Chapter 14

Inequality, housing, demography

Income inequality is now among the lowest in the Union and the gender pay gap is a quarter of Germany's — but one in three Poles lives in an overcrowded home, Warsaw is three times richer than the Lublin region, and fertility has fallen to a record 1.14.

An important correction to the common claim of “rising inequality”: measured by income, inequality in Poland is among the lowest in the Union and has fallen continuously since 2015. The inequalities that are really growing or persisting have a different dimension — regional (Warsaw versus the east), housing (overcrowding twice as common as in the EU) and generational (pensions losing ground against wages). The biggest challenge is demography: Poland now has 40% fewer births than in 2017, and natural decrease is the highest since the war — quietly offset by immigration that the official population statistics do not yet see.

Fig. 14.1

One of Europe's most egalitarian societies: Gini 2014–2025

Gini coefficient of equivalised disposable income (0–100), 2014–2025 (EU-SILC; survey year)

One of Europe's most egalitarian societies: Gini 2014–2025242526272829303132201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025EU27 29.2Poland 24.92016–2017: the first full year of the500+ child benefitPolandEU27
  • Poland: 30.8 (2014) → 24.9 (2025); EU27: 30.9 → 29.2
  • S80/S20 (income of the richest 20% to the poorest 20%): 4.98 (2010) → 3.63 (2025); EU: 4.62
  • The fifth-lowest Gini coefficient in the EU — ahead of the Netherlands, Finland, Austria and all the Nordic countries

Two lines diverging: Poland falls from 30.8 to 24.9, the Union barely moves. In a decade Poland went from the EU average to the fifth-lowest level of income inequality in the Union. The richest 20% of Poles now have 3.6 times the income of the poorest 20% — against fivefold in 2010.

This is the strongest correction to the thesis set out in this document's brief: income inequality is not a dark side of contemporary Poland. The dark sides of inequality have other dimensions — the next charts show them.

Fig. 14.2

Income inequality in the EU, 2025: Poland fifth from the bottom

Gini coefficient of equivalised disposable income, 2025, selected EU countries (lower = more equal)

Income inequality in the EU, 2025: Poland fifth from the bottomSlovakia23.0Belgium23.4Czechia24.0Slovenia24.6Poland24.9Netherlands25.9Finland27.1Ireland27.2Romania27.3Austria27.4EU2729.2Germany30.1France30.4Spain30.8Italy31.0Lithuania35.5Latvia35.6Bulgaria37.7
  • Lowest: Slovakia 23.0, Belgium 23.4, Czechia 24.0, Slovenia 24.6, Poland 24.9; highest: Bulgaria 37.7, Latvia 35.6, Lithuania 35.5

The 2025 ranking places Poland among the most egalitarian societies on the continent — between Slovenia and the Netherlands, clearly ahead of Germany, France, Spain and Italy. The gender pay gap (next chart) and the poverty rate (chapter 4) complete the picture: three independent measures, one image.

Fig. 14.3

The fourth-lowest gender pay gap in the Union

Unadjusted gender pay gap, %, 2024, EU countries

The fourth-lowest gender pay gap in the UnionLuxembourg−0.8%Belgium0.7%Romania3.7%Poland4.0%Malta4.9%Italy5.3%Croatia6.6%Portugal7.0%Spain7.3%Slovenia8.0%Ireland8.3%Lithuania10.0%EU2711.1%Netherlands11.2%Sweden11.2%France11.8%Germany15.6%Slovakia15.7%Finland16.3%Hungary16.9%Austria17.6%Czechia18.5%Estonia18.8%
  • Poland 4.0% (2024) vs EU 11.1%; Germany 15.6%, Czechia 18.5%, Estonia 18.8%
  • Women in the Sejm: 29.6% (2023, a record) — still below the EU average (32.7%); 58% of students are women

Poland has the fourth-lowest pay gap in the EU — nearly three times below the EU average and four times below Germany's. Partly it is structural: a highly feminised public sector and women's higher education (the gender gap in tertiary degrees — 17.9 pp in women's favour — is among the largest in the EU).

Political representation lags: a record 29.6% of women in the Sejm is still below the EU average, with 44% of women on the lists — women were systematically placed lower down.

Fig. 14.4

There is no 'Poland B', there is a Poland growing from different levels: regional GDP

GDP per capita in PPS as % of the EU27 average, NUTS-2 regions, 2024

There is no 'Poland B', there is a Poland growing from different levels: regional GDP70%Lesser Poland79%Silesia82%Greater Poland64%West Pomerania63%Lubusz83%Lower Silesia63%Opole region63%Kuyavia-Pomerania56%Warmia-Masuria75%Pomerania74%Łódź region60%Holy Cross55%Lublin region57%Subcarpathia61%Podlaskie157%Warsaw71%Mazovia (regional)55%157%% of the EU27 averageNUTS-2 REGIONS, 2024Warsaw capital region157%Lower Silesia83%Greater Poland82%Silesia79%Pomerania75%Łódź region74%Mazovia (regional)71%Lesser Poland70%West Pomerania64%Lubusz63%Opole region63%Kuyavia-Pomerania63%Podlaskie61%Holy Cross60%Subcarpathia57%Warmia-Masuria56%Lublin region55%Poland overall79%
  • Warsaw capital region: 157% of the EU average (2024) — richer than Berlin or Vienna; Lublin region: 55%
  • A 2.85-fold spread; but ALL regions grew: Lublin 49 → 55, Subcarpathia 50 → 57, Greater Poland 75 → 82 (2015→2024)

The sharpest inequality in contemporary Poland is not income but geography. The Warsaw region is statistically richer than Berlin and Vienna, while six eastern and northern regions do not exceed 62% of the EU average. The spread between the richest and poorest region is almost threefold.

An important caveat: every region grew and none stood still — Lublin and Subcarpathia gained 6–7 points each since 2015. The distance to Warsaw is not shrinking, but the distance to the Union is — in every voivodeship.

Fig. 14.5

Cars yes, square metres no: one in three Poles lives in an overcrowded home

Overcrowding rate, % of population, 2025, selected EU countries

Cars yes, square metres no: one in three Poles lives in an overcrowded homeRomania40.4%Latvia38.9%Bulgaria32.5%Croatia31.8%Poland30.9%Greece28.3%Slovakia27.8%Lithuania27.8%Italy24.3%Estonia17.9%EU2716.8%Czechia16.7%Sweden15.7%Germany11.7%France10.8%Spain9.5%Netherlands4.1%Cyprus2.2%
  • Overcrowding: Poland 30.9% (2025) vs EU 16.8%; 43.4% in 2015 — down 12.5 pp in a decade
  • Stock: 425.9 dwellings per 1,000 inhabitants (2024), 32.2 m² per person; cars: 639 per 1,000 (EU: 584)

The most vivid dark side of living standards after demography: almost one in three Poles lives in overcrowded conditions, nearly twice as often as the average EU resident — though the rate is falling fast (by 12.5 pp in a decade). Poles earn ever better but still live cramped.

The contrast with motorisation is telling: Poland now has more cars per inhabitant than Germany (639 vs 593) — partly because of used-car imports and weak public transport outside the big cities. Cars yes, square metres no.

Fig. 14.6

Demographic scissors: births down 40% since 2017

Live births and deaths in Poland, thousands, 2014–2025

Demographic scissors: births down 40% since 2017pandemic0 k100 k200 k300 k400 k500 k600 k201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025Deaths 406 kBirths 238 kBirthsDeaths
  • Births: 401,982 (2017) → 238,264 (2025); deaths 2025: 405,747; natural decrease about 167,000 — the most since the war outside the pandemic years
  • Population: 37.3 m (Statistics Poland, 31 Dec 2025); median age 43.4 years (+4.2 years in 11 years)
  • Statistics Poland simulation to 2060: 30.9 m (main projection) or 28.4 m at a fertility rate of 1.10

The greatest challenge of this portrait. Poland now has 40% fewer births than in 2017, and natural decrease — 45 per 10,000 inhabitants — is the highest since the Second World War outside the pandemic years. The scissors have been opening since 2018 and nothing suggests they will close.

The Statistics Poland simulation shows the price: at 2024 fertility the country would have 28.4 million inhabitants in 2060, a quarter fewer than today, and one in three would be over 65. It is an experimental exercise, not a forecast — but the direction is unambiguous.

Fig. 14.7

Transfers cut child poverty but did not raise births: fertility 1.14

Total fertility rate (children per woman), Poland vs EU27, 2014–2024

Transfers cut child poverty but did not raise births: fertility 1.141.11.21.31.41.51.61.720142015201620172018201920202021202220232024EU27 1.34Poland 1.142017: 1.48 — the peak after the 500+benefit was introducedPolandEU27
  • TFR: 1.48 (2017, a year after the 500+ benefit began) → 1.14 (2024); EU: 1.34; replacement level: 2.10
  • A 23% fall in seven years — despite the largest child transfers in history

The strongest proof that money does not buy births: the 500+ programme (800+ since 2024) cut child poverty sharply (chapter 4), but after a brief rebound in 2017 fertility fell to the lowest level ever recorded. Poland is now 0.2 below the EU average, which is itself falling.

The fertility decline is Europe-wide, but faster in Poland — the only indicator in this portrait where Poland has in recent years lost ground to the EU instead of gaining it.

Fig. 14.8

A country of emigration became a country of immigration: first residence permits

First residence permits issued to foreigners in Poland, thousands, 2013–2025

A country of emigration became a country of immigration: first residence permits0 k200 k400 k600 k800 k1,000 k1,200 k274 k356 k542 k586 k689 k648 k724 k598 k967 k700 k643 k489 k467 k20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252013–2022: Poland no. 1 in the EU forten years
  • Poland was no. 1 in the whole EU continuously from 2013 to 2022; peak: 967,345 permits in 2021; 2025: 467,314 (3rd, after Spain and Germany)
  • 950,775 people from Ukraine under temporary protection (July 2026, 2nd in the EU after Germany); 1.34 m foreigners insured with ZUS (June 2026), 901,000 of them Ukrainians

The best-documented proof of reversed migration: a country that after 2004 was a symbol of emigration issued, for a decade, more first residence permits than Germany, France or Spain. The fall after 2021 reflects temporary protection for Ukrainians (a different procedure), not a drop in immigration.

Foreigners now make up about 8% of those insured with the social-insurance institution and about 6% of workers — and it is largely they who fill the gap opened by the scissors of the previous chart. Official population statistics do not yet see it.

Fig. 14.9

More złoty, a smaller slice of the cake: pensions relative to wages

Average ZUS pension as % of the average wage, 2015–2024

More złoty, a smaller slice of the cake: pensions relative to wages52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%201520162017201820192020202120222023202463.7%62.3%60.4%58.0%56.4%56.4%55.0%53.7%55.9%55.8%
  • Average ZUS pension: PLN 3,862.61 (2024, +14.0% y/y), but only 55.8% of the average wage — against 63.7% in 2015
  • Pensioners below 50% of median income: 4.1% (2015) → 6.8% (2024); 9.38 m people draw benefits — 25% of the population

A concrete, generational dark side of the wage boom: pensions are rising fast in nominal terms (+14% in 2024), but their ratio to wages has fallen by almost 8 points since 2015. Workers are getting richer faster than pensioners, and the share of very low benefits is growing.

Together with demography (the previous charts) this forms the most important long-term tension of this portrait: fewer and fewer workers, more and more beneficiaries, and a benefit-to-wage ratio that is already declining.