Thirty renowned poverty researchers have strongly criticized the Federal Statistical Office. The reason for this is the elimination of a calculation method that officially removes over one million people from the poverty statistics. Experts such as Ulrich Schneider, long-time CEO of the Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband (Parity Welfare Association), and social scientist Christoph Butterwegge addressed a letter of protest directly to the head of the agency, Ruth Brand. Both accuse the statisticians of manipulating key data on the poverty rate. Schneider described the move as “explosive.” According to the new calculation, the poverty rate in 2023 was 15.5 percent, while the previous method showed 16.6 percent. (zeit: 14.08.25)
“This means that poverty has been reduced by more than a million people,” he emphasized. “This raises the question of manipulation or, at the very least, an interest-driven approach.”
Poverty rate and academic freedom
The researchers criticize the fact that the results of the second method are no longer accessible. According to their account, these have even been retroactively removed. In their letter, the signatories speak of “an unacceptable interference with scientific freedom.” They also state that it amounts to “arbitrary action by the authorities when a federal agency withholds results of general scientific and public interest, thereby curtailing the entire expert discussion and public reception.” They therefore demand that the deleted calculation be republished.
According to the definition, anyone with less than 60 percent of the median income is considered at risk of poverty. However, the methods used vary greatly. The procedures apply different standards, particularly when it comes to recording net household income. The Federal Office justifies the change with the aim of improving comparability across the EU. Income types would be queried in detail individually, rather than just as a total sum. In the opinion of the authority, this would prevent government benefits such as child benefit, child allowance, student loans, care allowance, or housing benefit from being incorrectly included.
Contradiction among experts
Poverty researchers consider this reasoning insufficient. In their view, there is no professional consensus as to whether the new method is actually superior. Rather, they consider the change to be scientifically controversial and politically problematic. The decisive factor, they say, is that the change results in a significant reduction in the official poverty rate, while social reality remains unchanged.
At the same time, experts warn of the consequences for public debate. If key figures appear embellished, this weakens confidence in independent statistics. At the same time, there is a risk that political decision-makers will underestimate the problem. Social welfare organizations in particular, which have been pointing to rising poverty for years, see their work hampered by the reduced data.
Threat to the credibility of statistics
Researchers are therefore insisting on transparency. Both calculation methods must remain accessible in order to enable comparisons and facilitate debate based on a broad data foundation. This is the only way to prevent suspicions of influence. Statistics that reflect social reality must not appear to be selected for political gain.
This puts the Federal Office at the center of a debate about credibility. While it points to European harmonization, the suspicion remains that critical poverty figures are being deliberately removed from view. For the signatories of the protest letter, one thing is clear: without independent data, society loses the basis for an open discussion about social inequality.