Part I — Situation overview

Prime Minister Péter Magyar gave an interview on Kossuth Rádió on Monday morning, his first since the public media came under new leadership. At the start of the conversation he spoke about the child protection report made public on Saturday and the related measures. According to Telex’s report, the pay of those working in the child protection and social sectors will rise by 20–25 per cent in total; the first half of the rise arrives with the November salary, and according to HVG the second half with the January salary. Asked by the interviewer whether the doubling of the family allowance included in the Tisza Party’s programme will happen, the Prime Minister said that the government took over the budget with a significant real deficit, but that he can guarantee there will be a “large” increase. Asked again, he added that this refers to the 2027 budget. He gave no amount and no exact date. 24.hu highlighted that the Prime Minister himself stressed that the family allowance has not been raised since 2008. The interview also mentioned that the government would submit the child protection legislative package to Parliament that same day.

The two announcements build on the weekend’s child protection report. According to a Sunday post by Finance Minister András Kármán, 6 billion forints are being set aside for the crisis programme for direct professional programmes and a further 3.5 billion for developments. According to Portfolio’s summary, the report records around 130 thousand of Hungary’s 1.6 million children as at risk. MIAK’s analysis of 13 September 2026 dealt with the system of indicators that can be derived from the report: the territorial indicator of professional staffing, the tracking of young people leaving care and the diagnosis repeated every year. MIAK’s analysis of 8 July 2026 wrote about the targeting of the school-start support when the promised amount was halved. The present question differs from both: what is at stake is not specialised child protection care but the future of the cash benefit affecting almost every family with children.

MIAK’s reading: the problem with the family allowance is not that it is too little, but that it has no rule. A nominal amount unchanged for eighteen years means that nobody decided on the real value of the benefit — inflation decided in their place. If the 2027 increase is again a one-off decision without a rule, the same will be repeated in the next decade. The question is therefore not only how large the increase should be, but also who should get it first, and how it should preserve its value.

Part II — Foundations in the literature

Three sources provide the framework in which the targeting and the rule of the family allowance increase can be interpreted. According to the World Bank’s World Development Report 2015 — Mind, Society, and Behavior, poverty is not only material deprivation but also a cognitive burden, and an early childhood spent in poverty already causes measurable differences in children’s abilities by the age of three — that is, a forint given to the poorest families has a particularly large effect. The European Commission’s European Semester Thematic Factsheet — Social Inclusion (2017) records that in the European Union children’s poverty risk is higher than that of the working-age population, and that social transfers substantially reduce poverty, but their effect varies greatly between member states. The European Commission’s The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan (2021) makes targeted child support an EU priority through the European Child Guarantee and the mandatory child-poverty share of EU social funds. The detailed treatment of the literature — by author, with quotations — is in section 6.4 Literature in detail.

Part III — MIAK’s concrete proposal

MIAK proposes three measurable measures. The first makes the cost variants visible before the decision, the second protects the value of the family allowance with a rule, and the third makes the effect of the announced pay rise trackable.

3.1 Public comparison of two cost variants and a targeted first step (with the submission of the 2027 budget proposal)

MIAK proposes that together with the 2027 budget proposal — according to the state secretary responsible for public finances, in the second half of October — the government publish the calculation of two variants. The first is universal doubling: every eligible family receives twice the amount. The second is a targeted first step: the increase first affects families eligible for the regular child protection allowance, single parents and families with three or more children, while the other families receive it later, on a phased schedule. For both variants the total cost, the estimated effect on the child poverty indicator and the share of the expenditure going to the bottom two income deciles should be included. The DM2 family-support impact assessment programme point asks for exactly this cost–effect comparison from every family policy instrument, and DM5 differentiated family policy asks that 30 per cent of support be targeted by 2030. According to the World Bank report (see 6.4.1) the effect of early childhood poverty is lasting, so if the budget does not allow immediate doubling, the targeted first step brings the greatest benefit where the damage is greatest. MIAK is not arguing against universal doubling — its advantages are simplicity and the absence of stigma — but for the choice being made on the basis of a public calculation.

3.2 Statutory automatic indexation (simultaneously with the 2027 increase, first indexation on 1 January 2028)

The amount of the family allowance is set by Act LXXXIV of 1998 on Family Support, so raising it requires a decision by Parliament. MIAK proposes that the legislative amendment on the 2027 increase should at the same time prescribe automatic annual indexation: on 1 January each year the amount of the allowance should rise at least by the previous year’s consumer price index. Suspension of indexation should be possible only by a separate, justified statutory decision. This is the same logic that MIAK’s analysis of 28 August 2026 proposed for the minimum pension: if the value of a benefit erodes without a rule, the absence of a political decision itself becomes a decision. According to the European Commission’s thematic factsheet (see 6.4.2) the poverty-reducing effect of social transfers depends largely on the level of the transfer — indexation protects that level. The SZ7 dignity-based social policy programme point asks for automatic determination of eligibility; automatic preservation of value is its natural counterpart.

3.3 Measuring the effect of the child protection pay rise (first release by 31 March 2027)

The 20–25 per cent pay rise responds to the most serious problem identified by the report: the shortage of professionals and high staff turnover. MIAK proposes that the Ministry of Social and Family Affairs publish, after the second stage of the pay rise and by 31 March 2027: how many people left specialised child protection care between November 2026 and February 2027, compared with the same period of the previous year; how many vacancies remained unfilled by type of institution and by county; and how many new employees were hired. MIAK’s analysis of 13 September proposed a general professional staffing indicator; this proposal is a concrete, short-term application of it: it measures whether the announced pay rise has achieved its goal. The KI6 competitive public service pay system programme point sets the goal of reducing civil service turnover by 20 per cent; in child protection even faster results can be expected, because there, according to ATV, which reported on the report, the rate of professional departures was above 24 per cent.

The three proposals are bound together by the same principle: money intended for families and for child protection is effective if it is known in advance whom it is for, a rule protects its value, and it is measured afterwards whether it has achieved its goal. The promise of a large increase can be good news even without these — but only with them will it be lasting.

Part IV — Expected effects and risks

Dimension Expected effect Risk
Economy and budget The public comparison of the two variants makes the choice between the deficit-reduction path and family support visible; indexation makes the expenditure predictable Automatic indexation creates a lasting expenditure obligation which, with narrow fiscal room for manoeuvre, may draw resources away from other areas
Society and child poverty The targeted first step has the fastest effect in the poorest families; indexation prevents renewed loss of value Targeting may have a stigmatising effect, and families living close to the eligibility threshold may be left out; take-up of the regular child protection allowance is incomplete even among those eligible
Public services and child protection Measuring the effect of the pay rise shows whether pay is enough to reduce the shortage of professionals, or whether other instruments — working conditions, supervision — are needed too If departures do not fall even after the pay rise, the indicator may become a target for political attack, even though pay is only one of the factors

The main dilemma lies between universality and targeting. A universal family allowance is simple, requires no means test, and every family regards it as supportive; a targeted increase achieves a greater poverty-reducing effect from the same money, but is more complicated and more divisive. MIAK therefore does not choose in the government’s place, but asks that the choice be based on calculation, and that the targeted variant be a time-limited first step, not a permanent transformation of the allowance. The proposal tips towards the risk side if, after the targeted first step, the increase for the other families does not happen, or if indexation is suspended in the first tight year — this is why suspension must be tied to a separate statutory decision.

Part V — Measurability and summary

5.1 What is worth following? (suggested KPIs)

MIAK proposes four performance indicators (KPIs, in English: Key Performance Indicator) from which it will be visible in 6, 12 and 24 months whether the proposals have been implemented:

  • Publication of the cost variants: the suggested target is that together with the 2027 budget proposal the cost and estimated poverty-reducing effect of the universal and the targeted increase be public.
  • Real value of the family allowance: it is worth following how the real value of the allowance after the 2027 increase compares with the 2008 level, and whether from 2028 it rises every year at least in line with inflation.
  • Children’s risk of poverty or social exclusion: the suggested target is that the Hungarian indicator published by Eurostat fall by 2028, and that the families of children living in the bottom two income deciles receive a more than proportionate share of the increase in support.
  • Departures from specialised child protection care: the suggested target is that the departure rate between November 2026 and February 2027 be at least one quarter lower than in the same period of the previous year, and that the share of unfilled vacancies fall.

5.2 Summary

MIAK’s request to the government and Parliament consists of three steps. The increase in the family allowance should be decided in the October budget proposal on the basis of two public calculations; if the budget does not allow immediate doubling, the increase should reach the poorest families first. Together with the 2027 increase, automatic annual indexation should be written into law, so that the allowance does not lose its value again. And the effect of the child protection pay rise should be measured by spring 2027 with data on departures and unfilled posts.

Two MIAK foundational values are at stake. Data-drivenness, because the “large” increase is today a promise without a number, and targeting, cost and effect can be debated substantively only on the basis of a public calculation. Universal representation, because the eighteen-year loss of value of the family allowance hit hardest those who have the smallest voice in the budget debate: children living in poverty, whose situation public discourse rarely separates from the general question of family support.

Part VI — Reasoning and further sources

6.1 Press framing by spectrum

In the left-liberal and public-affairs segment the radio interview touched on several topics, and the papers put different elements in their headlines. Telex put the sentence about trust within the Tisza Party in its headline, and carried the part about the family allowance in the middle of the text. 24.hu’s headline was about the family allowance increase, and it also noted that doubling is not guaranteed for 2027. HVG chose the sentence about adoption as its headline, and detailed the submission of the child protection legislative package and the constitution-making timetable. 444.hu’s article of the previous day carried the finance minister’s child protection commitment under the headline “No child’s fate can be a question of money”. None of the papers raised the question of targeting or indexing the family allowance; the debate narrowed to comparing the promises of “doubling or a large increase”.

In the economic segment Portfolio set out the figures of the child protection report and the funding of the crisis programme on the basis of the finance minister’s post, and dealt with the amendment of the adoption rules in a separate article. The paper published no budgetary analysis of the family allowance increase in today’s selection.

In the conservative segment Magyar Nemzet highlighted the question of adoption from the radio interview, and published an article citing research opposing adoption by same-sex couples. The paper’s other article framed the family allowance promise as a “new promise” overriding the government’s earlier promises. The conservative segment did not publish an analysis of the structure of family support — universal or targeted — either. Common to the whole spectrum is that the adoption question, which triggers a debate over social values, received more attention than the design of the cash benefit affecting far more families.

6.2 Facts and data

Datum Value Source
The radio interview 14 September 2026, Kossuth Rádió Telex, 24.hu, HVG, 14 September 2026
Child protection and social sector pay rise 20–25% in total; first half with the November salary, second half with the January salary Telex, HVG, 14 September 2026
Family allowance promise a “large” increase in the 2027 budget; doubling not guaranteed; no amount was given Telex, 24.hu, HVG, 14 September 2026
Last increase of the family allowance 2008 statement by the Prime Minister, 24.hu, 14 September 2026
Monthly amount of the family allowance per child (since 2008) one-child family HUF 12,200 (single parent HUF 13,700); two children HUF 13,300 (HUF 14,800); three or more children HUF 16,000 (HUF 17,000) Act LXXXIV of 1998 on Family Support, Hungarian State Treasury
Funding of the crisis programme HUF 6 billion for professional programmes, HUF 3.5 billion for developments Finance Minister András Kármán, 444.hu, Portfolio, 13 September 2026
Number of children / children recorded as at risk 1.6 million / around 130 thousand Portfolio, 13 September 2026
Change in the number of children removed from their families +17% between 2010 and 2025 Portfolio, 13 September 2026
Professional staff turnover in state-run child protection above 24% (end of 2025) ATV, 12 September 2026
Children’s risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU (2016) 26.4%, compared with 24.2% for the working-age population European Commission, Social Inclusion thematic factsheet

Two data points require a separate note. The sources gave the development part of the crisis programme as both 3.4 and 3.5 billion forints; on the radio the Prime Minister spoke of a framework of nearly 10 billion reallocated this year. For the size of the pay rise 24.hu also mentioned an earlier promise of 25–30 per cent; in Monday’s interview the figure of 20–25 per cent was given.

6.3 Policy dimensions

  • Social policy (programme points) — preserving the value of the family allowance and reducing child poverty: SZ7 (dignity-based social policy) for automatic eligibility, SZ12 (national action plan of the European Pillar of Social Rights) as the framework for domestic implementation of the EU principle on child support;
  • Demography (programme points) — impact assessment and differentiation of family support: under DM2 (family-support impact assessment) and DM5 (differentiated family policy);
  • Economy (background material) — the budgetary impact of the increase and of indexation within the framework of the 2027 budget and the medium-term plan;
  • Public security and law enforcement (programme points) — the child protection system as prevention: following the logic of KB3 (crime prevention vs. punishment impact assessment), supporting the families of children at risk is a prevention investment in the longer term;
  • Public administration and e-government (programme points) — the child protection pay rise as a retention instrument under KI6 (competitive public service pay system).

6.4 Literature in detail

6.4.1 World Bank: World Development Report 2015

The World Bank’s 2015 development report examines poverty from a behavioural science perspective. The main thesis of the fourth chapter is that financial scarcity ties up thinking capacity: someone who constantly worries about getting by next week can devote less attention to longer-term decisions. The report illustrates with the example of Indian sugarcane farmers that the same people perform worse on the same cognitive tests in the lean period before harvest than after their income arrives. Its conclusion:

“In this sense, poverty imposes a cognitive tax.”

The fifth chapter concerns early childhood. In every country examined so far — low-, middle- and high-income alike — the cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of children living in the poorest and the richest households already differ by the age of three. The report also describes a Jamaican programme followed for twenty years, in which children who took part in early stimulation earned 25 per cent more as adults than the control group.

This offers two lessons for the Hungarian family allowance debate. On the one hand, an extra forint given to the poorest families improves not only consumption but also the parent’s decision-making capacity — so the effect of a targeted first step may be disproportionately large. On the other hand, early childhood disadvantage is lasting, so the cost of a postponed increase is not simply a missed payment, but a loss appearing later in the children’s lives. This is the reason for proposal 3.1.

📖 Source: World Bank: World Development Report 2015 — Mind, Society, and Behavior

6.4.2 European Commission: European Semester Thematic Factsheet: Social Inclusion

The European Commission’s thematic factsheet on social inclusion summarises the EU situation of poverty and social exclusion within the framework of the European Semester. On children it states separately that their risk is higher than that of the working-age population or the elderly:

“The vulnerability of children is largely driven by the labour market status of their parents, especially when combined with limited access to social services and low income support.”

According to the factsheet, in 2015 social benefits other than pensions reduced the EU poverty rate from 25.9 to 17.3 per cent, but the effect varies enormously between member states: below 7 per cent in some countries and above 25 per cent in others. Besides the level of spending, the document also stresses effectiveness — that the benefit should achieve the best result at the lowest cost.

Applied to the Hungarian family allowance: the poverty-reducing effect of a nominal amount unchanged for eighteen years has weakened year by year, because low income support is precisely the factor that the factsheet names as one of the main causes of children’s risk. Automatic indexation is therefore not a technical detail, but a condition of the transfer’s effectiveness. This is why MIAK proposes the statutory indexation under 3.2.

📖 Source: European Commission: European Semester Thematic Factsheet — Social Inclusion

6.4.3 European Commission: The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan

The 2021 action plan of the European Pillar of Social Rights assigns instruments to the practical implementation of the twenty social principles proclaimed in 2017. Regarding children, the Commission undertook to propose the European Child Guarantee; the Council adopted it in June 2021. According to the plan the guarantee aims

“to ensure that children at risk of poverty and social exclusion have effective access to key services such as healthcare and education.”

The action plan also sets out the funding: at least 25 per cent of the national resources of the European Social Fund Plus must be spent on fighting poverty and social exclusion, and member states most affected by child poverty must devote at least 5 per cent of this specifically to reducing child poverty.

In the Hungarian debate this EU framework is useful on two points. On the one hand, the targeted first step is not an isolated national idea, but part of the EU child-poverty priority, to which EU funding can also be linked. On the other hand, the guarantee treats cash support together with access to services: raising the family allowance gives a complete answer together with strengthening specialised child protection care. This is the common EU basis of proposals 3.1 and 3.3.

📖 Source: European Commission: The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan

6.5 International comparison

Most European countries apply an automatic rule to preserve the value of the family allowance. In Germany the amount of child benefit is raised regularly and aligned with the subsistence minimum report; in Austria since 2023 the family allowance and several other family benefits automatically follow inflation every year. The eighteen-year freeze of the Hungarian family allowance is exceptional in this comparison. This is why the weight of the benefit within the family support system has gradually shifted towards tax allowances, from which the lowest-income families are less able to benefit.

There is also a working model for combining targeting and universality. Several countries attach an income-dependent supplement to universal child support, thereby preserving the simplicity of the universal benefit while the poorest families receive more. MIAK’s proposal 3.1 follows this model: the targeted first step means extra support for those most in need not instead of the universal allowance, but ahead of its increase.

Social policy

  • SZ7 — “Dignity-based” social policy
  • SZ12 — National action plan of the European Pillar of Social Rights

Demography

  • DM2 — Family-support impact assessment
  • DM5 — Differentiated family policy

Public administration and e-government

  • KI6 — A competitive public service pay system

Public security and law enforcement

  • KB3 — Crime prevention vs. punishment impact assessment

Proposed new programme point: Statutory automatic indexation and targeted supplement of the family allowance — for the Social policy policy area: an annual increase of the family allowance at least in line with inflation as a statutory rule, suspendable only by a separate statutory decision, together with an income-dependent supplement for families eligible for the regular child protection allowance.

6.7 List of sources

Press sources (MIAK press monitor, 14 September 2026 — topic 3):

Knowledge-base references (books):

  • 📖 World Bank: World Development Report 2015 — Mind, Society, and Behavior
  • 📖 European Commission: European Semester Thematic Factsheet — Social Inclusion
  • 📖 European Commission: The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan

MIAK internal materials:

  • MIAK policy area: Social policy (programme points; programme point ID: SZ7, SZ12)
  • MIAK policy area: Demography (programme points; programme point ID: DM2, DM5)
  • MIAK policy area: Economy (background material)
  • MIAK policy area: Public administration and e-government (programme points; programme point ID: KI6)
  • MIAK policy area: Public security and law enforcement (programme points; programme point ID: KB3)
  • MIAK press monitor, 14 September 2026 — topic 3, score: 92/100

Supplementary public data sources:

  • Hungarian State Treasury — family allowance disbursement data and amounts
  • KSH — family support statistics
  • Eurostat — indicator of children at risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE)
  • Ministry of Finance — bill on the 2027 central budget (expected October 2026)

Generation metadata