Muffels, Ruud and Fouarge, Didier (2003): The Role of European Welfare States in Explaining Resources Deprivation. Published in: Social Indicators Research , Vol. 68, : pp. 299-330.
Download (323kB) | Preview
In a previous paper in this journal (Headey et al., 2000) a comparison was made between three so-called ‘best cases’ of welfare regime types, the ‘Liberal’ US, ‘the ‘Corporatist’ Germany and the ‘Social-Democratic’ Netherlands. That paper was based on the ten-year datasets drawn from the national socio-economic panel studies. For this paper we use the unique comparative panel dataset of the European Community Household Panel. At the time of research, only three waves of data covering the 1994–1996 period were available. Instead of three countries representing three different welfare state types as in the earlier paper we cover twelve countries allowing us to distinguish a fourth Southern or Mediterranean welfare regime type and to compare the performance of the four regimes. Compared to the Headey’s et al. paper we focus on the comparative analysis of the level of deprivation and pay less attention to income poverty and inequality. Because we consider deprivation to be part of the concept of social exclusion (see also Atkinson et al., 2002) our results also provide evidence on how welfare regimes across the EU cope with social exclusion. The result of the three ‘bestcases’ study were that the Social-Democratic welfare state performed best on nearly all social and economic indicators that were applied. Looking in this paper on deprivation levels the results are different and it appears that the Social-Democratic welfare state is good in preventing income poverty but performs less well in equalising levels of deprivation. The results also show that the immature Southern welfare states perform worse with respect to preventing deprivation. Trying to explain levels of deprivation by estimating Tobit panel regressions it turned out that the impact of regime type remains significant though limited. Structural disparities between the countries and regimes in terms of economic welfare, the demographic structure, and the employment situation explain most of the variance across countries.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||The Role of European Welfare States in Explaining Resources Deprivation|
|English Title:||The Role of European Welfare States in Explaining Resources Deprivation|
|Keywords:||income; deprivation; poverty; welfare regimes; European Community Household Panel; US; Germany; Netherlands; panel data; panel regression; Tobit|
|Subjects:||D - Microeconomics > D3 - Distribution > D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C23 - Panel Data Models ; Spatio-temporal Models
I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I32 - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
|Date Deposited:||11. Feb 2009 08:52|
|Last Modified:||13. Feb 2013 07:22|
Atkinson, A., B. Cantillon, E. Marlier and B. Nolan: 2002, Social Indicators; The EU and Social Exclusion (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Beck, U.: 1992, Risk Society; Towards a New Modernity (Sage Publications, London).
Bonoli, G.: 1997, ‘Classifying welfare states: a two- dimension approach’, Journal of Social Policy 26, pp. 351–72.
Byrne, D.: 1999, Social Exclusion (Open University Press, Buckingham).
Callan, T., B. Nolan, C. Whelan and J. Williams: 1996, Poverty in the 1990’s; Evidence from the 1994 Living in Ireland Survey (Oak Tree Press, Dublin).
Desai, M. and A. Shah: 1988, ‘An econometric approach to the measurement of poverty’, Oxford Economic Papers 40, pp. 505–22.
Esping-Andersen, G.: 1990, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Polity Press, Oxford).
Esping-Andersen, G.: 1999, Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies (Oxford University Press, Oxford). Ferrera, M.: 1996, ‘The “Southern” model of welfare in social Europe’, Journal of European Social Policy 6, pp.17–37
Gallie, D. and S. Paugam: 2000, Welfare Regimes and the Experiences of Unemployment in Europe (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
Gelissen, J.: 2002, Worlds of Welfare, Worlds of Consent? Public Opinion on the Welfare State (Brill Academic Publisher, Leiden).
Giddens , A.: 1992, The Consequences of Modernity (Polity Press: Cambridge).
Goodin, R., B. Headey, R. Muffels and H.-J. Dirven: 1999, The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
Haan, A. de: 1998, ’Social exclusion. An alternative concept for the study of deprivation?’, IDS Bulletin 29, pp. 10–9.
Headey, B., R. Goodin, R. Muffels and H.-J. Dirven: 1997, ‘Welfare over time: The three worlds of welfare capitalism in panel perspective’, Journal of Public Policy 17, pp. 329–59.
Headey, B., R. Muffels, R. Goodin and H.-J. Dirven: 2000, ‘Is there a trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state? A comparison of best cases of “The three worlds of welfare capitalism”’, Social Indicators Research 50, pp. 115–57.
Layte, R., C. Whelan, B. Maître and B. Nolan: 2001, ‘Explaining levels of deprivation in the European Union’, Acta Sociologica 44, pp. 105–22. Leibfried, S.: 1992, ‘Towards a European welfare state? On integrating poverty regimes into the European Community’, in Z. Ferge and J. Kolberg, Social Policy in a Changing Europe (Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main).
Leisering, L. and S. Leibfried: 1999, Time and Poverty in Western Welfare States, United German in Perspective, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Kuznets, S.: 1955, ‘Economic growth and income inequality’, American Economic Review 45, pp. 1–28.
Mack, J. and S. Lansley: 1985, Poor Britain (George Allen and Unwin, London).
Muffels, R.: 1993, Welfare Economic Effects of Social Security - Essays on Poverty, Social Security and Labour Market: Evidence from Panel Data (Tilburg University Press, Tilburg).
Muffels, R. and D. Fouarge: 2002, ‘Working profiles and employment regimes in Europe’, Schmollers Jahrbuch. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies 122, pp. 85–110.
Runciman, W.: 1966, Relative Deprivation and Social Justice (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London).
Silver, H.: 1994, Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms, ILLS Discussion Papers no. 69 (ILO,Geneva).
Veall, M. and K. Zimmerman: 1994, ‘Goodness of fit measures in the Tobit model’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 56, pp. 485–99.
Walker, A. and C. Walker: 1997, Britain Divided: The Growth of Social Exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s (Child Poverty Action Group, London).