Changes

<div><ul style="text-align: left; float:left; margin-left:0.5px; margin-right:0.5px">

<li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align:top">

The drop in the amount of workers affiliated to the Social Security system who had temporary contracts (-17.30%) was much sharper than amongst those with permanent contracts (-1.92%). However, new contracts were signed in all regions, most of them temporary, as shown on the map on [[:File:Spain_Employment-contracts-during-the-pandemic_2019-2020_map_18159_eng.jpg| ''Employment Contracts during the pandemic'']]. This map depicts the amount of employment contracts -both temporary and permanent- registered in the National Public Employment Service throughout the first wave of the pandemic. The variation in the amount of new contracts signed in 2020 in relation to those signed in the same period in 2019 is shown on the choropleth. The downturn in the labour market explains why this variation was negative in all regions, although not to the same degree. New contracts fell the most in the Balearic Islands (Illes Balears) (-72.3%), followed by the Canary Islands (Canarias) and some regions in northern Spain, with a negative variation ranging from -50% to -60%. Andalusia (Andalucía), the Region of Valencia (Comunitat Valenciana), Aragón, Navarre (Navarra) and La Rioja registered slightly lower decreases, of -40% to -50%. Falls registered in Extremadura and Castile-La Mancha (Castilla-La Mancha) were around -30% to -40%. Only in the Region of Murcia (Región de Murcia) was the fall somewhat lower (-28.5%).}}

</li>

<li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align: top">

Many companies and public administrations could only continue their activity during lockdown in spring 2020 by allowing their employees to work from home. A previously scarcely used labour format became almost overnight a large-scale experiment to test the possibilities offered by this way of managing the production process. According to the Labour Force Survey, at least 20% of employees in Spain were in home office during this period.

Figures highlight significant differences by region and sex. From a spatial point of view, the Region of Madrid (Comunidad de Madrid) stands out, as over 30% of employees were in home office. This contrasts with the Canary Islands (Canarias), La Rioja, Navarre (Navarra) and the Region of Murcia (Región de Murcia) where only under 15% of employees worked from home. In terms of gender, more women than men were in home office in most of the regions, especially in Aragón, Extremadura and the town of Melilla.

{{ANESubirArriba}}

{{ANETextoEpigrafe|epigrafe=Unemployment, poverty and social protection}}

<div><ul style="text-align: right; float:right; margin-left:0.5px; margin-right:0.5px">

<li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align:top">

</li>

</ul></div>

The first estimates of the impact of the pandemic on economy in Europe confirm that poverty rate is increasing in many states. In spite of the emergency measures put in force by the governments, the current situation is breeding a rise in income disparities between states and reducing the social and territorial cohesion of the continent. States in the south, and Spain in particular, have fewer jobs that may be carried out using home office, yet those who may work from home tend to be more qualified and have higher salaries than in other central European states. In addition, fewer medium and low-skilled jobs were deemed as being ‘essential’ in southern European states, suggesting that the impact of the pandemic on lower-income households was more significant than in other states.

The effects of the pandemic revealed more quickly and were more harmful for more vulnerable households, according to the quarterly data from the Labour Force Survey. Both the graph on the [[:File:Evolution in the amount of households.jpg|''Evolution in the amount of households'']] where all active members are unemployed and the graph on the [[:File:Spain_Evolution-in-the-amount-of-households-with-no-income_2005-2020_statisticalgraph_17864_eng.jpg|''Evolution in the amount of households with no income'']] show that the second quarter of 2020 marked a clear change in trend with respect to the one observed since 2014.

<li style="display: inline-block; vertical-align:top">

[[File:Spain_Evolution-in-the-amount-of-households-with-no-income_2005-2020_statisticalgraph_17864_eng.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Statistical graph: Evolution in the amount of households with no income. 2005-2020. Spain.]]

</li>

</ul></div>

The ‘Regional Minimum Incomes’ granted by the regional public administrations were until June 2020 the only public policies designed to cover the risk of extreme poverty. For several decades, the geographical coverage of this benefit has been very heterogeneous. In average, these benefits reached 17% of households at risk of poverty throughout Spain in 2019. However, whilst in some regions, such as the Basque Country (Euskadi/País Vasco) and Navarre (Navarra), all households with income below the poverty line were covered, in others, such as Castile–La Mancha (Castilla–La Mancha) and Andalusia (Andalucía), this benefit reached under 10% of them. In addition to this regional inequality, the Spanish minimum income model suffered from a low protective capacity and minimal coverage. With the onset of the COVID-19 health crisis, new measures were put in place to protect households living in extreme poverty. Indirect support mechanisms were developed and the regulations were revised to prevent the withdrawal of basic utilities due to non-payment (electricity, gas, water and telecommunications). Electricity rate subsidies were extended to a wider range of social groups, and automatic moratoria on mortgage payments and various aids to vulnerable tenants were introduced. The main problem was the delay in granting them, which probably made them less effective. It is important to point out that these were emergency and needed transitory measures not intended to solve long-term structural problems.

However, granting this benefit to the population for which it is intended is proving to be a slow and challenging process, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of this policy. The initial results indicate that several Andalusian provinces concentrate the highest amount of national Minimum Subsistence Income beneficiaries, i.e. Cádiz, Seville (Sevilla), Granada, Almería and Jaén. However, analysing the percentage of households receiving benefits with an income below 40% of the median (i.e. those at risk of severe poverty), draws a very different picture. For example, in Castile and León (Castilla y León) and Navarre (Navarra), over 20% of potential beneficiaries received the benefit, whilst this figure was only 7% for Catalonia (Catalunya/Cataluña).

<div><ul style="text-align: center">