using the following methodology:

1.

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The average unit cost per case is based on the data we have received from Poland (the only country for which we

have received robust data on the time spent for processing a PD U2 document 90 ). The average unit cost per case that we found concerns the export of an unemployment benefit to 3 months 91 . Following the formula Time (T) x Wage (W), we have estimated an average unit cost per case (PD U2 ‘issued’) at EUR 4.5 92 .

The estimated unit cost should be treated with caution, however, as it is based on one case only (Poland). As discussed in the section on the ‘aggregation of periods’, Poland seems to have an efficient (automatized) system for processing/handling PD documents (the processing of the documents is reported to be less burdensome). Therefore, it is to be expected, that the Polish example presents a rather positive picture on the overall time spent to process these documents. Other countries, such as Romania (which reported a much higher time spent for

89 See also 10.8

90 A rough, undetailed estimation was collected for the Netherlands (source: public employment service UWV).UWV estimated the average time needed to issue a PD U2 document at 1.5 hour. 90% of the cases are estimated to be processed within 5 weeks.

91 We were not able to collect data on the average unit cost of a case where an unemployed persons export his unemployment for 6 months. Therefore, we needed to rely on a qualitative assessment to know how the administrative burden shifts if the export period is prolonged from 3 to 6 months. 92 Average time to process a PD U2 document in Poland is approximately 15 minutes. The average wage (clerk) is estimated at EUR 0.3 per minute (EUR 18 per hour): 15 x EUR 0.3 = EUR 4.5.

processing the PD U1 document) may report longer periods for processing/handling these types of documents. Due to data limitations, we have calculated the average unit cost on the basis of the Polish example.

2.

Number of cases:

We have collected data on the number of PD U2 documents ‘issued’ by means of a questionnaire for the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden and United Kingdom. In 2010, the total EU-27 number of PD U2 documents ‘issued’ is estimated at around 23 700.

3.

Calculation of the administrative cost (per Member State and for the EU-27)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing PD U2 documents (‘issued’) on the basis of this formula:

Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N)

The calculation includes the time spent on national administrative procedures supporting the processing of the SEDS and the time needed for processing the SED.

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing PD U2 documents. The estimated total cost for the EU-27 in 2010 was EUR 106 695. Within the EU-27, the estimated total cost for processing a PD U2 documents was highest (˃ EUR 10 000) in a number of the old Member States (in descending order): Spain, Germany and France. It was lowest (˂ EUR 500) in descending order in Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Estonia, Cyprus Malta and Romania.

Table 9: Estimated administrative Cost –PD U2 (‘issued’), EU-27, EUR, 2010

PD U2 certificates issued

Unemployed

persons (20-64) 2010/2011/2012 2010

Country - 2010 (in .000) Survey Estimate Total Total cost ( in EUR)

BE 385 1,081 1,081 4,865

BG 351 385 385 1,732

CZ 367 402 402 1,811

DK 184 1,108 1,108 4,986

DE 2,826 3,103 3,103 13,965

EE 111 64 64 288

IE 269 296 296 1,331

EL 640 703 703 3,163

ES 4,405 4,837 4,837 21,767

FR 2,601 2,856 2,856 12,854

IT 1,985 2,180 2,180 9,809

CY 26 29 29 129

LV 207 227 227 1,023

LT 287 315 315 1,418

LU 10 148 148 666

HU 473 519 519 2,337

MT 10 11 11 50

NL 325 637 637 2,867

AT 169 1,186 1,186 5,337

PL 1,696 118 118 531

PT 578 635 635 2,857

RO 684 11 11 50

SI 72 80 80 358

SK 374 79 79 356

FI 195 214 214 963

SE 340 264 264 1,188

UK 2,023 2,221 2,221 9,995

EU27 21,593 23,710 106,695

Source: Estimate based on collected administrative data and 2012 Ageing Report and data provided during the workshops on administrative burden (Poland).

We have also estimated the cost for the following documents for Poland 93 :

Competent employment service:

• SED U011 'Effect to Entitlement - Export' (answer to SED U010); • SED U012 'Request for monthly follow-up'.

Employment service of the MS where jobseeker has gone:

• Process PD U2; • SED U007 'Request Document on Export'; • SED U009 'Notification Registration - Export'; • SED U010 'Circumstances Affecting Entitlement - Export' (linked with U3 form); • Issue of PD U3 (linked with SED U010); • SED U013 'Monthly Follow-up' (answer on SED U013); • SED U028 'Request Entitlement to Export'.

93 Poland has provided the most comprehensive data set on the administrative burden resulting from the information obligations stemming from the Regulation during the workshop.

The tables below present the total estimated administrative cost for processing the respective documents presented according to a) competent Member State and b) employment service of the Member State where the jobseeker has gone. The estimated unit cost per case is based on the data provided by Poland (T: time and W: wage (EUR 0.3)). Note that the unit cost per case differs from the one calculated for processing the PD U2 document in the documents presented below. We have not calculated the EU-27 average cost for all documents due to data limitations. Be aware that these costs occur separately, others are combined. There is no overview of the total number of flows. In the future this should be made possible by EESSI.

Table 10: Estimated Administrative Cost – Competent employment service, SED U001, SED

U012, Poland, EUR, 2013

SED U011 'Effect to Entitlement - Export' (answ er to SED U010)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 11

Total cost (EUR) 16.5

SED U012 'Request for monthly follow -up'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 2.4

Number of cases 120

Total cost (EUR) 288

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Table 11: Estimated Administrative Cost – Employment service of the Member State where the jobseeker has gone, PD U2 (‘process’), SED U007, SED U009, SED U010, PD U3

‘issue’, SED U013, SED U028, Poland, EUR, 2013

Process PD U2

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 200

Total cost (EUR) 300

SED U007 'Request Document on Export'

Unit cost per case 3

Number of cases 410

Total cost 1230

SED U009 'Notification Registration - Export'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3

Number of cases 2330

Total cost (EUR) 6990

SED U010 'Circumstances Affecting Entitlement - Export' (linked w ith U3 form)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3.6

Number of cases 1110

Total cost (EUR) 3996

Issue of PD U3 (linked w ith SED U010)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3.6

Number of cases 1110

Total cost (EUR) 3996

SED U013 'Monthly Follow -up' (answ er on SED U013)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 2.7

Number of cases 4900

Total cost (EUR) 13230

SED U028 'Request Entitlement to Export'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 3

Number of cases 15

Total cost (EUR) 45

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Reimbursement claims 94

Claims for reimbursement can be made by the country of residence to the country of last activity for fully unemployed frontier workers but also for other cross-border workers who have decided to register with the competent institution in their country of residence. The country of last activity reimburses the unemployed benefits provided in the country of residence during the first three months or five months (when the unemployed person during the preceding 24 months, completed at least 12 months of (self)employment in the country of last activity). Reimbursement procedures are defined under art. 65(6) and (7) of Regulation (EC) No. 883/2004 i and art. 70 of Regulation (EC) No. 987/2009 i.

1.

Calculation of the unit cost per case:

The average unit cost per case is based on the data we have received from Poland (the only country for which we have robust data on the reimbursement claims. Following the formula Time (T) x Wage (W), we have estimated an average unit cost per case for each of the individual documents.

2.

Number of cases:

We have collected data on the number of cases for Poland for a number of documents. There are no estimated data available for calculating the estimated total number of cases of reimbursement claims in the EU. For a detailed discussion on the number of claims received (as debtor) and the number of claims issued (as creditor) (see section 4.1.5)..

3.

Calculation of the administrative cost (Poland)

We have calculated the administrative cost for processing a number of documents related to reimbursement claims for Poland by applying the following formula: Time (T) x Wage (W) x Number (N).

Data were collected for the following documents:

Member State of residence:

• SED U020 'Reimbursement Request'; • SED U025 'Reimbursement Receipt/Closing notification'.

Competent Member State:

• SED U021 'Reimbursement Full Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U022 'Reimbursement Non Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U023 'Reimbursement Partial Acceptance' (possible answer to SED U020); • SED U024 'Reimbursement Payment Notification'.

The table below presents the total estimated administrative cost for processing the following documents for Poland presented according to ‘Member State of residence’ and ‘Former working Member State’:

94 See also 10.8

Table 12: Estimated Administrative Cost, Member State of Residence, SED U020, SED U025, Poland, 2013

SED U020 'Reimbursement Request'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 48

Total cost (EUR) 72

SED U025 'Reimbursement Receipt/Closing notification'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 4.5

Number of cases 10

Total cost (EUR) 45

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Table 13: Estimated Administrative cost – Competent Member State, SED U021, SED U022, SED 023, SED U024, Poland, EUR, 2013

SED U021 'Reimbursement Full Acceptance' (possible answ er to SED U020)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 5

Total cost (EUR) 7.5

SED U022 'Reimbursement Non Acceptance' (possible answ er to SED U020)

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 3

Total cost (EUR) 4.5

SED U023 'Reimbursement Partial Acceptance' (possible answ er to SED U020) )

Unit cost per case (EUR) 1.5

Number of cases 62

Total cost (EUR) 93

SED U024 'Reimbursement Payment Notification'

Unit cost per case (EUR) 4.5

Number of cases 15

Total cost (EUR) 67.5

Source: Deloitte, workshop in Poland

Only stylized estimates can be made on the administrative burden. Only anecdotic information on the average cost of this administrative burden was available. Based on this information we suppose first of all that in the country where the unemployment benefit is paid, an average handling time of the cases of two hours, or € 40, is required. On top of that, when there is payment in the country of residence there is an administrative burden of some € 42.8 for the handling of a PD U1 in the country of residence and some € 20 (our hypothesis) in the country of last activity. On top of that there is in those cases in the country of residence and in the country of last activity a handling time for introducing a reimbursement claim and the settling of it. We suppose the same stylised estimate of € 20 in both countries. Multiplying this standard cost (in reality this cost can differ between the countries because of differences in organisation, productivity and wages) with the total number of cases provides us the total administrative cost in the country of residence and the country of last activity, for the payment of a benefit, including the control of the unemployed person, and the cost of reimbursement.

In Table 49 those amounts are calculated, and compared with the total budgetary cost of the unemployment benefits. Remember that the total amount of benefits is estimated on a yearly basis, while reimbursement on 3 months. In the baseline scenario the total administrative burden is € 8.3 million of which € 5.2 million in the countries of residence. This is 64% of the total administrative cost and this is a very similar % of the 71% of the budgetary cost. The share of the total administrative burden in the total budgetary burden is some 1.3%. It could be compared with the average administrative cost in the unemployment insurance.

Table 14: Estimated number of unemployed cross-border workers and country responsible for payment and reimbursement

Administrative cost PD U1 (numbers in thousand) Administrative reimbursement cost (numbers in thousand)

Country of residence Country of last activity Country of residence Country of last activity Numbers

(in thousand) Issuing Receiving Issuing Receiving Direct paying Reimbursement Direct paying Reimbursement Total cross-border workers 73,7

Baseline scenario * Frontier workers 45,2 * Other cross-border workers 28,5

Number of unemployed cross-border workers Total cross-border workers 18,5 where benefit in country of residence is * Frontier workers 12,3 higher than in country of last activity * Other cross-border workers 6,2

Number of unemployed cross-border workers Total cross-border workers 55,2 where benefit in country of last activity is * Frontier workers 32,9 higher than in country of residence * Other cross-border workers 22,2

Baseline scenario2: Frontier workers return; UB Residence 51,4 51,4 51,4 51,4 51,4 51,4

other cross-border workers rational decision UB Last activity 22,2 Not automatically applicable 22,2

(=highest amount UB) Total 73,7

Reimbursement 51,4 UB Last activity 18,5 18,5 18,5 18,5 18,5 18,5

Option B2: right of choice: rational decision UB Competent 55,2 Not automatically applicable 55,2 (=highest amount UB) Total 73,7

Reimbursement 18,5

UB Residence 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

Option C: UB provided by the country of last UB Last activity 73,7 Not automatically applicable 73,7 activity Total 73,7

Reimbursement 0,0

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS and the 2012 Ageing Report

Table 15: Estimated administrative cost aggregation of periods of insurance of (self-)employment

Country of residence Country of last activity

Direct paying Reimbursement Direct paying Reimbursement

Administrative unit cost

Control unemployed € 40,0 € 40,0

U1 € 42,8 € 20,0

Reimbursement administration € 20,0 € 20,0

Total administrative unit cost - UB Residence € 82,8 € 20,0 € 40,0

Total administrative unit cost - UB Last activity € 40,0

Administrative cost

Baseline scenario2: Frontier workers return; other cross-border workers rational decision (=highest amount UB)

UB Residence € 4.258.153 € 1.028.539 € 0 € 2.057.079

UB Last activity € 0 € 0 € 889.488 € 0

Administrative cost € 5.286.692 € 2.946.567

Grand total € 8.233.259

% cost country of residence in total administrative cost 64%

Grand total annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 378

Administrative cost as % of budgetary cost 2,2%

Estimated reimbursement (in millions) € 82

Option B2: right of choice: rational decision (=highest amount UB)

UB Residence € 1.530.093 € 369.588 € 0 € 739.175

UB Last activity € 0 € 0 € 2.207.391 € 0

Administrative cost € 1.899.681 € 2.946.567

Grand total € 4.846.248 As % of baseline scenario 59%

% cost country of residence in total administrative cost 39%

Grand total annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 502

Administrative cost as % of budgetary cost 1,0%

Estimated reimbursement

(in millions)

€ 52

Option C: UB provided by the country of last activity

UB Residence € 0 € 0 € 0 € 0

UB Last activity € 0 € 0 € 2.946.567 € 0

Administrative cost € 0 € 2.946.567

Grand total € 2.946.567

As % of baseline scenario 36%

% cost country of residence in total administrative cost 0%

Grand total annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 437

Administrative cost as % of budgetary cost 0,7%

Estimated reimbursement

(in millions) € 0

Option D: cutt-off of 12 months

UB Residence € 1.647.720

UB Last activity € 2.152.000 € 398.000

Administrative cost € 1.647.720 € 2.550.000

Grand total € 4.197.720

As % of baseline scenario 51%

% cost country of residence in total administrative cost 39%

Grand total annual expenditure UB (in millions) € 384

Administrative cost as % of budgetary cost 1,1%

Estimated reimbursement (in millions) € 0

Source: Estimate based on data from LFS, 2012 Ageing Report, input from the work shops

origineel bericht: 'COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMEN...'

3. Behandeld document

16 dec
'16

Voorstel voor een VERORDENING VAN HET EUROPEES PARLEMENT EN DE RAAD tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 betreffende de coördinatie van de socialezekerheidsstelsels en Verordening (EG) nr. 987/2009 tot vaststelling van de wijze van toepassing van Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 (Voor de EER en Zwitserland relevante tekst)
PROPOSAL

Secretary-General of the European Commission
15642/16

4. Meer informatie

COM(2016)815 - Wijziging van Verordening 883/2004 over de coördinatie van de socialezekerheidsstelsels en Verordening 987/2009 over de toepassing van Verordening 883/2004

5. EU Monitor

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.