The government is arguing about basic child security. In an interview with t-online, an expert nevertheless expresses great hope.
In the future, fewer children in Germany should grow up in poverty, according to the government’s coalition agreement. She wants to achieve this through a so-called basic child security. Although the exact plans for this are not yet available, a bitter dispute has already broken out between the traffic light parties – about what this should look like in the end.
In an interview with t-online, Christian Palentien from the University of Bremen explains why previous benefits do not reach many families, what is at stake in the dispute and why basic child security will not be enough in the end.
t-online: If you google basic child security these days, you will come across articles about the dispute in the coalition. To begin with, let’s take a look at what it’s actually all about. Mr Palentien, what is at stake here for the affected families?
Christian Palentien: The basic child security should be the means by which more children are brought out of poverty, at least that is what the coalition agreement says. This is an important goal because the situation is like this: every fifth child grows up in poverty. There are huge differences in Germany; In the state of Bremen, a particularly large number of children are affected, in Bavaria the least.
Which families are you talking about?
It hits three groups in particular: families with many children, single parents and those who are not employed. In Germany, children are – still – a major risk of poverty. The more children someone has, the higher the risk of falling into relative income poverty.
What does this mean in concrete terms for the children affected?
Poverty means, among other things, that a child is less able to participate in normal everyday life, for example not being able to get a new pencil case for school or not being able to take part in a class trip. Because children are often excluded as a result, this can also have negative effects on the psyche of those affected.
But it also means that these children are clearly disadvantaged when it comes to educational opportunities. For example, because they can’t get tutoring if the performance is worse. These children are less likely to graduate from high school or even graduate at all.
Christian Palentien
is an educational scientist at the University of Bremen. Most recently, he was chairman of the expert commission for the 16th report on children and young people by the federal government. He habilitated on the causes and prevention of child and youth poverty in Germany.
There are already a number of benefits specifically for children: child benefit, which all parents receive, in addition the child allowance for people on low incomes and money for music school or the sports club from the so-called education and participation package. Why isn’t that enough?
That alone obviously cannot fundamentally improve the situation for many children – otherwise not so many children would grow up in poverty.
We have to realize that many families do not apply for certain benefits, even though they are entitled to them. This can have different reasons: Some families are ashamed. Others do not even know that they are entitled to a benefit. Some get lost in the jungle of responsibilities and bureaucracy.
In Germany, children are – still – a major risk of poverty.
Christian Palentien
The FDP refers to this in the current debate: that many people would be helped if the different services were combined into one. She therefore sees basic child security above all as an administrative reform.
It makes sense to pool services – it will definitely improve the situation. Because we can assume that the funds will then reach more of the affected families than before.
Is that enough? The Greens – whose flagship project is basic child security – not only want to combine the services, but also increase them for children in low-income families. However, this is blocked by FDP Finance Minister Christian Lindner, pointing out that there is not enough money.
Of course it’s like this: You can make basic child security for low-income families even better by giving more money. However, I would like to plead not to underestimate the standardization of the different services.
So the Greens shouldn’t do that and be satisfied with the merger of the services?