Towards a new consolidated framework for analysing benefit coverage

Nelson, Kenneth; Nieuwenhuis, Rense

doi:10.1177/0958928721996653

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, these findings should be replicated with policy indicators that go beyond expenditure to also account for the details of coverage, eligibility and (non)-take-up (cf. Nelson & Nieuwenhuis, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, these findings should be replicated with policy indicators that go beyond expenditure to also account for the details of coverage, eligibility and (non)‐take‐up (cf. Nelson & Nieuwenhuis, 2021). In addition, it should be noted that ECEC policies are implemented not only to increase women's employment, but also outcomes in relation to children's well‐being, development and equal opportunities (Gambaro et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The challenges of using expenditure-related policy measures have been well documented, both in the area of labour market policies and of work-family reconciliation policies (Clasen et al, 2007;Sirén et al, 2020). These challenges include that such measures cannot differentiate between coverage, eligibility, and (non-)take-up (Nelson & Nieuwenhuis, 2021), and do not necessarily represent individual entitlements. Yet, to be able to cover many countries of long periods of time, these are the best measures available, and for that reason are commonly used in comparative welfare state research (Fredriksson, 2021).…”

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

No activation without reconciliation? The interplay between ALMP and ECEC in relation to women's employment, unemployment and inactivity in 30 OECD countries, 1985–2018

Nieuwenhuis

2022

Soc Policy Adm

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative welfare state research as examined the outcomes of active labour market policies (ALMP) and work‐family reconciliation policies by and large been separately. As a result, potential complementarities between these policy areas have received scant attention empirically. Using macro‐level data, this study answers the question to what extent, and in which way, governments' efforts in ALMP and in early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are complementary to each other in promoting women's employment rates and reducing women's unemployment and inactivity rates in 30 OECD countries from 1985 to 2018. The article theorises about how the various policies that constitute a welfare state relate to each other, distinguishing between pluralism, complementarity and substitutability. These findings provide support for the notion of welfare pluralism, in the sense that ALMP and ECEC policies work together in improving women's employment rates in slightly different ways: ALMP achieve this through reducing women's unemployment rates, whereas ECEC also achieve lower inactivity rates for women. There was, however, more support for the notion of substitution rather than complementarity: the marginal benefits associated with an increase in either ALMP or ECEC were smaller in the context of large investments in the other policy. In other words, the highest rates of women's employment, and the lowest rates of unemployment and inactivity, are found in countries with large investments in both ALMP and ECEC, but such higher investments are associated with diminishing returns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

No activation without reconciliation? The interplay between ALMP and ECEC in relation to women's employment, unemployment and inactivity in 30 OECD countries, 1985–2018

Nieuwenhuis

2022

Soc Policy Adm

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The welfare state literature offers concepts to identify the social protection practices organized around targeted and universal policy measures, and thereby depicting regulatory changes in Nordic income protection (Jacques & Noel 2020). The understanding of universal and targeted measures typically vary across national contexts and analytical approaches (Anttonen & Sipilä 2014;Nelson & Nieuwenhuis 2022). Targeted measures refer here to social benefits aimed at certain groups, where meanstesting or insurance-based principles determine access and level of support.…”

Section: Non-standard Workers In Times Of Crisis -Literature Review A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nordic Relief Packages and Non-standard Workers: Towards Expanded Universalism and Institutional Inequalities

Larsen

Ilsøe

2022

NJWLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Has the Corona crisis triggered changes to Nordic social protection? We address this question by examining how Denmark, Finland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden reacted to the crisis, which in many ways resembles a Litmus-test for Nordic social protection. Analytically, we draw on historical institutionalism, welfare, and segmentation literature. We find that although the Nordic relief packages aim to create an encompassing safety net, the reforms expose and sometimes reinforce institutionally embedded cracks in the Nordic systems around the nexus of standard and non-standard work, leading to potential layers of institutionally embedded inequalities. The Nordic countries have expanded and adjusted their existing social protection, portraying strong elements of path dependency, but with examples of novel initiatives. Their mix of universal and targeted measures appears to reflect so-called ‘expanded universalism’, where targeted measures supplement the ‘ordinary’ Nordic social protection to cover the most crisis ridden, but not necessarily the poorest, groups.

show abstract

“…In this study, we explore the reasons for the varying number of recipients by applying the framework presented by Nelson and Nieuwenhuis (2021) in a comparative setting. By using microsimulation and EU-SILC surveys, we decompose the cross-national differences in the number of beneficiaries in two Nordic countries, Finland and Sweden, into coverage, eligibility and non-take-up.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smaller net or just fewer to catch? Disentangling the causes for the varying sizes of minimum income schemes

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sizes of minimum income schemes vary significantly even in welfare states that are considered similar. For example among Nordic countries, the share of recipients is almost double in Finland compared to Nordic peers. Considering the strong political will to diminish the receipt of last-resort benefits, we demonstrate a methodological framework to evaluate the reasons for varying number of beneficiaries and apply it to two Nordic countries, Finland and Sweden. By using microsimulation of eligibility rates, we examine the role of social assistance legislation, first-tier benefits and non-take-up. Relatively high number of beneficiaries in Finland is traced back to social assistance policies such as higher norm levels and earning disregard but also to lower non-take-up rate of social assistance benefits, which potentially reflects looser discretion and asset test. We also find some, albeit weak, evidence that the implementation reform of social assistance in Finland 2017 has further reduced non-take-up.

show abstract

Towards a new consolidated framework for analysing benefit coverage

Cited by 10 publications

References 32 publications

No activation without reconciliation? The interplay between ALMP and ECEC in relation to women's employment, unemployment and inactivity in 30 OECD countries, 1985–2018

No activation without reconciliation? The interplay between ALMP and ECEC in relation to women's employment, unemployment and inactivity in 30 OECD countries, 1985–2018

Nordic Relief Packages and Non-standard Workers: Towards Expanded Universalism and Institutional Inequalities

Smaller net or just fewer to catch? Disentangling the causes for the varying sizes of minimum income schemes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About