Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

This article seeks to evaluate how well the different welfare states of Europe perform in terms of preventing recurrent and persistent income poverty and what household and individual characteristics influence poverty duration. Because we use cross-national data on longitudinal poverty, we are able to increase our understanding of the effect of the institutional context within which poverty occurs. We show that country welfare regimes strongly influence longrun poverty, with social democratic countries reducing the level of persistent and recurrent poverty. Liberal and Southern European regime countries have both higher rates and longer durations of poverty. Despite their dissimilar patterns of poverty duration, European welfare states display rather similar patterns of exit from poverty, once we control for duration. There is some evidence that high initial exit rates from poverty in social democratic and corporatist countries decrease quickly whereas those in liberal and Southern European countries remain high, which could suggest lower levels of incentives in the former.

This paper focuses on the question whether it is beneficial for firms to invest in the general skills of their workforce or that these training investments merely encourage personnel turnover. We examine two contrary theoretical perspectives on how investments in employee development are related to their turnover behaviour. Estimation results derived from a sample of 2,833 Dutch pharmacy assistants show that participation in general training does not induce the intention of assistants to quit, as predicted by human capital theory. We find that a firm's investments in general training, significantly contribute to the perceived support in employee development (PSED) among their workforce. Our results also show that PSED is negatively related to the intention of employees to quit the firm. This effect is to a large extent mediated by the job satisfaction of pharmacy assistants. Our findings support the importance of social exchange theory in explaining turnover behaviour as a consequence of personnel development practices. It should be noted, however, that PSED only diminishes the intention to quit for other occupations.

Human capital theory predicts that older workers are less likely to participate in on-the-job training than younger workers, due to lower net returns on such investments. Early retirement institutions are likely to affect these returns. Using the European Community Household Panel we show that older workers participate less in training, and that early retirement institutions do indeed matter. Generous early retirement schemes discourage older workers from taking part in training, whereas flexible early retirement schemes encourage this. Finally, the results suggest that in most European countries training can keep older workers longer in the labour market. Copyright 2009 CEIS, Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini and Blackwell Publishing Ltd..

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 SocialDemocratic 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. INTRODUCTION This paper draws on empirical data from the European Community HouseholdPanel (ECHP) -covering twelve European countries over the 1994-1996 periodto explain the level of deprivation across Europe. 1 The paper focuses on the role of institutional variations across countries by looking at the impact of country and welfare regime type differences. For that purpose, and drawing from the theoretical and empirical literature, explanatory models for resources deprivation have been developed. Recently, Layte et al. (2001) applied a similar approach, also using European panel data, but their approach was primarily oriented at assessing the impact of social class and country differences and less so on explaining regime type differences. 2 The paper builds further on the work by Headey et al. (2000) in this journal. Rather than using ten-year panel data for three countries as in Headey et al., we use three-year data for twelve European countries. Hence, our time horizon is much shorter but we cover more countries for which reaso...