Search

Over the course of the past 20 years, welfare states are said to have evolved towards a ‘social investment’ model of welfare – characterized by a focus on equality of opportunity and upward social mobility along with a greater emphasis on individual responsibility. In view of these policy changes, it is necessary to assess whether traditional stratification cleavages (still) affect the occurrence of ‘social risks’. Using data from the 2005 EU-SILC intergenerational module, we consider the impact of social class (of origin) on a relevant selection of risks: unemployment, ill-health, living in a jobless household, single parenthood and low-paid employment. The results provide clear evidence of a substantial influence of social class. On this basis, we argue that social investment strategies need to take stock of the persistence of traditional stratification cleavages. Otherwise, a one-sided approach may create new forms of exclusion and give way to ‘Matthew effects’.

Social protection systems traditionally serve a dual purpose: to maintain acquired living standards in the event of social risks and to combat poverty by guaranteeing adequate minimum incomes. More recently, these goals – which are basically instances of damage compensation – have been complemented with a third objective, namely to foster ‘active inclusion’ as a means of preventing or rectifying damage. Starting from the hypothesis that the tensions between these objectives of social protection may have increased the chapter considers changes in poverty reduction by social transfers according to household work-intensity. In order to identify the role of policies it considers trends in spending levels and benefit generosity. It then reflects on the potentials and constraints to achieve more adequate minimum income protection. The most important conclusion to be drawn is the striking – and in many countries rising – inadequacy of social protection for individuals living in households with a low work-intensity.

Social protection systems traditionally serve a dual purpose: to maintain acquired living standards in the event of the materialization of social risks and to combat poverty by guaranteeing adequate minimum incomes. More recently, these goals – which are basically instances of damage compensation – have been complemented with a third objective, namely to foster ‘active inclusion’ as a means of preventing or rectifying damage. Although this third aspect is present in any insurance system, it has only come to the fore more prominently and explicitly in the context of social protection since the 1990s.1 Instruments deployed to this end may range from guidance for unemployed or disabled persons towards economic self- reliance to disincentives for prolonged benefit dependency (see among many others Barr 2001). There are inherent tensions between these three primary purposes of social protection which have arguably become more pronounced as a result of social, economic and demographic changes. More specifically, as a consequence of the occurance of so-called ‘new social risks’ and of the need to develop employment strategies it may have become more difficult to pursue the goal of ‘poverty alleviation’.

The present paper argues that we are witnessing an increase of the tensions between the three main goals of social security systems (poverty alleviation, securing living standards and prevention) and that, as a consequence, the poverty-reducing capacity of social transfers has come under pressure. The paper focuses on the working age population in 25 EU countries and on the good years before the crisis. Three different data sources are used: ECHP, its successor EU-SILC and the German SOEP. The paper augments the traditional pre-post approach by considering more direct policy indicators such as spending levels, observed average benefit levels and theoretical tax benefit packages and by focussing on the distinction between work-poor and work-rich households. We find that in many countries the relative decline in poverty reduction has primarily affected work-poor households. This observation is confirmed by more direct policy indicators. It may support the hypothesis that in many countries the poverty alleviation function of social protection has come under pressure as a consequence of a shift of attention towards preventing benefit dependency by recommodification on the one hand and ‘securing living standards’ for working families on the other hand.

Welfare state decommodification is one of the central concepts in the comparative study of welfare states. Mainstream literature on the subject has however two important shortcomings: (1) it neglects the decommodifying potential of labour market institutions (‘in-work decommodification’) and (2) it is mainly occupied with cross-national variation – not longitudinal change. This paper presents indicators of ‘benefit decommodification’ and ‘in-work decommodification’ as to determine whether long-term trends exist – going back to the early 1980s. On the whole, no generic trends are found, but some clear country clusters can be distinguished. Most remarkable is the substantial recommodification in most Nordic countries and the Netherlands. The Anglo-Saxon EU member states – on the other hand – are characterized by increasing welfare state decommodification since the mid-1980s, following a short period of substantial retrenchment in the early 1980s. In sum, we find indications of modest convergence, especially among EU countries. Besides, we observe that high ‘benefit decommodification’ is consistent with high ‘in-work decommodification’ – although the longitudinal relationship is less outspoken.

This working paper explores how the poverty reduction capacity of social security evolved in the ‘booming’ years leading up to the current economic crisis. The question to arise is whether and, if so, why social protection provides an explanation for, on the one hand, disappointing poverty trends in many of the EU15 and, on the other, declining poverty risks in Ireland and most of the new Member States. To what extent are these trends connected with expanding labour markets and evolutions in pre-transfer poverty on the one hand and the volume and efficiency of cash benefits deployed on the other? Relying on ECHP, SILC and SOEP data, the paper presents and discusses empirical indications of shifts in the pro-poorness and in the adequacy of cash benefits and the mechanisms underlying such trends. We find that in the nineties the adequacy of social transfers declined significantly in the traditional strongest welfare states in the Nordic countries. Conversely, the clusters of the Southern States in the nineties and of the new Member States in the 2000s displayed a significant increase of poverty reduction by social transfers. During the first years of the crisis the poverty reducing impact of social transfer systems in Europe seems to have been on the decline in the Nordic Countries, on the Continent as well as in the East. The most important conclusion to be drawn is the striking – and in many countries rising – inadequacy of social protection for individuals living in households with a low work intensity. This points at the tension between the adequacy of income protection and activation lending credence to the notion that policies have sought to raise employment at least partially by reducing reservation wages.

Welfare states are said to have evolved over the course of the past twenty years towards a ‘social investment’ model of welfare, characterised by a focus on equality of opportunity and upward social mobility combined with greater emphasis on individual responsibility. More or less concurrently, under the mantra of ‘individualisation’, scepticism has grown with regard to the relevance of traditional stratification schemes. This paper sets out to ascertain whether social class, i.e. intergenerational background, (still) affects the occurrence of ‘social risks’. Using SILC 2005 data, it considers the impact of social class (of origin) on a relevant selection of social risks: unemployment, ill-health, living in a jobless household, single parenthood, temporary employment, and low-paid employment. The results provide clear evidence of a continuing influence of social class. On this basis, we argue that a one-sided focus on individual responsibility could open the door to new forms of marginalisation.

Welfare states are said to have evolved over the course of the past twenty years towards a ‘social investment’ model of welfare, characterised by a focus on equality of opportunity and upward social mobility combined with greater emphasis on individual responsibility. More or less concurrently, under the mantra of ‘individualisation’, scepticism has grown with regard to the relevance of traditional stratification schemes. This paper sets out to ascertain whether social class, i.e. intergenerational background, (still) affects the occurrence of ‘social risks’. Using SILC 2005 data, it considers the impact of social class (of origin) on a relevant selection of social risks: unemployment, ill-health, living in a jobless household, single parenthood, temporary employment, and low-paid employment. The results provide clear evidence of a continuing influence of social class. On this basis, we argue that a one-sided focus on individual responsibility could open the door to new forms of marginalisation. Key words: social risks, social stratification, social class, social investment state, individualisation thesis Word count: 9964 words

By way of introduction This report provides the fi rm foundation for anchoring the research that will be performed by the GINI project. It subsequently considers the fi elds covered by each of the main work packages: ● inequalities of income, wealth and education, ● social impacts, ● political and cultural impacts, and ● policy effects on and of inequality. Though extensive this review does not pretend to be exhaustive. The review may be “light” in some respects and can be expanded when the analysis evolves. In each of the four fi elds a signifi cant number of discussion papers will be produced, in total well over 100. These will add to the state of the art while also covering new round and generating results that will be incorporated in the Analysis Reports to be prepared for the work packages. In that sense, the current review provides the starting point. At the same time, the existing body of knowledge is broader or deeper depending on the particular fi eld and its tradition of research. The very motivation of GINI’s focused study of the impacts of inequalities is that a systematic study is lacking and relatively little is known about those impacts. This also holds for the complex collection of, the effects that inequality can have on policy making and the contributions that policies can make to mitigating inequalities but also to enhancing them. By contrast, analyses of inequality itself are many, not least because there is a wide array of inequalities; inequalities have become more easily studied comparatively and much of that analysis has a signifi cant descriptive fl avour that includes an extensive discussion of measurement issues. @GINI hopes to go beyond that and cover the impacts of inequalities at the same time

This paper investigates how social class shapes the occurrence of social risks, defined as socio-economic circumstances associated with significant losses of income. The motivation for this exploration derives from the ‘individualisation thesis’, which calls into question the structuring impact of social class. At the same time, social policy discourse has, under the mantra of ‘social investment’, undergone significant change, with greater emphasis being placed on individual responsibility. Hence it is important to ascertain whether intergenerational class effects (continue to) exist. Using SILC 2005 data, we consider their impact on a relevant selection of social risks: unemployment, ill-health, living in a jobless household, single parenthood, temporary employment, and low-paid employment. A pooled country model is estimated for the purpose of assessing social background effects. The results provide clear evidence of a continuing influence of social class (of origin).