The adequacy of transfers The adequacy of the level of benefits is a key determinant of the extent to which they can tackle poverty. Past research has examined the significance of transfer ‘size’, centring predominantly around policies targeting households with children. For instance, several studies40 conducted in Europe indicate that while universal programmes outperform meanstested designs in reducing poverty, transfer adequacy is of equal or greater importance. 40,41,42 The level of transfers provided in Report Card countries tends to differ depending on household composition and economic circumstances. The following figures therefore use two hypothetical ‘model families’ as illustrative case studies of benefit levels:41 an out-ofwork couple with two children and a couple with average earnings raising two children. The two household permutations allow for the analysis of how social protection systems support those with different resources and at different levels of economic vulnerability. Using our two model families, Figure 21 shows transfer adequacy in 2022. It depicts benefits specifically aimed at households with children and income support programmes available to the general population (including social assistance and housing benefits).42 Countries in the OECD and EU subscribe to different models of providing for households with children: Some rely more heavily on child-specific transfers (e.g., Australia and Ireland), while others prioritize social assistance programmes available to all without adequate income (e.g., Spain). Housing benefits are marginal or not available for a lowincome family such as the one modelled here in some countries (e.g., Denmark) but are very prominent in others (e.g., Norway). Expressing the generosity of transfers as a percentage of the national average wage allows a meaningful comparison across countries. Transfers for a family with no labour market earnings are highest in Denmark, where they account for 89 per cent of the average wage. New Zealand and Cyprus provide transfers equivalent to approximately 70 per cent of the average wage. There are 19 countries where cash benefits complement household income by more than 50 per cent of the national average wage. However, the level of transfers to such vulnerable families is often too low to make a meaningful difference. In 19 countries, the combination of general (not child-specific) means-tested programmes and family benefits provided is equivalent to less than a half of a worker’s average earnings. It is lowest in Hungary (9.8 per cent), Türkiye (10.7 per cent), and Bulgaria (17.5 per cent). The right side of Figure 21 depicts transfer adequacy for an average earning couple with two children. These households typically do not qualify for means-tested forms of support and are only covered by universal, quasi-universal or affluence-tested family benefits (with the exception of Czechia, where an average earning couple receives housing cash benefits). Comparing the left and right sides of the figure, it can be concluded that the more vulnerable of our model families would receive a higher level of support in all countries for which we have data. 38 Child Poverty in the Midst of Wealth Innocenti Report Card 18