Poverty in Moldova 2025: rural rate 1.9 times higher, severity 2.5 times higher

The level of absolute poverty in 2025: 31.1% of the population

On 17 October, the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, the reference figure for the Republic of Moldova is the one published by the National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova (NBS) for 2025: 31.1% of the population lives below the absolute poverty line. In other words, almost one in three inhabitants lacks sufficient consumption to cover the minimum basket used by the NBS to set the line.

The poverty rate, however, is only the first of the three measures published by the NBS. The depth of absolute poverty was 6.65% in 2025, and its severity 2.12%. Depth shows how far, on average, the population's consumption falls below the line. Severity gives greater weight to the poorest of the poor. Taken together, the three indicators describe not only what share of the population is poor, but also how poor people are.

This analysis focuses on the two less frequently cited indicators, depth and severity, and on how they redraw the gap between rural and urban areas. The rural poverty rate was 40.0% in 2025; our interest here is in what lies beneath that figure.

Three indicators, three gaps: the rural–urban difference widens with each measure

For the poverty rate, rural areas (40.0%) exceed urban areas (21.1%) by a factor of 1.9, a difference of 18.9 percentage points (NBS, 2025). This is the most frequently cited gap, but also the smallest of the three.

For the depth of poverty, the ratio rises to 2.2 times: 8.93% in rural areas against 4.05% in urban areas, a difference of 4.88 pp (NBS, 2025). Depth measures the aggregate consumption shortfall relative to the line. The rural value, more than double, indicates not only a larger share of poor people but also a larger cumulative shortfall to be closed.

For the severity of poverty, the ratio reaches 2.5 times: 2.96% in rural areas against 1.17% in urban areas (NBS, 2025). Severity squares each person's distance from the line and therefore responds strongly to the presence of households lying very far below the minimum threshold. The gap grows from 1.9 to 2.2 and then to 2.5 times. This shows that rural poverty is not only more widespread but also more concentrated at the bottom end of the consumption distribution.

What depth and severity reveal about how poor the poor are

The ratio of depth to rate indicates the average consumption shortfall of a poor person, expressed as a percentage of the line. Nationally, 6.65 divided by 31.1 gives 21.4%. Thus, in 2025, a poor person in Moldova consumed on average roughly one fifth less than the minimum defined by the NBS (Socium calculation based on NBS data).

By area of residence, the difference is clear. In urban areas, the average shortfall is 19.2% of the line (4.05/21.1); in rural areas, 22.3% (8.93/40.0). The rural poor are not merely almost twice as numerous as a share of the population. They also live, on average, 3.1 pp further from the line than the urban poor (Socium calculation based on NBS data for 2025).

The distinction has practical consequences. A policy that lifts those just below the line above it reduces the poverty rate quickly but leaves severity almost unchanged. Conversely, a transfer targeted at the poorest households can reduce severity without visibly moving the rate. NBS data for 2025 suggest that in rural areas the second problem, a large distance from the line, weighs more heavily than in urban areas.

Comparison with the EU: different measures, but the gap remains visible

Any comparison with the European Union must be made with an explicit methodological caveat. The NBS measures absolute poverty, that is, consumption below a fixed line based on the minimum basket. Eurostat publishes the at-risk-of-poverty-or-social-exclusion rate (AROPE), an indicator combining income below 60% of the median with material deprivation and low work intensity. The two figures do not answer the same question.

With that caveat, the order of magnitude is telling. In 2025, 20.9% of the EU-27 population was at risk of poverty or social exclusion (Eurostat), 10.2 pp below Moldova's absolute poverty rate (31.1%). No member state recorded an AROPE rate at Moldova's level in 2025. The highest values were in Bulgaria (29.0%), Greece (27.5%) and Romania (27.4%), and the lowest in Czechia (11.5%), Poland (15.0%) and Slovenia (15.5%).

Two details are worth noting. Moldova's urban areas (21.1% absolute poverty in 2025) are at a level close to the EU average at-risk-of-poverty rate (20.9%). Rural areas (40.0%) exceed the highest EU value by 11.0 pp. Among candidate countries with data for 2025, Serbia had an AROPE rate of 23.2% and Türkiye 29.8% (Eurostat). Here too the indicator differs from the NBS measure, so these figures are contextual benchmarks, not rankings.

Trends: what the available data can and cannot tell us

The dataset underlying this analysis contains absolute poverty indicators for 2025 only. We therefore cannot quantify here the change in the rate, depth or severity compared with previous years, and we draw no conclusions about trends. Anyone consulting the NBS historical series should check for methodological revisions, which may limit long-term comparability.

For the EU, the Eurostat series is continuous: the at-risk-of-poverty-or-social-exclusion rate fell by 3.1 pp, from 24.0% in 2015 to 20.9% in 2025. The largest declines were recorded in Romania (from 44.5% to 27.4%, −17.1 pp), Bulgaria (from 43.3% to 29.0%, −14.3 pp) and Hungary (from 30.6% to 19.5%, −11.1 pp).

Two contextual series in the dataset bear indirectly on household incomes. Average gross monthly earnings reached 15,594.5 lei in 2025 (NBS). Remittances received fell from 22.1% of GDP in 2014 to 9.4% in 2025 (World Bank). Neither series measures poverty, and these data do not allow us to establish a causal relationship with the NBS indicators. They show only that the structure of incomes has changed over the past decade.

Implications for Moldova

The first implication concerns the target of policy. If the public objective is framed solely as reducing the poverty rate, instruments will be calibrated to households close to the line. Depth and severity, respectively 2.2 and 2.5 times higher in rural areas in 2025, may then remain unchanged. Monitoring all three NBS indicators, disaggregated by area of residence, would allow a more complete assessment of social protection programmes.

The second implication concerns targeting. In rural areas, the average consumption shortfall is 22.3% of the line, compared with 19.2% in urban areas (calculation based on NBS data for 2025). This indicates that a transfer of the same value has different effects in the two settings: in rural areas it covers, on average, a smaller part of the distance to the line. Sizing social assistance according to the distance from the line, not merely according to poverty status, is an option worth assessing.

The third implication concerns comparability with the EU in the context of the accession process. For Moldova to be directly comparable with member states, the AROPE indicator would need to be produced on the basis of a survey harmonised with EU-SILC. Until then, any juxtaposition of the 31.1% figure with the EU average of 20.9% remains indicative.

Sources

• National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova (NBS), statistical database
• Eurostat
• World Bank, World Development Indicators

@misc{socium20261017,
  author       = {{Socium -- Foundation for the Study of Society}},
  title        = {Poverty in Moldova 2025: rural rate 1.9 times higher, severity 2.5 times higher},
  year         = {2026},
  month        = {10},
  day          = {17},
  howpublished = {\url{https://socium.md/en/analyses/2026-10-17-poverty-in-moldova-2025-rural-rate-1-9-times-higher-severity-2-5-times-higher/}},
  note         = {Data: National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova (NBS), statistical database; Eurostat; World Bank, World Development Indicators},
  language     = {english}
}