While the question of whether cities can change the world feeds
passionate debates and initiatives around the world, the challenge for Greece’s
capital city is rather less ambitious. How can Athens cope with the social
impact of the economic crisis in a sustainable way? Indeed, this is a crucial
question when one bears in mind the severity of the crisis, on the one hand,
and, on the other, the metropolitan size of Athens, which gathers approximately
660,000 registered residents. The fact is that Athens, Greece’s administrative and
economic center, has symmetrically suffered from the socioeconomic decline. All
these happen in a country where, admittedly, family solidarity can smoothen the
crisis’ social impact in rural areas, but not so much in big urban centers,
like Athens.
How did austerity lead to an outburst of poverty and extreme
poverty in Athens? And how does the City of Athens respond to the constantly
increasing needs created by the crisis? This note attempts to address these
questions by focusing in particular on three (the list here not being exhaustive) areas of
social policy, namely food aid, primary health care and housing. The note also discusses
social policy engineering and how could the experience of the economic crisis impact
on the protection of social rights.
I am dealing with these questions based on policy at the local
level and my analysis is informed by statistical and empirical data that I
acquired from the Social Services Department and the City of Athens Solidarity
Center. I am thankful to these institutions. Finally, the usual disclaimer applies: the opinions expressed in this note are exclusively mine and shall not
be attributed to the City of Athens.
From Austerity to Recession and Poverty –
Impact on Athens
The Greek crisis officially began in 2009, when the newly elected government
announced that earlier fiscal data was inaccurate, raising considerably the
2009 deficit and debt figures. Yet, the socioeconomic impact of the crisis was
not apparent until 2010, when the first programme of austerity measures -being
followed by two more similar programmes- started. The implementation of the first
two memoranda (as they are called) included VAT and personal income tax
increases, emergency taxes, along with severe cuts in public sector pays,
pensions, minimum wage and other social benefits.
These austerity measures brought an unprecedented recession. Cuts in the income of civil servants and pensioners led to
lower demand for goods and services provided by private firms, many of which
went bankrupt or relocated. As a result, private sector wages and
self-employment earnings declined, while unemployment rose sharply from 9,5%,
in 2009, to 27,3%, in 2013 –with a sad record of 58,3% in youth unemployment.
This recession spiral, together with the fact that market prices did not fully
adjust to wage cuts and the rise of unemployment, resulted in a very big number
of people facing poverty and extreme poverty. These are the two groups I discuss
here as the core beneficiaries of food, health and housing services.
Regarding poverty,
the picture changes depending on the indicator used. The first indicator is that of relative poverty. This concerns the proportion of the population with
an income lower than 60% of the median disposable income. According to this indicator,
the poverty rate appears to have risen moderately from 20%, in 2009, to 23%, in
2013. However -and this is particularly useful in times of rapid change in
living conditions- there is a second indicator that raises poverty to 60% -increasing, accordingly, considerably the population considered to be poor. That indicator relies on a comparison between median income in 2013 and 2009. Poor are those whose income dropped below 60% of the median disposable income they had before the criris. According
to that second indicator, poverty rates have drastically increased from 20%, in 2009,
to 44,3%, in 2013.
Among the population affected by poverty there is a
particular group of people who suffer from extreme
poverty, that is, people who are deprived of access to a basic set of goods
that are deemed necessary to live in dignity. This percentage has been
constantly rising from 2,2%, in 2009, to 14%, that is, to approximately
1,500,000 individuals, in 2013.
In Athens, the increase in poverty rates follows the
national trend with a raise from 16%, in 2009, to 40,4%, in 2013. On the
contrary, extreme poverty rates, which where already significantly high in 2009
(16,5%, that is, 8 times the national average) increased further to 20,6%, in
2013, leaving far behind the equivalent rate in other cities and rural regions.
To put it plainly, approximately 268,000 residents of Athens live below the
poverty line, half of them lacking the basic means for dissent living, such as appropriate
housing, sufficient clothing and/or medicine.
Unemployed are
the mostly affected ones. This clearly associates unemployment with the rise in
poverty and extreme poverty. Families with children, private sector employees
and students are also substantially affected. In urban environment, one may also
add that the crisis mostly affects young households. These are among
the several target groups of the action taken by the City of Athens to tackle
hunger, absence of medical care and homelessness.
Food Aid, Health Services and Housing: A
Brief Overview
A. Food aid
Hunger is one of the toughest aspects of the economic
crisis, affecting those who live in extreme poverty and most of those who live in
poverty (in a situation between malnutrition and hunger). The City of Athens
provides on daily basis hot meals and other basics (i.e. groceries) to 20,000
individuals.
In more detail:
· The Solidarity Center -acting in co-operation with the
orthodox church- offers a soup meal –access is free from administrative proof
burdens.
· Families are supported through the Social Grocery and
the Solidarity for Families programmes, which provide free food, personal
hygiene products, but also psychological support. Both programs are sponsored
by the private sector, under corporations’ social responsibility budget.
· Families and individuals receive food supplies,
clothing and personal hygiene products at the “Solidarity Garrison” building,
which operates thanks to donations by corporations and other individuals.
· At the same building runs the EEA Grants program too,
which provides food vouchers to 3,600 households, covering over 8,700
individuals.
· Last, but certainly not least, 5,500 meals are
prepared by the Municipal Nursery for children up to 5 years old at municipal
nurseries.
B. Primary
Health Care
According to the Centre for Health Management and Evaluation at the
University of Athens, overall, public health expenditure in Greece fell from
€16.1 billion, in 2009, to €12.4 billion, in 2012. Moreover, the public health
system became increasingly inaccessible, in particular for poorer citizens and
marginalized groups. This owes to increased fees, to the participation of
patients to healthcare costs, to the closure of hospitals and health care centres,
but also to the fact that more and more people are losing public health
insurance cover, mainly because of their unemployment status.
In such an environment, it is obvious why the network of 6 Municipal
Health Centres (a 7th one being under reconstruction) is of crucial
importance. It provides free primary healthcare to those in need, including
uninsured, unregistered migrants and other vulnerable social groups. Medical
staff is authorised to subscribe drugs that are accessible for free (among
other places) at the Social Pharmacy. The later runs thanks to private
sponsorships (both corporate and non-corporate). Approximately 1000 people benefit
from these services yearly.
C. Homelessness
From 2009 to 2013, there has been an estimated 25% increase in the
country’s homeless population. Their total number is estimated to be at least
20,000, 15,000 of which are living in Attica. This 25% increase includes new
homeless people. According to reports by NGOs' street workers, in the past, most of
the homeless people they approached were single, most of which with addiction
problems and/or mental health issues. The profile of a “new” homeless person is
that s/he has higher qualifications and work experience. S/he often has a
family, the sole reason why s/he is homeless being housing costs. More
importantly, by living in the streets without support, “new” homeless rapidly
grow addiction and/or mental health issues.
In view of this
experience, the City of Athens provides two forms of provisional housing:
· Shelter accommodation:
Five shelters of a total capacity of 275 beds are accommodating mostly vulnerable
groups, providing them with psychological and medical support by specialised staff.
Three of these shelters offer short-term accommodation and the other two
specialise in elder people and domestic violence victims.
Through participation at the
Ministry of Labour’s “Housing and Reintegration” programme, the City of Athens
contributes annually to the rent costs and (partially) to salary/wage income, while
providing psychological support and full counselling on professional
reintegration to 38 families who have been hosted in our shelters. This helps
beneficiaries to make a decisive step towards social reintegration.
· The “Social Housing
Network”: This project targets preventively the so-called ‘new homeless’, that
is, families facing an imminent risk of eviction or living under inadequate
conditions (water supply, electricity and/or heating). It is an innovative
program aiming to provide short-term accommodation and support to families
through charge-free, specialised and personalised assistance. It helps them
avoid social exclusion and reintegrate within 6 to 12 months. Since the
beginning of the program in 2013, 2 social buildings along with 10 social
apartments are covering the needs of 32 families/111 individuals.
After 5 Years of Crisis: Social Policy and Rights Empowerment
It is a sad but
undeniable fact that the crisis will have long-term effects. This is why all
the above-mentioned social support projects converge in one capital necessity: transforming
the municipal social policies that were designed to address what was initially
seen as an emergency situation (i.e. the economic crisis) into a stable and
viable, long-term strategy for social protection. I argue that such a strategy shall
include at least 4 key elements:
1.Deepening local synergies
with private businesses and NGOs as a means to replace the weak welfare state. The use of corporate
responsibility budget (CSR) has proven to be a precious tool that allows the
involvement of the private sector in the areas of food provision and housing.
Simplifying the administrative procedure for private donations, as well as adequately
communicating them will facilitate synergies with corporations. Working with
NGOs is valuable both for implementing programmes in food and housing and because
of their street work teams who direct homeless people to food, health and
housing units.
2.Interconnecting food,
health and housing networks and making them more visible through a bottom-up specialised
approach. To
explain that point, let me please
give an example: Yannis and Maria
are unemployed, parents of three underage children and unable to pay their rent
for the past 5 months. They should be informed that their family can move to
one of the Social Housing Network’s apartments, that they can weekly shop from
the Social Grocery, receive clothing and personal hygiene products from the
Solidarity Centre, and that their elder child can be examined for bronchitis in
one of the municipal Medical Centres and receive, if need be, free drugs from
the Social Pharmacy. Targeting possible beneficiaries requires the full
digitalisation of the social services databases and their interconnection so
that every single case can be monitored and followed up from first registration
to any kind of municipal support programme.
3.Securing “before” and
“after” to avoid further regression and prevent institutionalisation. To break the vicious circle/chain of
people who fall into poverty and then extreme poverty, prevention is required. A
good example to give is that of applicants who fulfil the eligibility criteria
but who cannot benefit from the social housing network because of the lack of
available apartments. A successful social policy should aim at helping and
preparing people who benefit from welfare benefits to stop depend on support. This requires a step-by-step approach that
will be adapted to the specific needs of each target group and -ultimately but
necessarily- will also include professional reintegration support. These policies
are the responsibility/competence of the central state (i.e. a ministerial
responsibility). Yet, donations by corporations might enable local
governance/administration to be proactively engaged.
While Yannis and Maria wait for a social apartment to empty, they should receive food, psychological and medical support by professionals who can help them become again autonomous and step out of the waiting line for free shelter. If they are sheltered, realistic professional training programs that will be designed with a practical focus will enable Maria to look for an accountant job and Yannis to start his Social Co-operative Enterprise in building maintenance –hopefully getting his first contract from the City of Athens itself.
Finally,
4.Enhancing the involvement
of local stakeholders in law-making and decision-making. I firmly believe that
access to a threefold social safety net that will include food, primary medical
care and housing, should be guaranteed as a law enforceable social right that
will reflect the minimum content of human dignity in times of crisis.
Beneficiaries would be those living under extreme poverty, including undocumented
migrants. Such a right would be a remedy to recent legislation that excludes
undocumented migrants from the official definition of homelessness. Should such a social right
be actionable and legally enforceable? This is probably the toughest question
to answer. I am of the opinion that, should such a justiciable right be carefully
designed, it could provide clear legal status for those affected by extreme
poverty, empower their registration and follow-up action, and enhance local
accountability. On the other hand, at least two concerns should be addressed regarding
the feasibility of such a legal entitlement. First, justice delays rendering judicial
protection of the kind ineffective. The establishment of alternative dispute resolution
procedures could remedy that problem. Second, the absence of the necessary political
will. This is probably the toughest problem. Overall, Greek governments have
shown a rather poor record regarding (the
justiciability of) socioeconomic rights, with the recent inaction concerning
the signature and ratification by Greece of the 2013 Optional Protocol to the UN
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights being quite telling.
References
V.Arapoglou, K.Gounis,
“Poverty and Homelessness in Athens: Governance and the Rise of an Emergency
Model of Social Crisis Management”, Hellenic Observatory European Institute,
GreeSE Paper no 90, 2015, available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/61319/
D.Katsikas, A.Karakitsios,
K.Filinis, A.Petralias, “Social Profile Report on Poverty and Social Exclusion
and Inequality before and after the Crisis in Greece”, ELIAMEP Fragmex Report,
2014, available at http://crisisobs.gr/
FIDH, “Downgrading Rights: The
Cost of Austerity in Greece”, 2014, available at http://www.fidh.org/
M.Matsaganis, Ch.Leventi, “Distributional
Implications of the Crisis in Greece in 2009-2012”, Euromod WP no14/13, available
at https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/euromod/em14-13.pdf
M.Matsaganis, Ch.Leventi, “The
Anatomy of Poverty in Greece 2013”, available at http://www.paru.gr/files/newsletters/NewsLetter_05.pdf.
Dr Theodora Papadimitriou, Advisor on Social Issues to the Mayor of Athens
No comments:
Post a Comment