Search

Substantial cross-national differences in poverty alleviation are well documented. But the extent to which different parts of the social transfer system account for this variation is still relatively unexamined. This paper analyses the redistributive effects of specific social policy institutions in a comparative perspective. The main question is to what extent non-means-tested entitlements and means-tested benefits reduce relative economic poverty in different institutional settings. It is shown that the structure of non-means-tested benefits is more important than that of means-tested benefits in explaining differences in poverty alleviation across countries. The paper also presents a new method for estimating the anti-poverty effects of separate parts of the social transfer system. This method decomposes the anti-poverty effects of a set of social transfers into independent and combined effects, which produces more valid results than prevalent methods used to assess the impact of a particular transfer on poverty. The countries included in this study are Canada, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The empirical analyses are based on data from the Social Citizenship Indicators Programme (SCIP) and Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) describing the situation in the mid-1990s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares recent developments in income inequality in Canada, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In addition to describing cross-national variation in changes in income inequality, the paper examines different explanatory factors for these recent developments. The findings reported indicate that there is substantial cross-national variation, not only with regard to the level of inequality, but furthermore with regard to changes in inequality. The results indicate that the equalizing effect of welfare state redistribution did not decrease in all countries. By contrast, in all countries there was a universal tendency towards increased inequality in the pre-tax and transfer distribution, although the magnitude of the change differs from country to country. Even though a polarization of the earnings distribution is reported, the results still give no support to cross-national convergence with regard to income inequality during the 1980s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: OECD countries over the past two decades have implemented a range of labour market integration initiatives to improve the employment chances of disabled and chronically ill individuals. This article presents a systematic review and evidence synthesis on effectiveness of government interventions to influence employers’ employment practices concerning disabled and chronically ill individuals in five OECD countries. A separate paper reports on interventions to influence the behaviour of employees. Methods: Electronic and grey literature searches to identify all empirical studies reporting employment effects and/or process evaluations of government policies aimed at changing the behaviour of employers conducted between 1990 and 2008 from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Results: Few studies provided robust evaluations of the programmes or their differential effects and selection of participants into programmes may distort the findings of even controlled studies. A population-level effect of legislation to combat discrimination by employers could not be detected. Workplace adjustments had positive impacts on employment, but low uptake. Financial incentives such as wage subsidies can work if they are sufficiently generous. Involving employers in return-to-work planning can reduce subsequent sick leave and be appreciated by employees, but this policy has not been taken up with the level of intensity that is likely to make a difference. Some interventions favour the more advantaged disabled people and those closer to the labour market. Conclusions: Future evaluations need to pay more attention to differential impact of interventions, degree of take-up, non-stigmatizing implementation and wider policy context in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]