Documents Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, Antwerp 11 results

"This article studies the impact of design characteristics of in-work benefits on employment and poverty in an international comparative setting, taking account of both first and second order effects. We use the microsimulation model EUROMOD, which has been enriched with a discrete labour supply model in order to take account of labour supply reactions. The analysis is performed for four EU-member states: Belgium, Italy, Poland and Sweden. The results show that design characteristics matter substantially, though the specific effects differ in magnitude across countries, indicating there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Throughout the analysis, numerous trade-offs are uncovered: not only between employment and poverty goals, but also within employment incentives itself (extensive vs. intensive margin). Taking account of behavioral reactions attenuates the impact on poverty outcomes, signaling the importance of bringing these effects into the empirical analysis."

"Both part-time and temporary employment have been shown to be associated with particular high poverty rates across Europe. Yet, theoretical arguments as to why this is the case remain scarce. Given the multifaceted nature of in-work poverty, the main aim of this chapter is unravel the different mechanisms that either cause or potentially limit the poverty risk of both groups of atypical workers. The results indicate that both groups are unable to secure a decent income to maintain themselves, not to mention their inability to sustain a family. However, their poverty risk remains remarkably limited when we take all income sources into account. We find that temporary and part-time workers tend to be protected against poverty differently. Government transfers are particularly important for temporary workers as they partially compensate periods out of work. Part-timers are more likely to rely on the earnings of other household members to avoid poverty, but with important differences across countries."

"This article aims to provide an overview of the main mechanisms underlying non-take-up by bringing together insights from existing theoretical models and the large body of empirical evidence. We draw on studies based on the traditional model of economic rationality as well as on behavioural economics. The first strand of literature is based on the assumption that individuals are perfectly rational and therefore perfectly able to optimize the trade-off between costs and benefits. The second, and more recent perspective, focuses on important deviations from the traditional assumptions of rationality by pointing to the role of cognitive biases and behavioural barriers. An important focus of attention in this article is the way policy design and administrations can affect the uptake of public provisions. While the traditional approach tends to pay little attention to the design of public provisions and the role of administrations in improving participation rates, behavioural economics has shed light on the question of how to nudge and prime people into participating in public programmes without fundamentally changing their economic incentives (e.g. simply by changing the default settings in administrative procedures). In this literature review, we bring both strands in the literature together and develop a theoretical framework which lists and links the various mechanisms at play. At the same time, we summarise the most important empirical findings, and identify gaps in the literature. Finally, we pay attention to lessons from the literature regarding how policies could be redesigned to reduce non-takeup."

"Over half way into the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, on the eve of the elaboration of policies designed to help reach the Europe 2020 target of lifting 20 million people out of poverty, it is important to take stock of the outcomes of the Lisbon agenda for growth, employment and social inclusion. The question arises why, despite growth of average incomes and of employment, poverty rates have not gone down, but have either stabilized or even increased.
In this paper we identify the following trends: rising employment has benefited workless households only partially; income protection for the working-age population out of work has become less adequate; social policies and, more generally, social redistribution have become less pro-poor. These observations are indicative of the ambiguity of the Lisbon Strategy and its underlying investment paradigm."

"Should the EU be involved in the governance of minimum income protection, and if it should, in which role precisely? This question raises a complex policy conundrum. In this CSB Working Paper, Frank Vandenbroucke et al. focus on a proposal by the European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) for an EU Framework Directive on Minimum Income Protection, in order to examine three aspects of that policy conundrum: (1) the instrumental relevance of minimum income protection; (2) the unequal burden of the redistributive effort that would be required across the EU if the Union were to impose hic et nunc a minimum income guarantee of 60% or 40% of the median national income in all Member States; and (3) the impact on dependency traps, under the same hypothesis.

The authors illustrate each of these observations empirically, using cross-nationally comparable data on income and living conditions (EU-SILC) and minimum income protection levels (CSB-MIPI). Since a harmonised minimum income scheme requires a significantly greater budgetary effort on behalf of some of the poorer Member States in Eastern and Southern Europe, it raises a complex question about the meaning of solidarity within the EU. Enhanced solidarity within Member States cannot be decoupled from enhanced solidarity among Member States – and vice versa. Simultaneously, the EU should put positive pressure on poorer and richer Member States to gradually improve the overall quality and efficiency of their welfare regimes. The authors conclude that in this context, the prospect of gradually and flexibly introducing a more binding EU framework on minimum income protection may become realistic."

"This paper investigates how social class shapes the occurrence of social risks, defined as socio-economic circumstances associated with significant losses of income. The motivation for this exploration derives from the ‘individualisation thesis', which calls into question the structuring impact of social class. At the same time, social policy discourse has, under the mantra of ‘social investment', undergone significant change, with greater emphasis being placed on individual responsibility. Hence it is important to ascertain whether intergenerational class effects (continue to) exist. Using SILC 2005 data, we consider their impact on a relevant selection of social risks: unemployment, ill-health, living in a jobless household, single parenthood, temporary employment, and low-paid employment. A pooled country model is estimated for the purpose of assessing social background effects. The results provide clear evidence of a continuing influence of social class (of origin)."

"After the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, on the eve of the elaboration of policies designed to help reach the Europe 2020 target of lifting 20 million people out of poverty, it is important to take stock of the outcomes of the Lisbon agenda for growth, employment and social inclusion. The question arises why, despite growth of average incomes and of employment, poverty rates have not gone down, but have either stagnated or even increased. In this paper we identify the following trends: rising employment has benefited workless households only partially; income protection for the working-age population out of work has become less adequate; social policies and, more generally, social redistribution have become less pro-poor. These observations are indicative of the ambivalence of the Lisbon Strategy and its underlying investment paradigm."

"Departing from growing concerns about in-work poverty and the proliferation of flexible employment, we investigate the association between temporary employment and poverty and the role of regulations in a European comparative perspective. In doing so, we focus specifically on possible gender dimensions, because some are concerned that the impact of flexible employment on income security will be different for men and women and that gender inequality will increase. By means of a logistic multilevel model, we analyse recent EU-SILC data for 24 European countries. The results show that the temporarily employed have a higher
poverty risk vis-à-vis permanent workers, mainly caused by lower wages. However, the risk factors to become working poor are similar. The poorly educated, young workers and those living in a single earner household with dependent children have an increased probability to live in poverty, whether they are employed on temporary or permanent basis. Differences between European welfare regimes demonstrate that policy constellations influence the magnitude of these risk factors. Looking at specific policy measures, we find that policies encouraging dual earnership are associated with a lower poverty risk. Counter-intuitively, temporary working women have a lower poverty risk than their male counterparts. They are better protected because they are more often secondary earners in a dual earning household, while men are more often primary earners. Finally, we identify the Netherlands and Czech Republic as countries shaping advantageous circumstances for the temporarily employed. This article advances knowledge on the linkages between temporary employment, economic insecurity and gender differences in European welfare states."

"Should we explain the disappointing outcomes of the Open Method of Co-ordination on Inclusion by methodological weaknesses or by substantive contradictions in the “social investment” paradigm? To clarify the underlying concepts, we first revisit the original “Lisbon inspiration”, and subsequently relate it to the idea of the “new welfare state”, as proposed in the literature on new risks in post-industrial societies. We then discuss two explanations for disappointing poverty trends, suggested by critical accounts of the “social investment state”: “resource competition” and a “re-commodification”. We do not find these explanations convincing per se and conclude that the jury is still out on the “social investment state”. However, policy makers cannot ignore the failure of employment policies to reduce the proportion of children and working-age adults living in jobless households in the EU, and they should not deny the reality of a “trilemma of activation”. Finally, we identify policy conditions that may facilitate the complementarity of social investment and social inclusion."

"It is an established fact that the level of one's income affects one's health. More divisive, however, is the question whether people's health is also affected by inequalities in income. The latter would imply that not only how much income we have matters for health, but also how much more or less we have of it compared to others. If this is the case, one of the farreaching consequences would be that the benefits that we believe economic growth is to bring about (among others, better health for everyone) become uncertain if we do not also focus on redistribution. In recent years, the question whether income inequality affects health has received a growing scholarly interest and has been repeatedly scrutinized empirically. Unfortunately, however, consensus has not been reached. Far from it, in fact: in the lively debate, time and again an affirmative analysis is set against a negative one, and vice versa. In this review, I expound upon the arguments of both positions and conclude with some indications, which suggest that health might indeed be affected by income inequality."