Economic Inequality and the Welfare State

Esping‐Andersen, Gøsta; Myles, John

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199606061.013.0025

Cited by 75 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line, this study operationalizes welfare regimes with a measure of poverty reduction, using the ‘original’ income distribution as a benchmark (among others, see Korpi and Palme, ; Beramendi, ; Atkinson, ; Kenworthy, ). Esping‐Andersen and Myles () highlight the relevance of measuring the redistributive dimension to study welfare regimes. They identify two groups of measures: inequality reduction (based on Gini coefficient); and poverty reduction (based on poverty rate).…”

Section: Design Of the Study: Data Method Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Threatening Horizon: The Impact of the Welfare State on Support for Europe

Beaudonnet

2014

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the cradle to the grave, social protection is the major bond between citizen and national authority. European integration challenges the social boundaries of nation‐states and this phenomenon is not without consequences for individual attitudes. Within public debate, there are many discussions about the impact of European integration on the welfare state, but conclusive analysis of the consequences on individual support for Europe is still lacking. This article provides an empirical test of the relationship between support for Europe and attitudes towards the welfare state. The findings show that both welfare regimes and welfare issues have a strong impact on individual support for Europe. When it comes to social protection, the European Union works like a distant, albeit strong, threat for individuals.

show abstract

Section: Design Of the Study: Data Method Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Threatening Horizon: The Impact of the Welfare State on Support for Europe

Beaudonnet

2014

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, social contributions can be seen as an investment towards a collective risk pool, which then redistributes income vertically towards the needy and horizontally across the lifecourse (Esping-Andersen and Myles, 2009). It thus becomes an empirical question as to whether the financialization of home ownership has prompted people to reconsider their 'life-course' investment strategies away from more collective and institutionalized forms of welfare provision and towards more privatized forms of horizontal insurance.…”

Section: A U T H O R C O P Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Home ownership and support for government redistribution

André

Dewilde

2014

Comp Eur Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we investigate the relationship between home ownership and support for redistribution in 24 European countries, integrating research on housing regimes and welfare attitudes. We improve upon earlier research by taking into account withingroup heterogeneity of owners and tenants, by elaborating on social mechanisms (selfinterest and socio-spatial segregation), by researching a wide range of European (instead of Anglo-Saxon) countries and by recognizing differences in the meaning of tenure and home ownership across countries. We find that, while home owners are less supportive of redistribution, the effect of home ownership varies with age and income position. We furthermore find that housing regime characteristics matter, as owners and tenants have different welfare attitudes in different contexts. In settings where home ownership has become more financialized, support for redistribution is smaller, and more so among home owners. On the other hand, in settings where outright home ownership fills gaps in welfare provision, both owners and tenants prefer more redistribution.

show abstract

“…Tabelle zeigt die Ergebnisse für Ländergruppen. Wir haben die Länder nach den von Esping‐Andersen unterschiedenen Sozialstaatstypen gruppiert (Esping‐Andersen und Myles, ). In den meisten Ländern sind zwei dominante Einkommensbestandteile für über 50 bis 60 Prozent der gesamten Verringerung der Einkommensungleichheit verantwortlich: das öffentliche Altersrenten‐ und Hinterbliebenenprogramm und die Einkommenssteuern.…”

Section: Aufschlüsselung Der Umverteilungswirkung Von Sozialtransfersunclassified

Die Umverteilungswirkung von Sozialtransferprogrammen und Steuern: Verschiedene Länder im Vergleich

Wang

Caminada

Goudswaard

2012

Int Rev Soziale Sicherheit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auszug Ziel dieses Artikels ist eine genaue Analyse der Umverteilungswirkung von sozialen Transferprogrammen und Steuern in 28 Mitgliedsstaaten der Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung durch eine Berechnung mit Daten, die aus der Datenbank der Mikrodaten der Luxembourg Income Study stammen. Wir kommen zum Ergebnis, dass in Sozialstaaten die Ungleichheit um durchschnittlich 35 Prozent reduziert wird. Sozialleistungen haben dabei eine viel größere Umverteilungswirkung als Steuern. Bei den Sozialprogrammen tragen die öffentlichen Renten am stärksten zur Verringerung der Einkommensungleichheit bei, wenn auch mit beträchtlichen Unterschieden von Land zu Land. Sozialhilfe, Invaliden‐ und Familienleistungen tragen in geringerem Ausmaß ebenfalls dazu bei, dass die Einkommensunterschiede kleiner werden.

show abstract

Economic Inequality and the Welfare State

Cited by 75 publications

References 0 publications

A Threatening Horizon: The Impact of the Welfare State on Support for Europe

A Threatening Horizon: The Impact of the Welfare State on Support for Europe

Home ownership and support for government redistribution

Die Umverteilungswirkung von Sozialtransferprogrammen und Steuern: Verschiedene Länder im Vergleich

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About