We have had just about everything since the first one in 1983: small and medium-sized enterprises, tourism, languages, equal opportunities, intercultural dialogue. I am talking about ‘European Years of…’. The last mentioned – the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue (2008) in case you missed it – had Charles Aznavour as world intercultural dialogue ambassador. Whether linked to this fact or not, 36% of Europeans responded with ‘total puzzlement’ when confronted with the phrase ‘intercultural dialogue’ in a survey.

2010 is the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. This is a good deal more concrete, and more than appropriate given the economic and financial crisis – and the European Parliament and member states that chose it deserve credit for that. I have already seen some effective posters in Brussels – but only in the European quarter, which may be symptomatic. The Commission has a website and even Eurostat is pitching in with a new report.

I am not sure who the ambassador this year is. But he or she will need more than a soft crooning voice and a whiff of je ne sais quoi. For the Eurostat report paints a depressing picture of poverty, inequality and deprivation of various kinds across the EU. But what is worse: the report is badly flawed in at least two major respects, understating the gravity of the situation.

Let me pull out some numbers, all for the EU27 average. The income of a household four-fifths up the income distribution was five times that of a household one-fifth the way up the ladder in the same country. Almost one in five households (17%) earns less than 60% of the median income in their respective member state. And on average, this group has almost one quarter less income than those at the 60%-of-median threshold. The incidence of poverty on this measure rises to 43% for the unemployed. More than one-in-five children across the EU, more than a third of single-parent households, and a quarter of those with three of more children are poor, based on this definition.

I could go on. Note that all these figures are after taxes and benefits, and they are quite effective in Europe, cutting the average poverty rate by 10 percentage points (otherwise it would be close to a third). To those who counter that ‘this is all relative’: you would be right – technically. The EU’s poverty concept is, rightly, set in terms of the average income levels that each society can generate. Yet the absolute measure of ‘material deprivation’, i.e. lacking the most basic commodities and facing a daily struggle to make ends meet, affects the same share of the population as the relative measure (17%).

Obviously there are huge inter-country differences across the EU, with a corresponding mixed message. In some countries, especially the most recently acceded members Romania and Bulgaria, the situation is dramatic (almost three-quarters of the Bulgarian population is classified as ‘materially deprived’). But also the potential positive impact of policy is evident. The extent of poverty and inequality reflects, not least, social choices. The Nordic countries, but also France, perform well on most measures; here again, of course, ‘relatively speaking’.

There is a real risk, however, associated with the activities in the European Year generally, and specifically, the Eurostat report: missing the wood for the trees, and focusing on ‘end-of-pipe’ problems and policies, while ignoring more fundamental causes and issues. The European Year website is full of information on (worthy) programs that have helped Mr. A and Mrs. B, but gives no discussion of causes. And Eurostat has missed – to use an inappropriate metaphor – a golden opportunity. For the detailed, 100-page report has two glaring gaps: there is no presentation of trends over time and no mention of the economic crisis.

Yet a major stylised fact of the neo-liberal period since the 1980s has been rising inequality. On some measures we are back to the situation in some countries before the First World War. If such trends had been presented for the EU countries in a systematic way, it would have opened up a debate, based on hard data, about the structural trends and economic policies that have caused them. It seems that those with influence over the agenda of the European Year and the Eurostat report are not interested in promoting such a debate. For then we would have an open discussion of the fact that many of the policies recommended and implemented by EU institutions and member states, from privatisation, to labour market policy, to trade policy, have actively worsened inequality and poverty.

And the crisis? Granted, the inequality problems caused by the crisis are largely yet to show up in the data. But this does not excuse the absence of any mention of its implications. It is obvious that the crisis will have massive distributional effects (see here). Recall the much higher poverty rates for the unemployed – already unemployment has risen by around 3 percentage points or 7 million people. High unemployment will also put downward pressure on the earnings of those who manage to keep their jobs, especially the low-skilled. Meanwhile, high budget deficits will lead to a squeeze on essential public services (and possibly another privatisation wave) and on unemployment and other social benefits.

It is welcome that the authorities have selected poverty and social exclusion as the focus for this European Year. But glossy websites and anodyne reports are not only not enough, they even risk distracting us from the fundamental issues. People can be puzzled about intercultural dialogue, but poverty isn’t something that people should be puzzled about. The real issues underpinning poverty go to the heart of our economic and social model. They touch on the vital interests of those who have benefited from the regressive policies and structural trends of the last quarter century. It is up to critical social scientists to get the real facts on the table, liberal and left-of-centre journalists and bloggers to get them discussed, and progressive politicians and social movements to get the required policies implemented.