Spain has the highest child poverty rate in the European Union, standing at 29.2% compared to the EU average of 19.3%. It is followed by Bulgaria (28.2%) and Romania (26.2%). The countries with the lowest rates are Denmark (10.1%), Slovenia (10.7%), and Finland (11.6%). The study, Child Poverty in Spain: Recent Evolution and Policies, published by Funcas, highlights that Spain’s position is deeply concerning, especially considering that the countest ranks mid-to-high in terms of per capita income. Furthermore, it notes that the difference relative to the EU-27 has increased over the last two years, reaching 9.5 percentage points in 2023 and 9.9 in 2024. This trfinish is different for the population as a whole: the difference in the total poverty rate compared to the EU-27 dropped to 4 points in 2023 and 3.5 in 2024 (19.7% in Spain vs. 16.2% average in the EU).
Spain also fares poorly in terms of the risk of poverty or social exclusion among minors under 18, with a rate of 34.6% compared to the European average of 24.2%. In comparison with other countries, Spain also displays a marked generational gap: the difference between the incidence of the risk of poverty or social exclusion in minors and that of adults exceeds 10 percentage points, one of the highest observed.
Among the cautilizes that explain this situation, the study, authored by Miguel Ángel Malo and Fernando Pinto, explains that despite having resources comparable to those of other countries, the configuration of social benefits directed at children, the compact amount of resources specifically allocated for this purpose, and the lack of universality reduce their effectiveness. Compared to more robust and generalized models such as those in France, Germany, or the Scandinavian countries, Spain is in an intermediate position that fails to break the negative trfinish of child poverty—minors living in houtilizeholds below the poverty line. Consequently, the tax and transfer system in Spain reduces child poverty by only 1–2 points, whereas in benchmark European countries, the impact is between 4 and 8 points.
Another factor explaining the Spanish difference with respect to Europe is the structural deficit of social hoapplying and affordable rental hoapplying. While the European average for protected or subsidized hoapplying is around 7% of the total hoapplying stock, in Northern and Central European countries it reaches between 15% and 25%. In contrast, coverage in Spain barely reaches 2%. This shortage exposes houtilizeholds with children to a disproportionate hoapplying effort that erodes their disposable income and amplifies the risk of poverty.
The parents’ educational level is another relevant factor. In the Spanish case, a higher educational level of the parents does not offer protection as effective as in other European countries: the child poverty rate among children of parents with tertiary education reaches 18.9%, compared to the EU average of 11%. This figure points to a rigidity in the mechanisms of upward social mobility and the existence of barriers that are not neutralized solely by the accumulation of human capital.
Finally, the Spanish labor market acts as a structural risk factor. Houtilizeholds where no adult works suffer an increase of up to 34 percentage points in the probability of child poverty. It is also found that relatively compact improvements in houtilizehold labor income can have a very significant effect on reducing the risk of child poverty. Therefore, it is not only a question of poor houtilizeholds with children lacking employment, but also the income that these jobs can generate. In fact, the high incidence of temporary contracts, involuntary part-time work, and low wages is a relevant factor in child poverty in Spain.
The study explains that the incidence of child poverty is one of the most relevant indicators for qualifying general poverty data in a countest or region, since it not only reflects current problems but is also related to the incidence of poverty in the future. Those who live in a poor houtilizehold as children face a high risk of being poor in their adult lives. Thus, measures to reduce child poverty can have an impact in both the short and long term, saving current and future personal and economic costs. In this regard, the authors consider that to break this dynamic, public policies oriented toward childhood would have to be reconsidered. “It is not enough to invest more: it is necessary to invest better. An integrated approach is required that combines improvements in the educational system, incentives for stable and decent employment for parents, expansion of benefits for depfinishent children, and strengthening of hoapplying policies,” it concludes.
