This paper assesses the impact on household incomes of the COVID‐19 pandemic and governments’ policy responses in April 2020 in four large and severely hit EU countries: Belgium, Italy, Spain and the UK. We provide comparative evidence on the level of relative and absolute welfare resilience at the onset of the pandemic, by creating counterfactual scenarios using the European tax‐benefit model EUROMOD combined with COVID‐19‐related household surveys and timely labor market data. We find that income poverty increased in all countries due to the pandemic while inequality remained broadly the same. Differences in the impact of policies across countries arose from four main sources: the asymmetric dimension of the shock by country, the different protection offered by each tax‐benefit system, the diverse design of discretionary measures and differences in the household level circumstances and living arrangements of individuals at risk of income loss in each country.
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.
Terms of use:
Documents in EconStor may
AbstractOver the last few years concern for income inequality in European countries has increased remarkably. In this context, taxation is an important redistributive instrument and we investigate the redistributive role of direct taxes. We focus on the EU-15 countries and the evolution over the period 1998-2008, using EUROMOD, the EU-wide tax-benefit model. The research aim of this paper is twofold. First, we investigate empirically whether there is a link between pre-tax income inequality and redistribution through taxes. Second we hereby test whether there is a relationship between progressivity and the average tax level, the two building stones of the redistributive impact of taxes.JEL Classification: C81; D31; H23; H24
The optimal design of redistributive systems continues to be matter of considerable academic and public debate, with the optimal extent and intensity of pro-poor targeting remaining a key issue of contention. This article shows, first, that the overall relationship between pro-poor targeting and income inequality reduction is very weak. Although occasionally the association is positive, it is not robust, very weak, and effectively zero with various reasonable methodological decisions. Secondly, and more importantly, a detailed disaggregated analysis reveals that the most redistributive systems do contain subsystems that are strongly targeted to the poor by intent and by design. Thirdly, we also show that a disaggregation over the function of social transfers is very relevant: old age benefits are an important driver of the weak overall association, while for family benefits we find a positive relationship. Absolutely key, however, is our finding that means-tested systems play a crucial role in bringing about redistributive effectiveness, even if their relative size is small. We thus shed new light on the politics of targeting. While it remains important that broad sections of the electorate benefit from social transfers, strong pro-targeting within such a context is possible and indeed essential for real redistributive impact. Benefits for the poor need not be poor benefits if and when these are embedded in benefit systems that meet wider redistributive needs and rationales.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.