The study by Hanna Dudek of the Warsaw University of Life Sciences addresses a problem that has long complicated poverty statistics: how should researchers compare households of different sizes? A family of five cannot be assessed fairly using the same raw expenditure figure as a single adult, because more people require more resources. Poverty researchers therefore use an equivalence scale, a mathematical adjustment that converts household income or spending into a comparable figure. The scale attempts to account for differences in household needs and for economies of scale, such as the fact that several people can share housing, appliances, heating, storage, and other costs. Dudek’s analysis asks whether food should be adjusted in the same way as total household resources—and whether Poland’s official subsistence baskets can answer that question.

The reference point was Poland’s minimum subsistence level, or “minimum existence” threshold, calculated by the Institute of Labour and Social Affairs, known as IPiSS. This is an absolute, needs-based standard designed to represent the most basic level of consumption required to sustain life and basic psychophysical development. It includes essential categories such as food, clothing, hygiene, housing, and selected educational needs, but excludes many goods and services associated with social participation or a comfortable standard of living. Dudek isolated the food component of these baskets and used it as a food-poverty threshold. For a one-person employee household in 2023, the monthly food threshold was 377.93 Polish zloty, approximately €83.20 at the conversion used in the article.

The technical result at the heart of the research concerns the scale elasticity implied by the food basket. Dudek represented the cost of a household’s minimum food needs with a power function, S = Nᵉ, where N is the number of household members and e is the elasticity parameter. When e equals zero, household size has no effect on the scale; when e equals one, needs rise proportionally with every additional person. In the latter case, there are no economies of scale, and household food spending is simply divided by the number of people. Using the IPiSS food values for different household types, the estimated elasticity was approximately one. Under this specific normative framework, equivalised food expenditure therefore became per-capita food expenditure.

That finding supports a practice already common in food-poverty research, but it comes with an important qualification. The result does not prove that large households never save money through bulk purchasing, shared cooking, or lower preparation costs per person. Nor does it establish that every family member has identical nutritional requirements. Children, adults, and older people have different energy and dietary needs, while household members may not consume food equally. Rather, the estimate shows that the official minimum food baskets used in Poland increase roughly in proportion to household size. The scale is therefore a property of the basket’s design and assumptions, not a definitive measurement of how families actually shop, prepare meals, or distribute food.

To test the consequences of this framework, Dudek analysed microdata from the 2023 Polish Household Budget Survey, a nationally representative survey covering 28,089 private households. The survey combines household expenditure diaries with computer-assisted interviews and records spending on food, beverages, income, and demographic characteristics. The researcher applied Statistics Poland’s calibrated household weights, which align the sample with the country’s population structure by age and gender using information from the 2021 National Census. The analysis grouped households into six broad categories: one-person households, childless couples, couples with one or two children, couples with three or more children, lone-parent households, and other household types.

Across the full sample, average monthly per-capita food expenditure was 505 zloty, while the median was lower, at 464 zloty. This gap indicates a moderately right-skewed distribution: most households clustered below the mean, while a smaller group with relatively high food spending pulled the average upward. The standard deviation was 235 zloty, revealing substantial variation in food expenditure. The differences between household groups were even sharper. One-person households and childless couples recorded the highest spending levels and broader distributions. Families with children spent considerably less per person, with couples raising three or more children showing the lowest mean and median values. Lone-parent households also displayed relatively constrained spending.

The study’s principal indicator, the At-Risk-of-Food-Poverty Rate, classified individuals as at risk when their equivalised food expenditure fell below the 377.93-zloty threshold. At the individual level, 42.4% of people were below the line. At the household level, the corresponding figure was 32.4%. The difference is statistically and socially important: households below the threshold were larger on average, containing 3.74 people compared with 2.43 among households above it. Counting households alone therefore understates the number of individuals affected, because a single low-spending family can include several people.

The risk was not evenly distributed. Only 11.1% of people living in one-person households and 19.0% of those in childless couples fell below the threshold. Among couples with one or two children, however, the rate rose to 45.3%. For couples with three or more children, it reached 68.7%, the highest recorded level. Lone-parent households faced a rate of 55.7%, while the broad category of other household types stood at 47.0%. The study suggests that the number of children and the availability of more than one adult income source can be decisive factors in determining whether minimum food spending is achievable.

Dudek also measured the depth of the risk using a food-poverty gap index. Rather than simply counting households below the line, this measure calculates their average proportional shortfall: how far spending falls below the threshold among those already identified as at risk. Across Poland, the average gap was 25.4%. The largest shortfall appeared among couples with three or more children, at 29.4%, while childless couples had the smallest gap, at 22.0%. Lone-parent households recorded 25.8%, and one-person households 25.5%. The relatively modest variation suggests that household composition has a stronger effect on the probability of falling below the threshold than on the size of the shortfall once a household is already below it.

The results do not mean that 42.4% of Poland’s population experienced hunger or lacked a nutritionally adequate diet. Food expenditure is an economic proxy, and spending can be influenced by preferences, prices, shopping locations, home production, food donations, purchasing strategies, and reporting behaviour. A household may spend little without being nutritionally deprived, while a high-spending household may still consume an unhealthy or inadequate diet. The measure also excludes subjective experiences, such as anxiety about running out of food, skipping meals, or being unable to afford preferred foods—dimensions captured by instruments such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Food Insecurity Experience Scale.

Even with those limits, the study offers a potentially powerful way to identify groups under financial pressure using detailed expenditure data. Its needs-based threshold is transparent, rooted in an established Polish institutional framework, and easier to interpret than a purely statistical cutoff such as a percentage of median spending. The findings point toward targeted monitoring and policy support for large families and lone parents, whose food budgets appear especially vulnerable to inflation and rising living costs. The research also illustrates why poverty statistics can change substantially depending on whether analysts count households or people, use income or expenditure, and apply a per-capita or more complex equivalence scale. In Poland, the official food basket points toward a simple conclusion with far-reaching implications: the risk of food poverty is driven less by household size alone than by who makes up the household—and children can make the difference between being above or below the minimum.

Subject of Research: Risk of food poverty in Poland measured through household food expenditure, needs-based food thresholds, and equivalence scales.

Article Title: Measuring the Risk of Food Poverty: Evidence from Needs-Based Food Thresholds and Household Budget Data in Poland

Article References: Dudek, H. (2026). “Measuring the Risk of Food Poverty: Evidence from Needs-Based Food Thresholds and Household Budget Data in Poland.” Social Indicators Research, 183, Article 41.

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-026-03886-w

Keywords: risk of food poverty, household food expenditure, food poverty threshold, equivalence scale, minimum subsistence basket, Poland, large families, lone-parent households, household budget survey, poverty gap index

The authors begin by framing old-age poverty as a multifaceted phenomenon that cannot be fully understood without considering the household context. Senior citizens’ economic well-being is often intertwined with their living arrangements—whether they reside alone, with a spouse, or within a larger family network fundamentally influences their financial resilience. The study meticulously analyzes data sets from a diverse range of socio-economic and cultural landscapes, covering countries from northern to southern Europe, to elucidate how varying social policies and family structures modulate poverty risks among elderly men and women.

One of the most striking findings of the research is the consistent gender gap observed in poverty rates, with older women being disproportionately vulnerable compared to their male counterparts. This disparity is frequently attributed to lifelong earnings gaps, interrupted workforce participation due to caregiving responsibilities, and lower lifetime pension accumulations. However, Ahonen and Kuivalainen’s work goes beyond these conventional explanations by demonstrating that household structure amplifies or mitigates these gendered risks in significant ways.

The study employs rigorous econometric modeling to dissect the explanatory power of household arrangements. Single elderly women living alone, for instance, exhibit the highest poverty rates among all demographic groups studied. Such living situations often result in the absence of shared resources or economies of scale that couples or multi-person households can leverage. Conversely, older men living alone tend to fare slightly better economically, a differential explained in part by historical labor market participation patterns and pension entitlements.

In dual-person households, particularly where an elderly couple shares accommodation, poverty rates tend to be lower overall. However, the research highlights that even within these units, gender disparities persist subtly through pension entitlement discrepancies and intra-household resource allocation. For example, women’s pensions tend to be a fraction of their partners’, which affects their individual financial autonomy despite co-residing. This raises critical questions about how financial security is managed within elderly couples and the potential policy measures needed to safeguard women who may outlive their spouses.

Cultural and policy contexts also emerge as key determinants of old-age poverty dynamics. Countries with more generous social safety nets and robust pension systems tend to show narrower gender poverty gaps, underscoring the importance of national policy frameworks. Southern European nations with traditionally strong family-based support systems, for example, reveal different patterns of household composition and poverty incidence compared to their northern counterparts. This suggests that while familial ties act as informal support, reliance solely on household-based care can inadvertently obscure or exacerbate gender inequalities without adequate state intervention.

The temporal aspect of poverty exposure is also critiqued by the researchers, who assert that gender differences in old-age poverty are not static but evolve over time with demographic shifts and changing family patterns. The increasing prevalence of single-person households and higher rates of widowhood among women pose emerging challenges for social welfare policies. Ahonen and Kuivalainen urge policymakers to consider the dynamic nature of aging populations and household compositions when designing poverty alleviation programs.

Technical analysis within the study includes detailed regression models that account for socio-economic variables such as educational attainment, health status, and urban versus rural residence, refining the understanding of vulnerability beyond gender and household structure alone. The robustness of these models is tested across different countries to ensure that the findings are not artifacts of specific datasets but reflect broader structural trends.

Importantly, the article illuminates the intersectionality between age, gender, and economic status, emphasizing that interventions targeted solely based on income thresholds may overlook significant subgroups at risk due to household context. This has implications for the design of poverty metrics and eligibility criteria for social assistance programs throughout the EU, advocating for more granular data collection and analysis.

The research also engages critically with existing literature on social policy, contributing new evidence to debates on whether pension reforms and family policy adjustments can effectively reduce old-age poverty. Ahonen and Kuivalainen’s findings suggest that policy solutions must be multifaceted, combining gender-sensitive pension schemes with support mechanisms for seniors living alone, particularly women. They also highlight the potential benefits of supporting intergenerational household arrangements through incentives, which may offer economic and social advantages.

Another significant contribution of this study is its potential to influence future demographic and economic projections related to aging populations. As Europe faces an unprecedented demographic shift towards older age groups, understanding how gender and household variables affect poverty risk is paramount. This knowledge equips policymakers and social planners with critical tools to anticipate and address socio-economic vulnerabilities proactively.

The methodology section of the study reveals an impressive synthesis of large-scale survey data harmonized for cross-national comparisons, demonstrating the feasibility and value of such comparative social research. This approach overcomes challenges related to data heterogeneity and provides a reliable basis for examining complex social phenomena across diverse contexts.

In conclusion, Ahonen and Kuivalainen’s investigation into gender differences in old-age poverty is a timely and impactful contribution to social economics and public policy. By exposing the intricate links between gender, household structure, and economic security in the twilight years, the study provides a roadmap for more equitable welfare policies that respond adaptively to Europe’s evolving demographic landscape. Its findings call for urgent attention to social policy design that goes beyond income metrics to embrace household realities, promoting dignity and economic stability for all elderly citizens.

As Europe continues to grapple with the challenges of an aging society, this research not only enriches academic understanding but also offers practical pathways to dismantle long-standing economic inequities faced by elderly women. It catalyzes discourse across disciplines, from economics and sociology to gender studies and public policy, reinforcing the imperative for integrated approaches that marry empirical evidence with compassionate governance.

In essence, the study by Ahonen and Kuivalainen functions as a crucial lens through which the future of social equity can be envisioned—a future that acknowledges the diversity of elderly experiences and champions inclusive, gender-responsive strategies to eradicate poverty in old age.

Subject of Research: Gender differences in old-age poverty in 14 EU countries, focusing on the role of household structure.

Article Title: Gender differences in old-age poverty in 14 EU countries: exploring the role of household structure.

Article References:
Ahonen, K., Kuivalainen, S. Gender differences in old-age poverty in 14 EU countries: exploring the role of household structure. Int Rev Econ 71, 615–631 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-024-00455-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-024-00455-w