Search

International audience

This paper provides a short history of family allowances and documents that Keynes supported family allowances as early as the 1920s and continuing through the 1930s and early 1940s. Keynes saw this policy as a way to help households raise their children and also as a way to increase consumption without reducing business investment. The paper goes on to argue that a policy of family allowances is consistent with Keynesian economics. Finally, the paper uses the Luxembourg Income Study to estimate the impact of family allowances on child poverty in several developed nations and estimates the poverty-reducing impact of several possible family allowance programs for the US.

This paper discusses the regressive nature of tax exemptions for children compared to child allowances and estimates the decline in child poverty in several developed countries due to child allowances. The paper then estimates the decline in child poverty in the US due to tax exemptions for children and simulates the impact of various possible child allowance programs on child poverty in the US. It finds that a $3000-$4000 child allowance would reduce child poverty in the US to the level of other developed nations and, due to the costs associated with child poverty, be a cost effective policy change.

This study uses the Luxembourg Income Study to examine the size of the middle class across several less developed American nations. One main finding is that in the mid 2000s the size of the middle class in Latin America does not seem to depend on demographic factors. A second finding is that, in contrast to most developed nations, government tax and spending policies do little to increase the size of the middle class in less developed America. Finally, as in the developed world, labor market factors do not have much impact the size of the middle class in Latin America. The main exceptions here seem to be Brazil and Mexico, where employment appears to increase the size of the middle class.

This paper updates and extends my earlier work, published in the Journal of Economic Issues, on how the middle class fares throughout the world. My 2007 paper provided a definition of the middle class as well as estimates of the size of the middle class in several nations. It argued that the fraction of households that are middle class across nations and over time is mainly determined by government tax and spending policies. The more progressive the national tax system, and the more generous government spending programs, the larger is the proportion of middle-class households. This empirical work on the middle class was done using the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), an international database containing extensive income as well as socio-demographic information. LIS databases center around particular years, called 'waves'. Each wave is around 5 years apart, with Wave #1 beginning in the early 1980s. For my previous research, data was available only up Wave #5 (around 2000), and Wave #5 data was unavailable for some countries. More Wave #5 data is available, and some data for Wave #6, centered around 2004, has come online recently. This provides an opportunity to assess what has happened to inequality and the size of the middle class in the early 2000s. In addition, my earlier work focused only on aggregate tax and spending by governments; it did not look at specific policies and how these promoted a middle class in different nations. This paper focuses on three specific sorts of national spending policy that assist households and affect the size of the middle class across nations and over time. First, there are policies that aid the unemployed and disabled. Second, there are retirement programs that provide income to older households. Third, there are policies that assist families with children (child or family allowances, family leave policies and child support payments). It examines the extent to which each of these policies increased the size of the middle class in the early 2000s, the impact of the set of these three policies on the middle class in the early 2000s, as well as other possible determinants of the size of the middle class in the 2000s.

This paper updates and extends my earlier work (published in the June 2007 issue of the Journal of Economic Issues on how the middle class fares throughout the world. Wave #6 data from the Luxembourg Income Study, recently released and centered around 2004, provides an opportunity to assess what has happened to the size of the middle class around the world in the early 2000s. In contrast to the 1980s and 1990s, there was no noticeable decline in the middle class during the early 2000s. The paper provides further evidence that the size of the middle class in each nation depends mainly on government tax and spending policies. In particular, it shows the key role played by family allowances and paid family leave in supporting a national middle class.

This chapter examines the tradeoffs inherent in guaranteed income proposals. Its perspective is international, using standardized income data across nations and asking whether economic efficiency suffers when governments make greater efforts to protect the poor. It is recognized that this is not a perfect test of the guaranteed income plan, in large part because we are not actually testing anything about a guaranteed income plan. Nonetheless, we are testing one of the main issues surrounding guaranteed income plans, the equity - efficiency tradeoff raised by Okun - if governments do provide greater income supports, will economic efficiency suffer? The first section provides a brief history of the rise and fall of guaranteed income plans. Then the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), the main database for the empirical work of this chapter, is described. Using the LIS we see how governments of different countries affect income equality, and how this effort has changed over time. Section 4 examines whether those countries putting more fiscal effort into maintaining the incomes of its citizens operate less efficiently. Finally, Section 5 summarizes our findings and concludes.

It is well known that women are much more likely to be poor than men. This is true in the US and in most developed nations. But the causes of this phenomenon remain a matter of dispute. This paper looks at two feminist explanations for the feminization of poverty. First, there is the issue of household structure. Second, there is the issue of occupational sex segregation. This paper seeks to examine if either household structure or occupational sex segregation can help explain the relatively high poverty rates experienced by female-headed families.

Did the US middle class benefit from the 1990s economic boom? Did this halt or reverse a middle class decline from the previous decade or more? Is a shrinking middle class strictly a US phenomenon with domestic causes, or is a problem that has plagued most of the world economy? This paper will explore these issues. Section II describes previous attempts at defining the middle class. Section III then examines four possible causes of the declining middle class - changing demographic factors, structural economic changes, macroeconomic conditions, and a more Keynesian explanation which depends on the importance of government spending. Section IV describes the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), which will be used to measure the middle class and to seek the cause of middle class decline in the US and other countries. Section V provides measurements of the middle class for a number of countries using the LIS. Because of the controversy surrounding definitional matters, several different definitions of 'the middle class' are employed. Using the LIS, section VI empirically examines the four different explanations for the shrinking middle class set forth in section III. Finally, we conclude with some policy implications.

This article employs the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) to compare poverty rates for female-headed households (FHHs) with poverty rates for other households in a number of developed and transitional economies. It then seeks to explain why, in some countries, female-headed households are so much more likely to be poor compared to other families. The next two sections describe the LIS and discuss some of the problems encountered in measuring poverty. The paper then computes poverty rates in individual countries for female-headed households and for all other households using the LIS database. Given the problems associated with measuring poverty, we present several estimates of poverty for both types of household. Two sections then look at two theoretical explanations for the gender poverty gap-human capital theory and a Keynesian approach that emphasizes the importance of fiscal policy as an antipoverty tool. The last section summarizes the main findings and draws some policy conclusions.

This paper compares poverty rates for female-headed families and for other families in a number of developed countries. The author concludes that there are many different reasons female-headed families suffer relatively greater poverty in some countries but not in other countries. One implication of this analysis is that it is less important what gets done to help female-headed families, and more important that some policy be implemented to benefit female-headed families.