2. Literature Review
The global development of society imposes a set of common rules which are derived from the major problems facing the planet and which, if dealt with in isolation, can generate far greater risks than those identified so far. Therefore, under the aegis of globalization and the new concepts of inclusive growth, and global economic development, the 2030 Agenda was created as a first universal framework for all countries of the world, with the aim of contributing mainly to the eradication of poverty but also to the implementation of sustainable goals in all aspects of human life by the year 2030. With a set of 17 concrete goals, the 2030 Agenda is today the central pillar of regional, national and local strategies and programs and by no means appears to be a mere target. We support this claim through the very multitude of government projects, initiatives of global and regional organizations and local/national public and private sector actions.
From poverty eradication to the rational use of natural resources, the 2030 Agenda encompasses and details every aspect of human life, making it a universal/global benchmark. In this broad but detailed context, the 2030 Agenda addresses one of the most important issues facing the world today: reducing inequality within and between countries. It is certainly an issue that the literature addresses in various forms, as it is an extremely difficult and complex goal with seven specific targets agreed upon by the 193 UN member states. SDG 10, therefore, is the most interesting and wide-ranging global target, addressing a wide range of inequality issues [
9,
10,
11].
Both internationally and at the EU Member State level, the concept of the “right to development” and the reduction of inequalities imposes a number of obligations on developed countries to help the poorest. International institutions (World Bank, United Nations, etc.) therefore promote rights and can act as institutions of intervention so that by 2030 we will see a large reduction in wealth inequalities, now considered one of the fundamental problems of long-term societal sustainability [
1,
7].
Global and regional inequalities still affect people in the poorest countries, but the richest countries are not excluded from this situation. This is justified by the fact that inequalities between groups within the same society persist alongside inequalities between nations/countries. This is the reason for the understanding that inequalities are largely unjust and derive in large part from differences between societies and nations.
At the global level, the most plausible solution to reduce the phenomenon of inequality has focused on the implementation of global governance mechanisms that have been and continue to be contested because they cannot include aspects of understanding how each country has evolved historically as well as the position of each country in the global economic system [
12,
13].
Reducing existing inequalities must therefore become a priority objective of both national and international policy agendas, even if piecemeal approaches based on one-off initiatives aimed mainly at “helping the poor” may be successful. On the other hand, reducing inequality requires national policies for economic diversification, appropriate fiscal, monetary and financial strategies and social policies that target disadvantaged social groups, but which must also incorporate respect for nature as an essential principle of world sustainability in the medium and long term [
14].
In this regard, recent studies [
15] carried out at OECD and non-OECD levels, from the point of view of inequality and economic prosperity included health indicators by gender groups (men, women) such as life expectancy, causes of mortality and avoidable mortality, showed that significant gender differences in health showed a positive outcome for women. Relationships between gender inequalities in health and economic prosperity were also identified. Therefore, policies should focus on reducing income inequalities by gender but also in terms of avoidable mortality, such as reducing common diseases among young people.
Compared to other geographic regions of the world, within the EU Member States we identify the advantage of the people’s rights-based approach to sustainable growth; an approach that gives people the enabling context to succeed, thereby removing political and social factors, such as discrimination and repression that can prevent them from succeeding.
However, inequalities in income and wealth are increasingly evident and are even widening. This is reflected in the fact that the top 1% of the world’s population now controls up to 40% of global assets, while the poorest half of the population owns just 1% [
16]. Disparities are also wide within countries, including disparities in rural/urban areas, gender disparities, ethnic minorities, migrant status and disability [
17,
18].
The SDGs, while including a number of explicit and implicit solutions that address inequality, are often vaguely formulated, the targets are abstract, and the issue of inequality remains a central one, requiring fundamental reform of sustainable development thinking for 2030 and beyond. Moreover, the construction of poverty eradication and development within each individual state must include values and problem-solving frameworks based on the responsiveness of all bodies involved in achieving the SDGs [
19,
20].
In this context, SDG 10 promotes the idea of a society in which every person enjoys the benefits of economic growth, which may be evident in some countries, particularly those that have experienced rapid growth, but often even in these situations economic growth can contribute to growing income inequality, inequality of access to opportunities by gender, religion, caste and region. Improving the social security system, introducing and expanding social insurance schemes and establishing special funds for lagging regions can therefore be solutions to key problems of inequality [
21,
22].
Although “reducing inequalities within and between countries” is a goal in itself, which stimulates the global community to international cooperation, the current state of the planet shows that this goal is extremely difficult and complex to achieve. SDG 10, has a series of targets that address a wide range of inequality issues, including: achieving and sustaining income growth for the top 40% of the population at a rate above the national average, promoting the social, economic and political inclusion of all, regardless of age, gender, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status; ensuring equal opportunities and reducing inequality of outcomes, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and actions to this end; adopting policies, in particular tax, wage and social protection policies and progressively achieving greater equality; improving the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthening the implementation of these regulations, ensuring greater representation of developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions, facilitating orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies, implementing the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular the least developed countries, encouraging financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to countries where the need is greatest [
23,
24,
25].
At the EU level, the situation is similar to other geographical regions, although a number of positive results are evident, at least in terms of the income gap between rich and poor. This is because in the EU, for example, S80/S20 share ratio for 2019, the income share of the richest 20% of the population was almost five times that of the poorest 20% of the population [
26].
On the other hand, according to the Annual Labor Force Assessment, the COVID-19 crisis is likely to cause a deterioration in the socio-economic situation of low-income households and other marginalized groups, such as migrants and minorities. This unfavorable situation is largely due to loss of income and rising prices but also rising health expenditure, which can disproportionately affect low-income households and can have a number of long-term consequences, such as a person’s ability to save, health and children’s education. In addition, the pandemic has had negative effects on children’s mental health and exacerbated social inequality. In the same vein, the European Platform for Investment in Children (EPIC) highlights wide variations between EU Member States and suggests policy options to address the childcare gap [
3,
27].
Not least, inequality and poverty are closely linked, and the distribution of resources in a country directly affects both the extent and depth of poverty. Thus, in 2019, 20.9% of the EU population was at risk of poverty or social exclusion, and the urban-rural gap in the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate was 1.1 percentage points. Specifically, 21.3% of those living in cities were in this situation, compared to 22.4% in rural areas [
28]. Moreover, rural areas are much more at risk of poverty because of migration and limited access to services, infrastructure and education. Rural poverty, therefore, remains at very high levels in 2019 in some European countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, where 48.5% and 44.3% of the rural population were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, twice the EU average. On the other hand, other countries such as Austria, the Netherlands and France have much higher poverty rates in cities than in rural areas [
28,
29,
30,
31].
Equally important to mention is the fact that the concepts of poverty, inequality and further social exclusion need to be analyzed and justified from several points of view. This is because there is a complex of factors that influence the state of affairs in a country and in areas within a country, particularly those linked to the economic dimension; these are often problematic and influence the way social problems are tackled [
32,
33,
34].
Not to be neglected in this context is also the issue of the problems and challenges caused by poverty and migration, which are not limited to a single country or region in most cases. Consequently, reducing inequalities between countries is now seen as an essential condition for resolving complex problems, which often take the form of sharing prosperity and reducing barriers of all kinds.
At the EU level, although we identify a general reduction in economic disparities, there are still differences in the North-South and West-East divides, even though inequalities between EU countries have been decreasing over the last 15 years. As an example of this, we identify the coefficient of variation of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita—expressed in purchasing power standards (PPS)—which signals that economic disparities between the Member States have narrowed since 2003, reaching 41.3% in 2019, plus an improvement in countries that joined the EU in 2004 and beyond [
35].
The coefficient of variation of gross disposable household income between the Member States has decreased over time, reaching 24.9% in 2019. Northern and Western European countries with above-average GDP per capita levels had the highest gross disposable income per capita, with Eastern and Southern EU countries at the other end of the scale, with gross household income and GDP per capita levels below the EU average [
36,
37,
38].
It is also important to note that in almost all European countries, immigrants face a higher risk of poverty than residents, which calls for a change in the approach of European policies to their impact on the well-being of immigrants. In practice, issues such as immigration policy, labor market regulation and eligibility rules for social assistance need to be considered [
39,
40].
Migration and social inclusion are also important topics, frequently debated in recent research, as it directly influences inequalities between people, and in this context, we highlight as an example how conflicts in unstable countries (Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Colombia, etc.) have contributed to an unprecedented increase in migration in EU countries in recent years. Therefore, the integration of migrants at the level of EU Member States and beyond has been a real challenge, we would even say decisively in terms of welfare, prosperity and not least the future cohesion of society [
41,
42].
In terms of the current state of the number of asylum seekers in the EU, of those seeking international protection, we identify a considerable reduction after 2015, the causes being numerous, mainly related to the COVID-19 pandemic which imposed a series of restrictive movement measures, but also those related to stricter border controls.
On the other hand, the current crisis caused by the war in Ukraine should not be overlooked, which has recently led to an increase in the number of migrants, especially from neighboring countries (Poland, Romania, etc.). All these aspects could radically alter the current and future state of inequality reduction in the EU Member States, bearing in mind a potential future economic crisis generated by the oil crisis. The high number of migrants will directly affect SDG 10 specific indicators such as SDG_10_60, SDG_08_20A and SDG_08_30A. At the same time, the overlap of the crisis generated by the increase in oil and food prices and the high level of inflation will decrease the financial means of the population and, implicitly, lead to an increase in the risk of poverty and social exclusion, with direct negative effects on SDG_10_10, SDG_10_20, SDG_10_30, SDG_10_40, SDG_01_10A and SDG_01_20A indicators.
Therefore, the social inclusion of non-EU citizens is still a major challenge for all countries in the world, even if we identify procedures for monitoring and integrating people in terms of poverty, education and employment in the labor market. In addition, reducing inequality also has as its point of reference the gap between people at risk of poverty according to income, and the gap is still wide. In 2019, for example, 38.6% of non-EU citizens were at risk of poverty compared to only 15.1% of residents of the country of origin [
28].
Equally significant as an example is the fact that the employment rate for non-EU 20–64-year-olds fell by 2.6% between 2019 and 2020, compared to the rates in EU countries of origin which saw a reduction of only 0.5%, further supporting the gap between the two groups. The same changes in the negative direction for migrants can also be identified in terms of leaving the education system, especially in the 18–24 age group. These changes directly affect both the income levels of these groups and their employment in the labor market in the medium and long term, as well as sustainable human development in all countries [
43,
44].
Reducing inequalities between people is part of the process of sustainable human development, as it is well known that people from less developed regions and countries are always economically and socially vulnerable. Moreover, this category of people is also more resistant to change, which affects the sustainable balance of society [
45,
46].
In the same sense, with the aim of reducing inequalities between people, at the EU level, we also note that there is a high level of convergence between countries, which is efficient, but this is only evident when wealth levels are similar and when countries invest in the long term in the efficiency of their human capital. Consequently, this strategy contributes directly to improving economic and social performance and even to attracting foreign skilled workers. Overall, this implies higher productivity, higher levels of sustainability, and consequently a balanced society in terms of quality of life for all citizens [
45,
47,
48,
49].
Another important approach to the problem of reducing inequality at the EU Member State level also considers measuring the quality of employment of minority students. Therefore, issues such as the employment rate, working conditions, pay and well-being of minority students can reflect the quality of life of this part of a country’s population. Identifying these outcomes contributes directly to creating better working conditions, meeting students’ basic needs in terms of pay and welfare, but also to incentivizing students to perform better, etc. [
50,
51,
52,
53].
Alongside all the issues identified above regarding inequalities and how they are reflected in the reality of EU Member States, we also highlight the issue of climate change, which is, unfortunately, exacerbating the imbalances between states and between people to an increasing extent. This is because rising temperatures because of greenhouse gases are generating strong negative effects, particularly in low-income countries.
This is justified by the fact that the costs of mitigating climate change may slow down the economic recovery of less developed countries and thus reduce inequalities between countries. This is also why we believe it is essential that climate change mitigation policies are properly and comprehensively formulated so that they contribute to limiting the growth of future inequalities between countries [
54,
55].
Taking into account all the above, we propose to assess the degree to which the SDG 10 specific indicator targets will be reached by 2030, starting from the current state of achievement of the targets, as well as the dynamics of the indicators. Based on the fact that the trend on which the indicator values started in 2010 is likely to be followed in the future, using the forecasting tools available in the future, we will assess both the ability of each EU country to reach the targets and the performance that each country could achieve. Thus, we propose the following research questions for which we will seek to provide answers through this research, thus filling part of the existing knowledge gap:
Research question 1 (RQ1)—To what extent EU countries will reach the proposed SDG 10 targets by 2030?
Research question 2 (RQ2)—Based on trend analysis and projected dynamics, is it possible to identify high performing countries or low performing countries in terms of achieving SDG 10 targets?
Inequalities between countries are high and wage inequalities between developed and developing countries are increasing. Problems such as wages in the most developed European countries compared to those in other regions of Europe or the world, income concentration and increasing economic inequalities, are not only unfair but often become unbearable for the most disadvantaged. Therefore, at least from an economic point of view and from the point of view of sustainable development policies in the 2030s, we can estimate that a significant reduction in social and economic differences between people can be achieved by supporting the migration of skilled labor in particular, together with local government action to encourage the integration and protection of disadvantaged social groups.
4. Results and Discussion
To assess the commitment and likelihood of EU countries to reduce existing inequalities within and among them by 2030, we used the methodological framework described above to analyze the potential degree of achievement for the SDG 10 specific indicators. The analyzed data were collected for the period 2010–2021 and the forecast horizon was between 2021 and 2030. In addition, for the analyzed timeframe, three important milestones were defined (for the years 2020, 2025 and 2030) in order to be able to observe in detail the dynamic evolution of the potential to reduce existing disparities.
In addition, through the analysis of the dynamics of evolution of the specific indicators considered as a baseline in 2015, the analysis revealed a detailed picture of the rate differential adjustment of the differences between the national level and the average value of indicators at the EU level.
A first important observation, which can be made from the outset, is that a clear concern for reducing disparities can be observed, with the data analyzed suggesting that most Member States are on a positive trend. However, there are inevitably a number of potential risks, or deviations from the proposed national targets, which have been highlighted by the research. All relevant research results were summarized, for each specific indicator, in subsequent
Table 1,
Table 2,
Table 3,
Table 4,
Table 5,
Table 6,
Table 7,
Table 8,
Table 9,
Table 10 and
Table 11.
A first indicator specific to SDG 10 is purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita. As can be seen from the results presented in
Table 1, forecasts show an upward trend by 2030 for all 27 Member States, suggesting a potential steady increase in well-being and welfare through improved economic and social conditions.
On the other hand, the same analysis also reveals that the growth rates of purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita are different between EU countries, with a group of high performers (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden) clearly evident. Of this group, the highest growth by 2030 is expected to be in Ireland (+209% compared to 2015).
On the other hand, the same analysis also reveals that the growth rates of purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita are different among EU countries, with a group of high performers (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden) clearly being highlighted. Of this group, the highest growth by 2030 is expected to be in Ireland (+209% compared to 2015).
At the same time, the research indicates the two European countries (Lithuania and Poland) that are expected to outpace the average growth rate of this indicator among EU countries by 2025.
Three other countries (Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania) can also be highlighted, which, despite some of the highest growth rates forecast for the indicator under analysis, will probably not exceed the EU average, given the relatively low baseline, as in 2015 they recorded some of the lowest values.
Among the countries included in the analysis, less encouraging results are recorded by Greece and Slovakia, for which relatively low growth rates of purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita are estimated and which clearly require corrective measures to be adopted as soon as possible.
Regarding the level of adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita (
Table 2), the research results indicate, as in the case of the previous indicator, a general upward trend until 2030, with one exception: Greece. In the case of this country, a slight but steady decline in the values of the indicator is estimated, which may be a clear alarm signal for policymakers, who should adopt firm measures to correct this decline.
A more detailed analysis of the results shows that the same group of high-performing countries is still present, but that it is composed of a smaller number of countries than in the case of the previous indicator, namely Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden. It should be noted that no data were reported for Malta.
Among the European countries with a strong performance on this indicator, Lithuania should be highlighted, for which we forecast one of the strongest developments until 2030. At the same time, some of the highest growth rates are forecast for Bulgaria and Romania, but when compared to the low baseline values of 2015, we cannot consider these countries in the group of performing countries until 2030.
In the case of SDG 10.30—Relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap—the results of the survey indicate a relative divergence between EU countries in the range analyzed. Thus, among the 27 EU countries, for 15 Member States, a downward trend of the indicator is forecast, i.e., a reduction of the existing gap, and for the remaining 12 Member States, an increase of the indicator values is estimated until 2030.
Moreover, for the group of countries for which a reduction in the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap is expected, an unfavorable trend can be observed until 2025 (such as Denmark, Malta, Poland or Portugal), but for the year 2030, a correction of the evolution of the indicator in positive territory is forecast.
Among the EU countries for which a negative development is expected, i.e., an increase in the gap existing in the baseline period, we can mention countries with a very well-developed economic and social system, such as Germany (which is expected to develop positively by 2025), France, the Netherlands, Austria or Finland.
The widening relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap is a worrying fact, as higher income inequality implies more poverty and poverty might lead to social tensions and social exclusion (
Table 3).
SDG indicator 10.41—Income distribution—is a measure of the inequality of income distribution, being calculated as the ratio of total income received by the top quintile of the population with the highest income to that received by the bottom quintile of the population with the lowest income. The analysis reflects a relatively positive situation and development for most of the countries analyzed.
However, a negative forecast of the evolution of the values of this indicator can also be observed for 11 Member States, for which the results of the research indicate an upward trend, i.e., an increase in the inequality of the population income distribution. Within the group of countries with an estimated deteriorating situation are included both economically and socially highly developed countries (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden) and less economically developed countries (Bulgaria, Latvia, Hungary, Romania).
Particularly serious is the forecast for countries with a lower degree of economic development among EU countries (such as Bulgaria or Romania), for which the forecast of an increase in the values of the income distribution indicator may have extremely damaging and long-term social effects. We draw attention to the fact that firm measures to correct the estimated trend are essential in order to be able to perceive positive effects in the near future. Even if it is obvious that the SDG 10 targets will be missed by these countries in relation to this indicator, the severity and complexity of the effects combined with other negative developments may lead, in the absence of firm and immediate measures, to increasing inequalities in the medium and long term compared to other EU countries (
Table 4).
Regarding SDG 10.50—Income share of the bottom 40% of the population—we can notice a relatively similar group of EU countries, as well as a relatively similar evolution of the forecasts as in the case of the previous indicator (SDG 10.41). Analysis and estimation of the change in values of this indicator are relevant for measuring the overall change in living standards at the EU level of those with the lowest income.
The countries for which a negative trend is estimated until 2030 are those for which the disposable income is expected to decrease for the part of the population that is disadvantaged, which will inevitably lead to an amplification of existing inequalities, with negative effects on the living standards of all citizens, through the additional costs they will have to bear and the social tensions that will be increasing (
Table 5).
Regarding asylum applications at the EU level, the research reveals the existence of two opposing trends and a redistribution of these applications for the period 2021–2030. We can observe a decreasing forecast of asylum applications both in economically and socially developed countries (Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden) and in less developed countries (Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Slovakia). On the other hand, for the same horizon 2021–2030, we note an increasing forecast of asylum applications both in developed countries (Germany, France, Italy) and in countries with more modest performances (Greece, Romania, Slovenia).
A potential explanation could be that some economically more developed countries have tightened their asylum conditions and policies, while other less developed countries have been on an economic uptrend, thus becoming more attractive to asylum seekers.
It is clear that the geopolitical situation in 2022, with the war in Ukraine and the worsening economic and social conditions in all countries in the region, will induce massive changes in the evolution of asylum applications, and it is therefore particularly difficult to forecast the evolution of this indicator at the level of EU countries with any reasonable accuracy (
Table 6).
The forecast of potential target values for SDG 1.10A—People at risk of poverty or social exclusion—generally suggests that there will be a positive development in the EU countries by 2030, with a reduction in the risk of poverty or social exclusion expected for most Member States.
However, there are some notable exceptions (Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, Finland) for which the research results indicate a worsening of the evolution of this indicator. Considering that most of these countries are highly developed countries, which are part of the hard core of the European Union, it follows that measures to correct the negative evolution need to be adopted as soon as possible. The increase in the proportion of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion can only lead to a worsening of the social situation in these countries and beyond, and implicitly to an increase in the associated economic costs (
Table 7).
Regarding the evolution of the SDG 1.20A indicator, a mixed evolution of the projected trends until 2030 can be observed for the EU countries, which are grouped in two relatively equal groups. Thus, for about half of the EU countries an improvement in the situation is forecast, and for the other half a worsening of the existing situation.
It is important to correlate the results obtained for this indicator with the other results of the research, which will highlight some countries (such as Spain, Italy and Romania) for which it is imperative to adopt corrective measures, given the current not very positive situation, which is likely to worsen even more in the future. Germany should also be mentioned, where the results of the research again place it among the countries for which the indicator is expected to worsen (
Table 8).
In terms of the evolution of the percentage of early leavers from education and training (
Table 9), the research indicates a rather positive situation in the European countries analyzed, with an estimated downward trend for most countries.
However, there are a few exceptions to the positive picture, namely Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Hungary and Slovakia, where the rate of increase of this indicator is forecast until 2030. Among the countries mentioned as having an unfavorable evolution, probably the most serious situations are Bulgaria and Hungary which are, especially due to the situation recorded in the baseline period, characterized by a high percentage of early leavers from education and training (13.5% and 11.6%, respectively), tends to worsen even more until 2030.
At the opposite pole, i.e., some countries that have managed to make significant progress, we can mention Estonia, Italy, Malta or Romania, which, although they started from among the highest values of the indicator in 2015, are expected to be able to register a downward trend, correcting the existing gaps, i.e., reducing existing inequalities compared to most other EU countries.
One of the most important targets at the EU level in recent times has been to reduce the percentage of young people neither in employment nor in education and training (NEET). The results of the research reflect the effects of these sustained efforts across all EU countries in terms of both current performance and forecast values up to 2030. From the results summarized in
Table 10, it can be seen that almost all Member States show significant decreases in this indicator, as well as a downward trend for the whole forecast period.
However, of the 27 EU Member States analyzed, only two countries (Denmark and Luxembourg) stand out for which the results of the analysis indicate a worsening situation in the medium and long term. If for Luxembourg a constant upward trend is estimated for the NEET percentage, in the case of Denmark it can be observed that until 2025 the forecasts indicate an upward trend but below the EU average, but until 2030 the negative trend increases, so that the forecast results become negative (
Table 10).
As for the evolution of SDG 8.30A—Employment rate—which is another important indicator tracked at the EU country level, a unanimously positive evolution can be observed, i.e., an improvement of the outlook for the whole period under analysis. Thus, it proves that the aggregate efforts made at the EU level to increase the employment rate are bearing fruit as expected.
However, the results of the research reveal details of the differences in the growth rates between the countries analyzed. Thus, there are countries for which better results are forecast than in others for the 2030 horizon, as is the case in Lithuania, Hungary, Malta or Poland. At the other end of the spectrum, countries with lower growth rates can also be identified, which implies that existing differences may widen over a longer time span, as could be the case in Belgium or Italy (
Table 11).
To summarize the results of the research undertaken in terms of reducing inequalities within and among EU countries, we can assess that, in general, the trend is positive. The political, economic and social efforts sustained both at the EU level and at the level of individual countries, are proving to generate positive effects both in the short term and in the medium and long term.
EU Member States have managed to improve a number of important elements of quality of life both at the level of the most lagging countries and at the level of affected social groups, as well as to reduce the gap between rich and poor by implementing key impact measures. At the same time, countries that have made significant progress can be examples of good practice for other European countries and beyond, even if further research and analysis are still needed to understand why socio-economic inequalities persist in some countries while they are increasingly reduced in others.
To answer the research questions proposed above, based on the results of the research, we can state that the answer to Research question 1 (RQ1)—To what extent EU countries will reach the proposed SDG 10 targets by 2030?—Is really difficult to provide in a transient way. As the results show, there are countries that will reach some of the targets set in the SDG 10 but are likely to miss other targets. The results of the research suggest that it is not possible to identify one or more countries that will meet all SDG 10 targets by 2030. Significant progress has been made over the period 2010–2021 in improving specific indicators, mainly due to the awareness of existing gaps and the support of all stakeholders for improved performance.
However, analyzing the results obtained, it proves difficult to maintain a high rate of progress in achieving the SDG 10 targets, especially in the current context which is marked by economic and social factors with a strong negative impact on the indicators analyzed. We can expect a potential negative correction of the trend and dynamics in the progress of SDG 10 indicators for a significant number of EU countries. Furthermore, using a different econometric tool, Szymańska [
42] reached similar conclusions, stating that over the medium term, EU countries were able to make progress in reducing inequalities among them, but the income inequalities within countries still exist or have even deepened.
As regards Research question 2 (RQ2)—Based on trend analysis and projected dynamics, is it possible to identify high performing countries or low performing countries in terms of achieving SDG 10 targets?—The research results were able to highlight countries that show high potential for performance in terms of reducing inequalities within and among EU countries. Thus, putting together the results obtained for each of the indicators analyzed, we can identify Poland as one of the EU countries that is high performing in relation to the SDG 10 targets. This result is probably not accidental, as Poland has made remarkable economic and social progress over the last 15 years.
On the other hand, the second research question (RQ2) can also be answered in terms of countries for which performance is not expected to be so high by 2030. The research results suggest that Bulgaria and Greece are two of the EU countries for which there is a fairly high probability of missing most of the SDG 10 targets if targeted measures are not taken to correct the negative deviations highlighted by the present research.
Finally, a third answer in relation to RQ2 can be provided by the results of the research, namely the identification of a group of European countries (France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands) for which there is a reasonable chance of negative deviations from the path towards achieving the SDG 10 targets. To a large extent, these negative deviations turn out to be influenced by the attractiveness of these countries for migrants, through existing economic and social standards. With the increased flow of migrants generated by the ongoing war in Eastern Europe, coupled with the impact of the negative economic factors that are currently manifesting themselves, there is a possibility that a number of indicators will be negatively influenced, leading to a decrease in the rate of progress towards the SDG 10 targets. Similar conclusions, supporting our findings, have also been published by Gavriluță et al. [
64], Bieszk–Stolorz and Dmytrów [
65], or Kolluru and Semenenko [
66].
As our research reveals, in most European countries the inequality within and among them has been somewhat reduced in the last decade, although the last two years of the Pandemic have in some cases accentuated a certain stalling of growth at all levels, especially among the poor, thus increasing inequality for this period.
Therefore, a particular focus in the future should be directed towards the creation and implementation of composite indices that allow not only for progress made by individual countries but also for the benchmarking of EU countries according to the level of performance achieved in implementing SDG 10 and beyond. We justify this view by the fact that it is obvious that Northern European countries hold important positions in terms of SDG implementation, but often these results can be misleading because they may include statistical data at a certain point in time and progress can often be inconclusive in relation to reality.
Moreover, SDG 10 and beyond, is one of the goals subject to more frequent risks, as inequalities between people are amplified by the crises experienced by each country or region at a given time, as observed during the COVID-19 pandemic or currently in European countries in the context of the war in Ukraine. In this context of often radical change and transition to a sustainable economy, developing strategies with macro-level impact would enable companies and consequently people to overcome the obstacles they face.
Equally important is further research and analysis of the political, social, economic and environmental factors that continue to sustain inequalities in some countries. We hope that all the research results/findings will contribute to the foundation of political measures and strategies to reduce inequalities in such a way that the 2030 Agenda becomes a reality for all countries, regardless of the obstacles that have arisen in the last period, such as the pandemic COVID-19, the war in Ukraine that continues to affect the whole planet, the whole society.