A group of thirty leading poverty researchers in Germany have voiced concerns regarding a change in methodology used by the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) to calculate poverty rates. The researchers, including Ulrich Schneider, former executive director of the Paritätisches Wohlfahrtsverband and social scientist Christoph Butterwegge, allege the revised method underreports the extent of poverty in the country.
In a protest letter addressed to Destatis President Ruth Brand – details of which were published by the “Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland” newspapers – the researchers claim Destatis has narrowed its calculation to a single variant (EU-SILC/MZ-SILC) and removed results based on an alternative method (MZ-Kern) from its website.
According to the researchers, the shift results in a significant difference in reported poverty rates. The remaining calculation method indicates a nationwide poverty rate of 15.5 percent for 2023, while the now-deleted method yielded a rate of 16.6 percent – a difference equivalent to over one million people. The researchers suggest this change raises questions about potential manipulation or a biased approach to data reporting.
The group views the removal of the second calculation method and its retroactive deletion from the website, as an unacceptable infringement on academic freedom, bordering on arbitrary administrative action. They argue that withholding data of public and scientific interest limits debate and public understanding. Concerns are also raised that the change is intended to steer public perception in a specific direction. The letter urges Ms. Brand to reverse the decision.
Poverty is generally defined as having an income of less than 60 percent of the median income. The differing calculation methods primarily relate to the definition and assessment of household net income.
Destatis justifies the change by emphasizing the need for comparability with EU-wide data. The agency states that the new method involves detailed individual questioning of income sources, rather than relying on a total sum, thus potentially preventing the unintentional omission of income, particularly from non-employment sources such as child benefits, educational grants, or housing allowances.
However, the researchers dispute the assertion that the new method is methodologically superior, stating there is no consensus on this point within the academic community, particularly regarding the calculation of income poverty.