Increase in disposable income and household spending in Poland in 2009

2010-07-15

The nominal monthly per capita disposable income in Polish households stood around PLN 1,114 in 2009, which means that it had increased, in real terms, by 3% year on year. Per capita spending was 2.2% higher than that of 2008.

According to a report on household budgets, carried out by the Central Statistics Office (the GUS), respondents from all socio-economic groups with the exception of one have seen their incomes increase, the exception being farmers’ households, where there was a 3.3% reduction in 2009.
Average nominal spending per capita in 2009 came to PLN 957, of which PLN 914 was on consumer goods and services. A real increase in spending on goods and services was reported for all groups apart from the households of those running their own businesses.
The GUS reported that the decline in the consumption of some foodstuffs has continued and that this was true in particular of baked goods, milk, pasta, cereals, rice, cereals and some vegetables (chiefly potatoes).
More than half of the households surveyed assessed their material situations as average, whereas almost one in four stated that theirs were very good or relatively good. One-fifth of the households stated that their situations were fairly bad or bad.



Incomes still increasing but more slowly
The households of those running their own businesses (the self-employed) had the highest nominal disposable incomes per capita in 2009 – 25.3% more than the average. The income of pensioners’ households was 5.9% higher than the average, and that of workers’ households by 0.8%. However, the households of those employed in non-blue-collar jobs exceeded the average by 33.7%. In other groups, the monthly disposable income fell short of the average for the population as a whole: the disposable income of the households of blue-collar workers was 22.6% lower, those receiving disability pensions had 21.9% less, and farmers were 20.7% below the national average.
Disposable incomes grew in 2009 but to a lesser extent than during the previous year: 3% year on year, in contrast to 8% in 2008. According to the GUS, this was the result of the higher unemployment rate at the end of the year (11.9% in comparison with 9.5% in December 2008). The purchasing power of an average salary in the enterprise arena increased by 1.1% in 2009, whereas a year before it had increased by 6.1% year on year.
The difference between households with the highest average per capita disposable incomes and those with the lowest have not changed substantially in comparison with 2008: the 20% on the highest incomes had an average per capita monthly disposable income of PLN 2,311, which was 6.3 times the average of the 20% on the lowest incomes (6.2 times in 2008). The upper 20% of the scale had around 41.3% of the total income of all households at their disposal, whereas at the opposite end of the spectrum, 20% of those in the worst economic situations accounted for only 6.6%.
In regional breakdown, households in five voivodships had disposable incomes higher than the national average. These were the Mazowieckie, Dolnoslaskie, Pomorskie, Lodzkie and Zachodniopomorskie voidodships. In the Slaskie voivodship household incomes were similar to the average. The per capita disposable income was at its highest in the Mazowieckie voivodship (PLN 1,439), whereas the lowest value, PLN 835, was reported for the Podkarpackie voivodship.
Households in rural areas had a per capita disposable income of PLN 889, whereas those in towns and cities earned PLN 1,255. This reflects both lower incomes in the countryside in general and the fact that the average number of people living in one household there is higher than it is in urban areas.



Increase in spending prompted by home maintenance and energy prices
Average monthly nominal per capita expenditure in 2009 stood at PLN 957, of which PLN 914 was spent on consumer goods and services. According to the GUS, the disparity in spending between socio-economic groups was significant and similar to that recorded in 2007 and 2008. The households of non-blue-collar workers reported the most substantial per capita spending (29.7% above the average), whereas those of the self-employed were in second place (26.3%). Pensioners’ households were 9.3% above the average. Farmer’s households reported expenditures 25.6% below the average, and those of blue-collar workers 23.9% short of the average.
Real per capita spending was 2% higher in 2009 in comparison with the previous year. In 2008 the year-on-year increase in expenditure was more substantial and stood at 7.1%. An increase was observed in the households of workers, pensioners and farmers. A real reduction in per capita spending was reported for the households of those running their own businesses.
Food and non-alcoholic beverages accounted for the most substantial proportion of household spending: 25.1% for the overall population, whereas workers’ households spent 20.2% and those of farmers 33.2%. Expenditure on food and drinks continued to decline: by 0.5 p.p. on average (1.1 p.p. in pensioners’ households, whereas farmers and the self-employed saw food and beverages increase as a proportion of total expenses by 0.4 p.p.).
Expenditures on home maintenance and energy accounted for 19.7% of total household spending. However, pensioners were spending almost 24% on these. This category of expenditure increased for all groups of households – the national average was 0.8 p.p. (0.6 p.p. on energy costs). The households of the self-employed and those of farmers were affected to the greatest degree: spending on home maintenance increased by 1.5 p.p. (1 p.p. on energy) and 1.4 p.p. (1 p.p.) respectively.
According to the GUS, spending on basic needs (food and non-alcoholic beverages, along with home maintenance and energy bills) accounted for 55.8% of the household budgets of 20% of people on the lowest incomes. On the other hand, the upper 20% were spending 34.8% of their household budgets on those basic needs. The proportion of spending on basic needs as a proportion of the overall budget increased in 2009 in comparison with the previous year, which was a result of accommodation and energy price rises.

Mateusz Malicki
Senior Business Editor
PMR Publications