Van Mechelen, Natascha and De Maesschalck, Veerle (2007): Devolution as a means to adequate social safety nets?
Download (429Kb) | Preview
Decentralisation is invariably among the recommendations that international organisations such as the World Bank make for an enhancement of social provisions, and particularly a better targeting of social assistance regimes, in Eastern and Central Europe. However, theoretical literature as wel as empirical research suggests that decentralisation is not by defintion a panacea, especially when it concerns the transfers of competencies in the matter of social protection systems. It is true that there are arguments to promote redistributive activity at lower levels of government but whith regard to policies aimed at redistribution and reducing poverty (and welfare generosity) the assumption that redistribution is best organised at the central level is rather dominant. Fundamental constraints on redistribution by lower level governments would -according to this line of reasoning- facilitate a 'race to the bottom'. This paper investigates the relationship between the generosity of social assistance benefits and several dimensions of decentralisation (the administration, decision-making and funding of social assistance schemes) at two levels of government (the substate and the local level) in 21 OECD countries by means of a fuzzy set analysis. The results indicate that social asssitance benefits are more adequate in countries where the decision-making, funding and administration of social assistance schemes is controlled by the central government and in countries where central or substate governments set the basic social assistance rates and housing benefits while sharing funding liabilities with the local government level. When Central and Eastern European countries opt for decentralisation as an instrument of poverty alleviation – through a better targeting of benefits -, prudence is called for the fact that there might be a trade-off between the transfer of competencies to lowel levels of government and the generosity of welfare programmes.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Devolution as a means to adequate social safety nets?|
|English Title:||Devolution as a means to adequate social safety nets?|
|Keywords:||decentralization; devolution; social policy; social assistance; Europe; OECD; Fuzzy Set; social welfare; race to the bottom; federalism|
|Subjects:||H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H50 - General
H - Public Economics > H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents > H30 - General
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C70 - General
A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A10 - General
H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations > H70 - General
A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A13 - Relation of Economics to Social Values
H - Public Economics > H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations > H75 - State and Local Government: Health; Education; Welfare; Public Pensions
D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D60 - General
A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A14 - Sociology of Economics
|Depositing User:||Natascha Van Mechelen|
|Date Deposited:||15. Feb 2009 08:51|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 08:37|
Ashworth, J., Heyndels, B., Smolders, C. (2002), ‘Redistribution as a Local Public Good : An Empirical Test for Flemish Municipalities’. Kyklos 55 (1) : 27-56
Atkinson, T., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E. and Nolan, B. (2005). Taking forward the EU Social Inclusion Process. Luxembourg, The Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
Begg, D. and e. al (1993). Making Sense of Subsidiarity : How Much Centralization for Europe? Monitoring European Integration 4. London : Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Behrendt, C. (2002). At the margins of the welfare state. Aldershot, Ashgate. Berry, W., Fording, R., Hanson, R. (2003) ‘Reassesing the "Race to the Bottom" in State Welfare Policy’ The Journal Of Politics 65 (2): 327-349.
Bertels, J., Cocquyt, W., Dierick, B., Joosten, G., Vanrobaeys, A. (1994), Jurisisch onderzoek naar de financiële transfers in de sociale zekerheid. Deel II Mechanismen van financiering van de gewesten en gemeenschappen. Implicaties van een mogelijke overdracht van bevoegdheden inzake sociale zekerheid voor het stelsel van de sociale zekerheid. Incidenteel onderderzoek bij de beleidsconclusies. Leuven : Acco.
Boeri, T., Keese, M. (1992) Labour Markets and the Trasition in Central and Eastern Europe, OECD Economic Studies No18 Spring 1992, OECD Bonoli, G. (2001). ‘Political Institutions, Veto Points and the Process of Welfare State Adaptation’, in P. Pierson (eds) The New Politics of the Welfare state. New York : Oxford University Press.
Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielsen, F., Stephens, J. (2001). Distribution and Redistribution in Post-Industrial Democracies. LIS-Working Paper Series No 265, Luxembourg Income Study.
Bradshaw, J., Finch, N. (2002). A comparison of Child Benefit packages in 22 countries. London, UK Department for Work and Pensions.
Cantillon, B., Van Mechelen, N., Marx, I., Van den Bosch, K. (2004) De evolutie van de bodembescherming in 15 Europese landen van 1992 tot 2001. CSB Berichten, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy - University of Antwerp. Cantillon, B., Van Mechelen, N. (2007) General social assistance: common denominator of the European Social model?, Chapter in Cambridge University Press book (forthcoming).
Castles, F. (1999) ‘Decentralization and the Post-War Political Economy’, European Journal of Political Research 36 (1) : 27-53.
Cerami, A. (1995) Social Policy in Central and Eastern Europe.The emergenge of a new European Model of Social Policy?, Phd thesis, Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät - Universität Erfurt.
Czike, K., Krémer, B., Tausz, K. (2002) ‘The Impact of Decentralization on Social Policy in Hungary, Latvia and Ukraine’ in K. Tausz (eds) The Impact of Decentralization on Social Policy. Budapest : Local Government and Public Srevice Reform Initiative - Open Society Institute
De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., Yamasaki, S. (2002) L'analyse quali-quantitative comparée : approche, techniques et applications en sciences humaines. Louvainla- Neuve, Bruylant-Academia.
De Vries, M. (2000) ‘The rise and fall of decentralization : a comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries’. European Journal of Political Research 38 (2) : 193-224.
Dillinger, W., Fay, M. (1999). ‘From centralized to decentralized governance.’ Finance and Development (December): 19-21.
Eardley, T., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Gough, I., Whiteford, P. (1996). Social assistance in OECD Countries: Synthesis Report. Research Report. London, HSMO.
Faguet, J.-P. (1997). Decentralization and Local Performance. Paper for the Technical Consultation on Decentralization. Rome : Food and Agrigulture Organization of the United Nations
Fiva, J. (2006), New Evidence on the Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on the Size and Composition of Government Spending. Paper for the Annual Meeting of the European Public Choice Society, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Tronheim.
Grassman, F. (2005) How to Improve Access to Social Protection for the Poor? Lessons from the Social Assistance Reform in Latvia. Manchester :
Hölsch, K. and M. Kraus (2004). ‘Poverty alleviation and the degree of decentralization in European schemes of social assistance.’ Journal of European Social Policy 14(2): 143-164.
Hueghlin, T. O. and A. Fenna (2006). Comparative Federalism. A systematic Inquiry. Ontario : Broadview Press Ltd.
Jung, S. (2005), When do political actors agree to shifts of social program responsibilities in federal systems? Selected social policy reforms in Canada and Germany since 1995, Unpublished paper presented at the Third Annual ESPAnet Conference "Making Social Policy in the Postindustrial Age", Humboldt Universität, Berlin.
Kaiser, K. (2006). ‘Decentralization Reforms’, in A. Coudouel and S. Paternostro (eds) Analyzing the Distributional Impact of Selected Reforms. Volume two : A Practitioner's Guide to Pension, Health, Labor Market, Public Sector Downsizing, Taxation, Decentralization and Macroeconomic Modelling. Washington D.C. : The World Bank.
Kuivalainen, S. (2005). Families at the margins of the Welfare State: a comparative study on the prevalence of poverty among families receiving social assistance, LIS-Working Paper Series (No 403) : Luxembourg Income Study. Kvist, J. (2006). ‘Diversity, Ideal Types and Fuzzy sets in Comparative Welfare State Research’, in B. Rihoux and H. Grimm (eds). Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis. New York: Springer.
Litvack, J., Ahmad, J., Bird, R. (1998). Rethinking decentralization in Developing Countries. Washington D.C. : The World Bank.
Manor, J. (1997) The Political Economy of Decentralization. Washington D.C. : World Bank
Masayoshi, H. (2004). Redistribution, Decentralization and Community Sharing. Paper presentend at the International Symposium on Fiscal Decentralization in Asia Revisited. Policy Research Institute - Ministry of Finance – Japanese Government.
Milanovic, B. (1995) Poverty, Inequality and Social Policy in Transition Economies, Policy Research Working Paper 1530, World Bank
Milanovic, B (1998) Poverty, Inequality and Social Policy in Transition Economies from Planned to Market Economy, World Bank Sectoral and Regional Studies, World Bank
Moreira, A. (2006). Guaranteed Minimum Income Schemes and the Right to Personal Development. Bath, University of Bath, Department of Social and Policy Sciences.
Moreno, L., Trelles, C. (2005) ‘Decentralization and Welfare Reform in Andalusia’, Regional and Federal Studies 15(4) : 519-535
Nelson, K. (2003). Fighting poverty. Comparative studies on social insurance, means-tested benefits and income distribution. Stockholm, Stockholm University.
Obinger, H. (1998) ‘Federalism, Direct Democracy, and Welfare State Development in Switzerland.’ Journal of Public Policy 18(3): 241-263.
Obinger, H., Leibfried, S., Castles, F. (2005), Federalism and the Welfare State. New World and European Experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OECD (2004) Benefits and wages. OECD indicators. Paris : OECD.
Pauly, M. (1973) 'Income Redistribution as a Local Public Good', Journal of Public Economics 2 (February): 35-58.
Prud'homme, R. (1995) ‘The Dangers of Decentralization.’ The World Bank Observer 10(2): 201-220.
Ragin, C. (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. (2006) ‘The limitations of net-effects thinking. Innovative comparative methods for policy analysis’, in B. Rihoux and H. Grimm. (eds) Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis. Beyond Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. New York, Springer: 13-42.
Ragin, C. (2006) Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political analysis advance access 14(3) : 291-310.
Ragin, C. C. (2007) ‘Fuzzy sets: calibration versus measurement’, in C. Boix and S. C. Stokes (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (forthcoming). Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Ravihankar, N. (2004) Decentralization and the Welfare State. Working Paper Rondinelli, D., Nellis, J., Shabbir, C. (1983) Decentralization in Developing Countries. A review of Recent Experience. World Bank Staff Working Papers. Number 581, World Bank.
Rottiers, S., I. Marx, Van den Bosch, K. (2006) ‘De oorzaken van een gelijke inkomensverdeling: een vergelijking van een multiple OLS regressie en een fuzzy-set analyse’, Tijdschrift voor sociologie 27(4): 376-404.
Sacchi, S., Bastagli, F. (2005) ‘Italy - Striving uphill but not stopping halfway: the troubled journey of the experimental minimum insertion income’, in M. Ferrera (eds) Welfare state reform in Southern Europe. London : Routledge.
Saraceno, C. (2002) ‘Introduction: exploring social dynamics’, in C. Saraceno (eds) Social assistance Dynamics in Europe. Bristol : The Policy Press.
Sharma, Chanchal K. (2004) Decentralization Dilemma: Measuring the Degree and Evaluating the Outcomes. MPRA Paper No. 204, University of Munich (published in Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. LXVII, No. 1, Jan.-March, 2006: 49-64).
Van Mechelen, N., Verbist, G., Van den Bosch (2004) Evaluating welfare state efforts and the model family approach: problems and promises. Paper contributed to the Espanet Conference, Oxford, September 9-11
Walker, R., Wiseman, M. (eds.) (2003) The Welfare We Want. The British Challenge for American Reform. Bristoll: Policy Press.
Watts, R. (1999). Comparing Federal Systems. Second Edition. Ontario : McGill- Queens University Press.
Weinstock, D. (2001) ‘Towards a normative theory of federalism’, International Social Science Journal 167 : 75-83.
World Bank (2004) Economies in transition. An OED evaluation of World Bank Assistance. Washington D.C. : World Bank
World Bank (2007) Social assistance in Central Europe and the Baltic States. Washington D.C. : World Bank.
Yamasaki, S., Spreitzer, A. (2006) ‘Beyond methodological tenets. The worlds of QCA and SNA and their benefits to policy analysis’, in B. Rihoux and H. Grimm (eds) Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis. Beyond the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. New York : Springer