“The 500+” program

Having one of the lowest birth rates in the world and being famous for its flawed family policy, Poland has long suffered from a baby bust. The main reason behind this tremendous problem is the fact that there is a lack of support from the government for large families. Parents started to be sceptical about having another child because of the low earnings and high costs of living, which prevent them from raising children at a sufficient material level and in decent living conditions. A lot of women are afraid that they will be made redundant if they get pregnant; others would like to come back to work after giving birth to a child, but they encounter plenty of barriers such as handling the day care of children. In April 2016, the Law and Justice party, which follows pro-family policies, implemented a new child benefit reform, called ‘the 500+’ program, in order to solve this serious problem and give an incentive for families to have children as well as to increase the Polish birth rate.

According to the plan, each family receives 500 zloty for its second and each subsequent child they reach the age of 18. The party introduced an exception to this rule, that is, families will also qualify for the benefit for their first child if their income does not exceed 800 zloty a month, or, in the case of a disabled child, 1200 zloty. Moreover, families in which one of the parents works abroad are not entitled to claim the benefit.

Since the proposal to implement the program, the new child benefit has created heated discussion among politicians, the public, and the Catholic church. The main disputed and questioned issues are: thhe potential effect on the Polish budget, the system of rules for allocating the money, and the potential for discouraging people from working, especially women. Thanks to all of the controversies and different opinions that concern this program, the media have deeply discussed and covered this issue substantially.

One of the most frequently raised question in the media regarding the 500+ program is the issue of economic and financial problems. According to Sergiusz Prokurat, an economist and a chairman of think tank SCCD, ”The 500+ program is similar to a situation when a parent gives sweets to a child, who constantly demands them without taking into consideration the costs and the dire consequences of this pleasure, including decay and diabetes”. Prokurat thinks that the costs of the program are huge and that society is unaware of the expenditure that the program requires. He estimates that the salaries of clerks who deal with allocation of funds and the annual cost of the program are equal to the money that could be spent on building roads, bridges, and that the 500+ program costs more than higher education or national defence in Poland. Katarzyna Domagała-Szymonek, in an article published in Dziennik Zachodni, claims that, only in December, there was a lack of around 65 mln zloty to fund the programme in the Silesian Voivodeship and that the additional funds for implementation of the program will be taken from the sources of money that were intended to be spent on other purposes. Similarly, other provinces have also demanded additional funds; the highest shortage of funds is reported in Masovian Voivodeship. In the opinion of Rafał Bakalarczyk from the Institute of Social Policy of the University of Warsaw, the excessive costs of the 500+ program may consume the money that could be spend for “the development of still neglected care-service infrastructures, upon which the participation of parents in the labour market depends to a great extent.” He thinks that the government should not only focus on funds for the 500+ program but also remember to keep money in reserve and, later, provide it for the other family-policy programmes such as child care in creches and after-school lessons in order to allow parents to work. Bakalarczyk claims that the development of child-care infrastructure is a huge challenge but it is equally vital, as it allows the family policy to fully function and be effective. The expert also, however, admits that the money received from the 500+ program in large part will be spent on local products and services, which “ultimately can stimulate greater supply, greater employment, and contribute to the reduction of unemployment”.

The second widely discussed potential side effect of the program is the fact that the 500+ program may be a certain deactivating incentive for parents, as a lot of them may be tempted to quit their jobs. According to Leszek Kostrzewski and Piotr Miączyński from Gazeta Wyborcza, this issue may mostly concern mothers, especially those with elementary or secondary education from villages or towns, who earn little and, thus, there is a strong probability that they will choose to receive benefits instead of working. The authors of the article think that it is not surprising that this option would be convenient and alluring for mothers, since each family who has more than one child will get money for all children regardless of the amount of a family income. Apart from that, mothers will take care of their children and, simultaneously, economise on childcare, commuting and clothing and they will not be forced to tolerate the boss. By contrast, Bakalarczyk does not agree that the 500+ program may have a deactivating effect on the labour market, as he thinks that this problem may concern only a small number of families. He also notes that financial benefits are commonly used in many countries around the world and they do not encourage employees to quit jobs. In order to illustrate his opinion he gives an example of the fact that “the highest employment rates are in the Nordic countries, where there is a high level of family support, wherein it is comprehensive and not based solely on cash benefits”. Similarly to Bakalarczyk, Małgorzata Kolińska-Dąbrowska from Gazeta Wyborcza also thinks that, apart from monetary benefits, a stabilisation of women on the labour market is essential, and she underlines that there is a great need for creches and nursery schools where children may be raised. She also argues that working does not necessarily need to interfere with having and raising a child, on the condition that country appropriately supports families like it does in the case of Iceland, France, Norway, Ireland, or Sweden. According to Kolińska-Dąbrowska, the best example of an effective population policy is Sweden, where child care in creches or nursery schools must be guaranteed for the offspring within four months from the moment of application, and in a case where the condition is not fulfilled ,the parents must receive money compensation.

Grzegorz Osiecki and Marek Chądzyński, in an article published on Dziennik.pl, claim that Polish women are quitting their jobs in large numbers and the authors perceive this phenomenon as a negative side effect of the 500+ program. They show the statistics of the Central Statistical Office, according to which, from March to September about 150,000 Polish women decided to quit their job because of family duties. They also quote the words of Janusz Jankowiak, the main economist of the Polish Council Business, as well as Iga Magda, from the Institute for Structural Research, in order to demonstrate the authenticity of the statistics. Similar articles were also published in other news websites, such as Money.pl, TVN24bis, Onet.pl, and RMF. However, according to Kamil Fejfer from OKO.press, those news portals only try to make people believe that there is a substantial number of negative effects whereas, in fact, the information is fallacious as ”the number of professionally inactive women has not increased by 150,000, but it decreased, year to year, by 34,000”. Fejfer states that it is true that there are more people who decided to quit their job or those who are professionally inactive, but it is vital to highlight the fact that the statistics do not only apply to women but also to men.

Marek A. Dąbrowski, a professor from Kraków University of Economics, in an article published in Rzeczpospolita, approves of the allowance of 500 zlotych for a child and considers the program as a success for the ruling Law and Justice party. The expert claims that “this is a program that, so far, seems to improve the situation of the poorest households.” However, Dąbrowski notes that the program has vices, mainly because of the fact that it ought not to have been implemented so hastily; a gradual approach should be used instead. According to him, the program ought to help gradually, “ranging from households that are in the worst position” because, then, it would be more beneficial for the public finances.

As can be seen, different opinions about the 500+ program have been expressed in the media, most of which express negative attitudes towards the program and its effects. However, it seems that the new population policy cannot be unequivocally negatively assessed, as the problem is comprehensive and there is a serious challenge for the officials who rule the country. It appears that it is beneficial for Polish families to receive the money, but the income of the families ought to be duly checked. It can be said that the pro-family reform is a positive change towards encouraging couples to have children; however, it seems that this complicated problem should be treated not only in terms of money but, simultaneously, other measures should be taken in order to solve the problem in a comprehensive way, and to let this program have long-lasting, positive effects.