Differences in the Patterns of in-work Poverty in Germany and the UK

Abstract

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 AbstractThis study analyses differences in individual-level working poverty determinants between Germany and the UK. These differences are linked to institutional patterns at the country level. Here, we observe that the two countries differ especially in bargaining centralisation, employment protection legislation and family policy. At the same time, the levels of decommodification and labour market regulation are no longer core differences in the institutional settings of Germany and the UK, which is interpreted as a consequence of Germany's departure from a traditional conservative regime since the mid-1990s.Adopting economic and sociological approaches, we explain how Germany's closed employment system channels the effects of deregulation policies to the periphery of the labour market. Additionally, we argue that open employment relationships that dominate in the UK put specifically older employees at risk. Finally, we identify country specific differences in the economic dependency of women, resulting from a stronger male breadwinner orientation of family policy in Germany.Accordingly, multivariate analyses based on harmonised versions of the BHPS (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) and the SOEP (2003SOEP ( -2006 reveal that entrants and re-entrants to the labour market, women and-unexpectedly-low-educated persons are particularly affected by inwork poverty in Germany; whereas older workers are more likely to face precarious economic conditions in the UK.

In-Work Poverty in Latvia

“…Very few studies suggest that the elderly are more likely to be exposed to in-poverty risk in Europe. Giesselmann's study indicates that it is so in Great Britain, which he explains is due to the openness of the employment system there (Giesselmann 2015). It may be interpreted in other words as a more deregulated labour market.…”

“…Horemans and Marx (2013) argue that part-timers are more likely to be exposed to poverty risk. Atypical employment conditions are also mentioned as risk factors in Germany (see Giesselmann 2015). In the Latvian context, education is a good predictor of in-work poverty incidence.…”

“…The Government should encourage women to seek work to promote the development of more double earner households, which are less likely to become poor (Lewandowski and Kaminska 2014). Giesselmann (2015) analyzes the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) data gathered in [2002][2003][2004][2005][2006] which estimate in-work poverty rates across different sociodemographic and occupational groups in each country. He identifies the trend of "a precarisation of entry-level positions in Germany and of older employees in the UK" (Giesselman 2015).…”

“…Entrants are more likely to be exposed to deregulation and marginalization. They are often left out of collective agreements and "closed employment relationships" (Giesselmann 2015). In Britain, Giesselmann sees a link between the openness of the employment system and increased poverty risks for older employees.…”

“…Finally, he points out that the higher levels of education decrease in-work poverty risk, although the link is less pronounced in Britain. (Giesselmann 2015). Marx et al look (2011) at in-work poverty in Belgium.…”