Welfare Generosity in Europe: A Multi‐level Study of Material Deprivation and Income Poverty among Disadvantaged Groups

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze whether and to what extent welfare generosity moderates the risk of income poverty and material deprivation among disadvantaged groups, that is, people with ill health, low education and lack of employment. The data are based on the 2009 European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (cross-sectional) surveys. The analyses comprise 27 and 28 European countries, including 292,874 and 302,343 individuals between 18 and 64 years of age. Multi-level analyses demonstrated that welfare generosity moderated the risk of both material deprivation and income poverty. With few exceptions, the risk decreased among disadvantaged groups in absolute terms. Among individuals who experienced the combinations of limiting long-standing illness and either low education or non-employment, the absolute inequalities in material deprivation decreased with increasing welfare generosity. Also, the absolute inequalities in income poverty among individuals who experienced the combination of limiting long-standing illness and low education were lower in more generous welfare contexts. Results indicated lower absolute levels of both material deprivation and income poverty among disadvantaged individuals in generous welfare states. However, for material deprivation the results were more substantial and consistent than for income poverty. Taken together, these findings support the view that generous welfare states reach the worst-off and are successful in buffering material deprivation and income poverty and, hence, in reducing social inequalities.

Through the pyramid: implications of interconnectedness in Africa

“…There are possible implications for developed markets: it is the market structure, namely lack of formal and state social support that increases the pressure on informal social support structures (Zoogah et al, 2015). State support has been positively linked to decreased social inequality, and its lack is linked to rising inequality, often with a racial lens (Saltkjel and Malmberg-Heimonen, 2017). Therefore, products and services that bolster informal support structures, which will be increasingly called upon as state provision falters, could be applied more widely than just in emerging markets.…”

Food insecurity in Europe: Who is at risk, and how successful are social benefits in protecting against food insecurity?

“…In light of evidence linking generous social benefits with reduced risks of multidimensional material deprivation (Nelson, 2012;Saltkjel and Malmberg-Heimonen, 2017), a natural question is whether social benefits protect against food insecurity, a sensitive and tangible measure of material deprivation. By increasing households' material resources, social benefits are expected to reduce the risk of food insecurity either by providing money to spend on food or by covering other costs, thereby freeing up money for food.…”

“…Food insecurity -defined as 'the inability to acquire or consume an adequate quality or sufficient quantity of food in socially acceptable ways, or the uncertainty that one will be able to do so' (Radimer et al, 1992, p. 39S) -has historically been a challenge confined primarily to the developing world. Yet the 2008 global financial crisis and subsequent expansion of emergency food provision across Europe (commonly in the form of foodbanks) have reignited questions about both food insecurity (Borch and Kjaernes, 2016) and material deprivation more broadly (Saltkjel and Malmberg-Heimonen, 2017). The existence of food insecurity across welfare regimes is a visible and immediate demonstration of extreme poverty and social exclusion in Europe.…”

European health inequality through the ‘Great Recession’: social policy matters

“…The relevance to social inequalities in health from the individual-level experience of unemployment is obvious, as there is a sharp educational gradient in the risk of poverty (Saltkjel and Malmberg-Heimonen 2016) and unemployment (Cutler et al 2015). It is less clear how the possible positive consequences distribute across social groups.…”