Search

4

Valtioneuvoston kanslia asetti 22.4.2020 COVID-19-tiedepaneelin tukemaan valtiosihteeri Martti Hetemäen johtamaa valmisteluryhmää koronaviruskriisin haitallisten vaikutusten arviointiin ja ehkäisyyn sekä tehtyjen toimenpiteiden purkuun ja Suomen jälleenrakennukseen liittyvissä kysymyksissä. Tiedepaneeli asetettiin toimikaudelle 22.4.–31.5.2020. Tiedepaneelin tehtävänä oli auttaa valmisteluryhmää tutkittuun tietoon perustuen arvioimaan ja ennakoimaan COVID-19-kriisiin liittyviä ja siitä seuraavia vaikutuksia sosiaalisen, terveydellisen, taloudellisen ja ekologisen kestävyyden sekä yksilöiden, yhteisöjen ja yhteiskunnan resilienssin näkökulmista. Paneeli muodostettiin seuraavien alojen asiantuntijoista: kansanterveystieteet, koulutuspolitiikka, käyttäytymistiede (ml. psykologia), resilienssi, sosiaalipolitiikka, talouspolitiikka, sekä ympäristö- ja ilmastotieteet. Valtioneuvoston kanslia asetti paneelin jäsenet Tutkimuslaitosten yhteenliittymä Tulanetin, Suomen yliopistojen rehtorineuvosto Unifi ry:n ja Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian esitysten perusteella. Lisäksi valtioneuvosto täydensi tiedepaneelia kolmella asiantuntijalla.

Social assistance and minimum income benefits are important indicators for assessing the very basic objective of social policy, namely to mitigate financial hardship and alleviate poverty. The Nordic countries have succeeded well from a comparative point of view in terms of poverty alleviation. However, last-resort safety-nets are changing. Scattered evidence indicate that Nordic social assistance have become less generous. Perhaps are the Nordic countries becoming more similar to the welfare models of Continental Europe or the United Kingdom? This study analyses central dimensions of Nordic social assistance, such as the generosity, scope and effectiveness of benefits. Data for the empirical analyses are from SaMip and LIS. We show that Finland and Sweden, particularly, have suffered from welfare decline, including less generous and effective benefits.

The aim is to assess the prevalence of poverty among families receiving social assistance. We will examine the incidence of poverty among the recipients in relation to the general poverty profile. To answer these questions, the adequacy and poverty reduction effectiveness of social assistance schemes are examined. On the contrary to earlier studies that have mainly analysed the poverty reduction effectiveness for the recipients or the population as a whole, this paper has a specific focus on different family types. Both the model family technique and the LIS data are utilised and the period of examination is around 2000. The results indicated that outcomes differ greatly between families of different kinds and to a large extent they resembled to a general poverty profile. Out of family types considered here, the best protected family type was the elderly and the least protected the young. Findings showed significant differences in outcomes between families with children and childless families. Families with children, regardless of having one or two parent, had very high rates of poverty. Taken together, families in the receipt of social assistance had significantly higher levels of poverty than other types of families.

This paper aims to assess the present social assistance schemes with the model of production of welfare and the concept of social right. The interest is in how different stages of social assistance schemes are linked and how schemes appear when a number of indicators are used. One of the aspects analysed are outcomes, i.e. the prevalence of poverty and the poverty reduction effectiveness. To analyse outcomes the LIS data are used. Six different countries are included into comparison. The findings show that the countries vary to a large extent in their effectiveness of reducing poverty. Further, they indicated that there is some relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes. Countries with more extensive social security scheme have less extent social assistance schemes. The results indicated also that the countries with less extensive social assistance schemes provide more generous levels of support, while also simultaneously the more generous schemes have smaller prevalence of poverty.