In dieser Studie werden unterschiedliche Arten von Armutsindikatoren, basierend auf Einkommen und Vermögen, betrachtet. Insbesondere soll untersucht werden, inwieweit die Zahl armer Haushalte und deren sozio-demographische Struktur, sowie die Zusammensetzung ihres Vermögens und ihre Konsumausgaben von der Wahl eines bestimmten Armutskonzeptes abhängen. Beitrag AbstractIn this paper, we analyse different measures of asset and income poverty using micro-data for 15 euro area countries from the 2010 Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS). We are particularly interested in the way in which specific definitions of income and wealth poverty affect the number and socio-demographic characteristics of poor households, as well as their portfolio composition and consumption expenditure. We find that adding wealth to the poverty definition mainly influences the percentage of poor households but has a limited effect on the documented socio-demographic composition, portfolio structure and food consumption of poor households compared to the patterns under a pure income poverty measure. Within each country, we document some heterogeneity with regard to the percentage of poor households across different poverty measures. However, across countries, the percentage of households in poverty for any given indicator is relatively homogenous. We find the typical socio-demographic patterns for poor households: the risk of being income and/or wealth-poor is, in almost all countries, higher for smaller households, households with a less educated head and single-parent households. We also show that the percentage of female, old and retired reference persons is higher for poor households than for the population at large. Additionally, the participation rates in real and financial assets for poor households are lower than for the population as a whole. Poor households spend more than 30% of their gross income on food.

In this article, I describe the portfolio structure of poor households within the euro area (EA) using microdata from the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS), the Luxembourg Wealth Study (LWS), and the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). My approach differs from existing ones in that I analyze the (net) wealth‐poor instead of the income‐poor households. I am able to identify households in the bottom net wealth decile and study their portfolio structure. From a methodological point of view, my study shows that a poverty indicator based on households’ net wealth needs to be designed and interpreted with great care. Given that wealth accumulates over time and (high‐ income) households can borrow against their future income stream, it is not clear whether low net wealth holdings are really indicative of being poor, for example, in the sense of material deprivation or consumption opportunities. As consumption can be financed from wealth and income, an indicator combining wealth and income may be a solution. I find significant heterogeneity in the portfolios of households in the bottom net wealth decile across countries. The characteristics of the group of households with low wealth are different across countries as well. Real assets are held by fewer less wealthy households than financial assets, and almost all wealth‐poor households own deposits and sight accounts, but only a few have mortgage debt. Wealth‐poor households are, on average, smaller than other households, and their heads are younger. Additionally, less wealthy households are not the unemployed households with low education levels. In some countries, highly educated household heads and full‐time employees belong to the wealth‐poor. The poor households spend, on average, about 20 percent of their gross income on food.

No abstract