Download fulltext
2020-01-23_Presentation_Vandenbroucke_EURS_Berlin

Risk Sharing When Unemployment Hits: How Policy Design Influences Citizen Support For European (EURS) BMAS (Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs) Berlin 23 1 2020 Frank Vandenbroucke University Amsterdam Introduction • Brian Burgoon Theresa Kuhn Francesco Nicoli Stefano Sacchi David van der Duin Sven Hegewald 2018 AISSR Report (December) Zusammenfassung: Grenzüberschreitende Solidarität Bei Beschäftigungskrisen: Wie Politikgestaltung Die Öffentliche Zustimmung Hinsichtlich Der Risikoteilung Erhöhter Arbeitslosigkeit Unter Den Bürgern Europas Beeinflusst  Why conduct a survey on public support for cross-border risk sharing? Our methodology: experiment with ‘conjoint analysis’ A experiment: making people think… Fixed points all the policy packages: – disbursement EU MS is triggered by significant increases in unemployment that MS; used to subsidize national systems; common (minimum) floor generosity benefit levels participating countries Moving parts: (3); conditions w r t training education (2); between-country redistribution (3) => 324 packages Taxation or administration job search effort dimension IPSOS Screen shot: Strongly favour Somewhat Neither nor against 60% Mean seen respondents 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 90% 80% 70% selected 13 member states % expressing ‘neutrals’ excluded neutrals included Package 2 3 4 Low (40% last wage) no tax increase High (70% laatste loon) taxes 0 5% income everyone (70%) within country (extra only rich) between All must provide adequate unemployed accept loose their benefit; implementation Germany France Conclusions Fundamental opposition EURS confined small segment population Citizens are sensitive design Generous can carry majorities each our sample even if generous package would require additional taxation In some domestic from rich poor eventual burden (if there be burden) necessary rally sufficient most larger decentralized associated social investment policies: conditionality key garner debate exercises community lot i e question how tolerant scheme should regard structural seems less important citizens when they express preferences than policymakers This not say such debates important; but other issues as activation requirements seem more weight citizens’ judgment More references Luigjes Fischer & The US Insurance Scheme: Model EU? Intereconomics Volume 54 September/October 2019 Number 5 pp 314-318 Pillar Rights: promise delivery in: Maurizio Ferrera (ed ) Towards Union Rights Roadmap fully-fledged Forum Torino Centro di Ricerca Documentazione Luigi Einaudi 2-11 new Commission convince alive kicking 169-176 self-critical flashback EU’s anti-poverty Bea Cantillon Tim Goedemé John Hills Decent incomes Improving policies Europe Oxford: Oxford Press 9-17 Barnard De Baere (eds after Crisis Cambridge: Cambridge September 2017 Reduction Moral Hazard: Vaccination Metaphor Vol 52 May/June 154-159 On (Re-)Insurance: Beblavy Lenaerts K Feasibility Added Value Benefit Scheme CEPS 10 February + Section notably footnotes 11 12 Appendix AMCE per country: examples (1) (2) Figure 14: Predicted Vote Sample Packages Pooled (13 countries) T 00 bJ) Q ·_p bJ)O i: j Intemally consistent u c—- – MOST POPULAR: LEAST LOW FLOOR: HIGH FLOOR BUT WITH wage NO REDIST : DOMEST IN&BTWN Must train /educate No t:rain/educate las Redist rich-to-poor redist train/educate costs Some btwn cnt:Iy Nationa l achn Eurnpean ach1ün Natio nal achnin 1% offer effmt National achni n