Download fulltext
a368

Journal of European Public Policy ISSN: 1350-1763 (Print) 1466-4429 (Online) homepage: https://www tandfonline com/loi/rjpp20 Preferences for unemployment insurance: a question economic ideology or EU support? Theresa Kuhn Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke To cite this article: (2020) 27:2 208-226 DOI: 10 1080/13501763 2019 1701529 link to https://doi org/10 © 2020 The Author(s) Published by Informa UK Limited trading as Taylor Francis Group View supplementary material online: 30 Jan Submit your article journal Article views: 146 related articles Crossmark data Full Terms Conditions access and use can be found at com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpp20 JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY VOL 27 NO 2 208–226 Nicolib Vandenbrouckec aDepartment Political Science University Amsterdam Netherlands; bDepartment Governance Management Gent Belgium; cAmsterdam Institute Social Research (AISSR) Netherlands KEYWORDS insurance; social policy; left-right orientations; support integration; solidarity; conjoint analysis Introduction In the aftermath euro crisis policy makers started discuss creation solidarity mechanisms level rationale is twofold: first these would ease adjustment in Economic Monetary Union (EMU) second they ensure pro- tection citizens crisis-struck countries Although governments remain divided idea that EMU needs an automatic mechanism risk sharing CONTACT kuhn@uva nl Supplemental accessed This Open Access distributed under terms Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDer- ivatives License (http://creativecommons org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4 0/) which permits non-commercial re-use distri- bution reproduction any medium provided original work properly cited not altered transformed built upon way absorb shocks has been discussed both Commission (2017a 2017b) Council (Van Rompuy 2012) also increased political salience inte- gration public opinion become increasingly relevant factor legitimizing further integration (Hooghe Marks 2018) Hence it key understand what make plans establish insurance (EUI) how different design features contribute such policies paper focuses on individuals’ attitudes towards affect preferences alternative proposals EUI Exist- ing research yields mixed results showing (Kleider Stoeckel (Bechtel et al 2014; Kleider 2018; play impor- tant role structuring cross-border We argue European-level initiatives underlying notions cannot reduced single one-dimensional concept ‘social Europe’ ‘European solidarity’ entails (Baute Gallego Marx 2017) For instance includes various dimensions generosity conditionality scheme citizen likely depends expect influence impact ways show some are ‘domestic’ since mainly resonate with domestic debates hence relate more directly respondents whereas over other admin- istration ‘cross-border’ referring relation- ships between reflect citizens’ orientations conducted survey experiment involving 19 500 across 13 ask choose randomly assigned pairs packages varying six dimensions: (1) their (the minimum benefits secured support); (2) whether there conditions participating providing education training unemployed; (3) involves permanent between-country redistribu- tion; (4) taxation respondent’s country; (5) administered national governments; (6) attached individual unemployed aim important existing posals study differences consider generos- ity predominantly well-known contrast we redistribution administration refer relationships find only about 3% reject all forms unem- ployment while 6% lend unconditional general schemes fea- tures background characteristics Supporting our hypotheses dimension substantially traction depending point extent same direction but less straightforward have individual’s except apply programmes provide latter observation may explained fact left- right cleavage does out edu- cation plays gener- osity distinction clear-cut regard argued repeatedly next Banking Capital Market fiscal stabilizers (Franchino Segatti 2019) One option achieve re- benefit euro-zone (European 2017a organization re-insurance was rehearsed successive official reports subject matter academic (summarized focus happenstance Unemployment supports purchasing power recession therefore stabilizer par excellence Historically crucial building block development welfare states often established moments major (Rehm 2016) It unsurprising Great Recession triggered debate EMU-wide today’s assigning realm remains politically uphill battle Given resistance against ideas Sensitive issues concern among others member degree might emerge These dealt emphasis questions differentiates from studies EU-wide test predispositions share resources borders circumstances need relatively broad results: considerable (Ferrera Pellegata 2017; Gerhards come nuanced conclusions (Lahusen Grasso heavily domain review (Genschel Hemerijck empha- sizes self-interest notably individuals net benefici- aries contributors given employment status (Naumann profile income justice perceptions egalitarianism ‘deservingness’ Oorschot combine con- siderations scale measures respondents’ position control currently employed context evolving ideological realignment experienced western societies Teney 2014) examine specific affects varies people’s On one hand ‘old’ left still determinant interacting independently (Alesina La Ferarra 2005) actual While positioning partially endogenous shown possible dis- entangle two effects (Margalit 2013) closely aligned ideology: beyond evaluations differ views fairness equality state regulating market beliefs (Jaeger 2006) international (2018: 1) ‘voters’ fuller understanding conflict transfers’ prospect complicates things because touches ‘boundaries (Kuhn Kamm 2019): traditionally bound nation people disagree immigrants living abroad should (Pardos-Prado 2020) literature chauvinism shows many generally supportive time seek exclude its (Mewes Mau (2019) Spain do structure linked emerging divide opening closing globalization Zürn de Wilde Empirical expectations identity cosmopolitan atti- tudes significantly willingness bailout turn Franchino experiments Italy union conflicting multidimensional nature concepts multidimen- sionality salient case complex labour especially those multilevel settings multidimensionality rather than assessing Studies bailouts (Gallego sensitive changes along vary Most consequences pursued within potential (it sets floor benefits) supranational defines overall volume generated scheme) Or take another example comply legitimacy ‘insurance contract’ Notwithstanding complexity partition into ‘(mainly) domestic’ cross-border’ (Table sider dimen- sions ‘Domestic’ imply understood means own country attitude (expected be) Table 1 Dimensions levels Levels Characterization Expectation Generosity 40% Domestic 60% 70% Country-level No Education dimension* long-term Cross-border Long-term rich too poor Taxation increase 0 5% everyone 1% governance National Individual Accept job once week * bestowed community indi- vidual equally constitutes think intrinsic value (its beneficial effect) qua per se A if tude relations Admittedly always clear-cut; indicate respect activation arguably classified provides overview characterization groups interact differently speak plausible pro-Euro- pean eurosceptics moreover reasonable greater H.1.1. Citizens’ (between-country tion administration) strongly tie long-standing conflicts econ- omic influenced Individuals left-wing will redistributive character Similarly right-wing prefer generous conditional H.1.2. positions (generosity taxation) orientation embedded online states: Austria Belgium Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Ireland Poland models past performance geographical location zone membership Fieldwork company IPSOS took place October November 2018 Conjoint used analyse multidi- mensional 2019; Hobolt Rodon asked profiles representing Each series values Our introduced short information ensuring sustainable facing crises (appendix Figure itself 6 large ongoing (Vandenbroucke match conceivable variations allow analy- sis fundamental respondent evaluates three indicating rating each proposal individually evaluate total Both selection (i e combination dimensions) order completely randomized concerns percentage last wage ployed (or ‘replacement rate’) insured (40% 70%) captures include lower replacement rate framing clarify able higher so wish expenses words creates common country-level i must fulfil receive funding simple investment structured (‘no conditions’ ‘education training’) third cerns individual-level ditionality focusing job-search effort levels: ‘no ‘accept suitable offer lose benefit’ ‘apply least accept fourth refers involve no beneficiaries Three included (‘insurance option’) long run: capped contribution (‘tolerant paid necessary Finally (‘redis- tributive run (on purpose) fifth scheme: capture administrations body implement possible: impact’; ‘taxes income’ rich’ random sample drawn Quotas age gender regional distribution final follows population 2% discrepancy demographic category most deviating 4% Surveys were translated main languages restrict who passed attention check did give set inconsistent answer patterns exper- iment 3 analytical 93 612 observations Operationalization Dependent variables dependent (DVs): binary package choice ordered score individ- uals estimates stable model- ling robustness checks alter composition (including inattentive individuals) vari- (package score) esti- mation methods (OLS Logit Multilevel Mixed Effects) embedding model (using choice-pairings levels) Appendix 5e B1 (Full Interaction Model) 4 Independent measure construct composite indicator including elements divide: gov- ernment responsibility business regulation standardized items just enough together (Cronbach alpha 53) 3b wording indicators using 5 elements: identification importance well-being Europeans trust leaders quite well 77) statistics indicator’s Control account (standardized 9 ISCED-11 categories) household dummy variable being dummies specifications variability Results Split-sample approach 4a assessment imental dimensions; however detailed scope Instead split- ting subsamples cluster according look split samples explore causal effect (Leeper respon- dents opposite gauge Europe creating four Since significant left/right whose larger standard deviation above/ below mean 7 Testing split-sample steps step estimate subsample All (models 1–4 2) OLS estimator variable; robust errors clustered 8 Model respectively high low scores Thus obtain coefficients estimated (left-wing respondents) coefficient equal 347 ceteris paribus increases when shifts (respondents favour redistribution) 082 substantial difference variation examined exam- ined 2: clearly left/ sensitivity; cal- culating absolute coefficients; shift 1–2 265 calculation 3–4 based reveals inter- esting (pro-European (eurosceptics) 05: very systematically compare sensitivity measured clustering popu- lation above (0 265) much 05) Put differ- ently Sensitivity tested via Main Hypothesis testing pro-European anti-European C: abs D Coefficients omitted R2 08 07 06 05 N 968 11 724 14 364 Notes: Figures individual-robust SEs parenthesis p < 1; **p 05; ***p 01 Models columns models; grey shade: hypothesis confirmed; rejected confirms presents seventh column indicates ernance shade supported figures linear condition basis pro/anti-European With turns made (for H1 holds) everybody: (as compared change) interaction marginal 3) full-interaction actions EU-orien- tations allows us intensity polarization Further- full assess evolve simultaneously; reach splitting Again consistent number 6; details see footnote action panels reproduce predicted scales (from −3 – wing anti-EU) (left pro-EU) align result analysis; relative size average equivalent additional insight (panels As place- ment approaches extreme 3: (scale) int eraction (left- scale) (EU Left-right polity 036 (1 70)* 099 (5 22)*** n/a (base level) 217 163 014 (23 72)*** (10 78)*** 06) 277 261 020 (28 69)*** (16 59)*** 4) 155 002 037 Pure (20 97)*** 18) (3 45)*** From 019 (2 11)** 024 64)*** 045 10)*** 080 51)*** 059 (4 49)*** 069 31)*** −0 136 (15 20)*** 067 032 23)** 026 97)** 006 (7 52)*** 47)*** 43) 058 46) 148 (12 65)*** 168 96)*** 292 (18 02)*** 079 Low 144 (14 26)*** 054 336 8)*** 44)*** Logged 039 93)*** Currently 28)** Age 010 66)* Female 11) Constant 273 (30 78270 individual- T-statistics par- entheses *p First country-fixed However characterized holds prefer- ences ‘tolerant’ cross-country Marginal black light When constrained pro-Eur- opeans supporting anti- opposing suggests concerning genuine activate sensibilities polarize yet new sum confirm exceptions: EU; Conclusion poorly under- stood An fills lacuna exploring dents’ designs start particular constructs Therefore gather conforms expected them personally better deploy modelling surveyed expressing dom- estic search effort; presence (ranging right) associated associ- ated although originally envisaged determining support; moderates versus expectation rejected: turned moderated instead sources favouring tend (Hakhverdian country- Second world view motivates aspect speaks –in posi- tive sense Either far placement insufficient evidence slightly slope steeper statistically highest yielded scales: pro-Europeans anti-Europeans oppose finding resonates recent finds high-income weak negative assess- issue voting candidate’s Brexit voters Some limitations invite caution interpreting maintain simplicity avoid cognitive biases here sub-sample scheme; (not experiment) even variance limited (r-square rarely 8%) suggesting phenomena (possibly macro-level) lacking small (13) limits regard: future dataset macro-level immerged post-stratification weights correct minor deviations targeted quotas practice introduction tailored perceived weaker unlikely without part ‘grand bargain’ tighter strengthened macro- coordination negotiating exchanges impossible net-contributor underestimated net-recipient could over-estimated notwithstanding coexist ideologies Notes 1. following exception: presented fol- lowing 2. Belgian French Dutch; Spanish region Catalonia offered Catalan; Estonians Estonian Russian 3. 12% gave B whilst expresses B) alternatives; 4. baseline (model Score exclud- controls 5a respondents; 5b excludes 5c fear becoming preference migration servative reproduced Choice 5d 5f) embeddings (5g 5h) Annex available request 5. Household log middle decile belongs (income after tax compulsory deductions sources) 6. 4b analyses They largely 7. cases 8. 4c report logit (also ual-variable appendix 4b) Acknowledgements thank Brian Burgoon Sara Sergi Pardos Toni participants workshop ‘Domestic contestation Union’ London School Econ- omics December anonymous reviewers helpful comments Sven Hegewald David van der Duin excellent assistance usual disclaimers Disclosure statement interest reported authors Funding KU Leuven (Belgium) Istituto Nazionale l’Ana- lisi delle Politiche Pubbliche (INAPP Italy) acknowledges Dutch (grant nr 451-13-029) Associate Professor science Assistant Ghent affiliated ORCID http://orcid org/0000-0001-8784-1731 References Alesina Ferrara E (2005) ‘Preferences land oppor- tunities’ Economics 89(5-6): 897–931 Baute S Meuleman Abts K Swyngedouw M (2018) ‘Measuring Europe: approach’ Indicators 137(1): 353–378 Bechtel Hainmueller J Margalit Y (2014) redistribution: eurozone bailouts’ American 58(4): 835–856 (2017a) ‘Reflection deepening monetary union’ COM(2017) 291 31 May Brussels: avail- https://ec europa eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper- emu_en pdf (accessed July (2017b) ‘Communication Parliament Central Bank New budgetary instruments Euro area framework’ COM (2017) 8222 Final eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/com_822_0 Ferrera ‘Can reconciled? REScEU Working Paper Series Milan: Milan February 2017 centroeinaudi it/images/ locandine/REScEU_Mass_survey_results_SHORT_VERSION F P ‘Public Eurozone union: evi- dence Italy’ 26(1): 126–148 ‘Multi-dimensional reforms: experiment’ 24(7): 1027– 1047 Genschel ‘Solidarity Brief Transnational 2018/01 Florence: https://cadmus eui eu/bitstream/handle/1814/53967/STG_PB_2018_01 pdf? sequence=4&isAllowed=y Lengfeld H Ignácz Z Kley Priem ‘How strong solidarity?’ BSSE 37 Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin polsoz fu-berlin de/soziologie/arbeitsbereiche/makros oziologie/arbeitspapiere/bsse_37 html Hakhverdian Van Elsas Brug W T (2013) ‘Euroscepticism education: longitudinal 12 1973–2010’ Politics 14(4): 522–541 ‘Cross-cutting electoral choice: Brexit’ doi:10 1080/ 13501763 1701535 Hooghe L G ‘Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset Rokkan transnational cleavage’ 25(1): 109–135 Jaeger (2006) ‘What makes vision: ideology? Acta Sociologica 49(3): 321–338 ‘The politics Explaining transfers EU’ 58 (1): 1–26 boundaries solidarity: Review 11(2): 179–195 Solaz ‘Practising you preach: cosmopo- litanism promotes redistribute 25(12): 1759–1778 Lahusen C comparative discussion’ (eds) Solidarity Responses Times Crisis Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan pp 253–281 Leeper Tilley subgroup experiments’ Analysis 1017/pan ‘Explaining preferences: great reces- sion’ 107(1): 80–103 Mewes ‘Globalization socio-economic chau- vinism: perspectives toward exclusion immigrants’ International Comparative Sociology 54(3): 228–245 Naumann Buss Bähr (2016) experience state: real panel Sociological 32(1): 81–92 Pardos-Prado ‘Labour deregulation immigration radical voting’ 1701536 Rehm Risk Inequality Welfare States Development Dynamics Cambridge: Cambridge Press ‘Mobilizing costly policies: party cues JCMS: Common 56(2): 446–461 Lacewell O De ‘Winners losers ideologies’ 6(4): 575–595 Sacchi ‘Risk hits: How influ- (EURS)’ AISSR Report Amsterdam: https://aissr uva nl/content/news/2018/12/eurs Roosma Reeskens Legitimacy Targeted Attitudes Deservingness Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (2012) ‘Towards President Herman ‘Debating globalization: cosmopolitanism commu- nitarianism Ideologies 21(3): 280–301

Download fulltext
a367

Micro- and macro-drivers of child deprivation in 31 European countries ANNE-CATHERINE GUIO ERIC MARLIER FRANK VANDENBROUCKE AND PIM VERBUNT 2020 edition S TAT IS T I C AL W O R K N G PA P E Micro-and Manuscript completed December 2019 The Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse this publication Luxembourg: Publications Office Union © Reuse authorised provided source acknowledged policy documents regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330 14 12 2011 p 39) Copyright cover photo: Shutterstock/ zurijeta For use or reproduction photos other material that under EU copyright permission must be sought directly holders more information please consult: https://ec europa eu/eurostat/about/policies/copyright Theme: Population social conditions Collection: Statistical working papers views set out are those authors do necessarily reflect official opinion Neither institutions bodies nor person acting on their behalf may held responsible which made contained therein PDF ISBN 978-92-76-10529-9 ISSN 2315-0807 doi: 10 2785/831285 KS-TC-20-003-EN-N Abstract This paper analyses using scale officially adopted March 2018 to measure child-specific at level It combines single multilevel models get a full picture drivers With regard within-country differences our results confirm combined impact variables related “longer-term command over resources” indicating “household needs” However also show relationship these with differs between In richest explanatory power household needs largest whereas most deprived resource generally greater between-country specification model careful consideration We argue should include income micro if aim fully gauge households’ then assesses how much country-level features reflected individual characteristics contribute explaining across find public spending in-kind benefits significant respect Public cash transfers plays only limited role when incomes included; they play excluded does diminish importance fighting but it qualifies conclusions have analysed without controlling Finally we GDP per capita even included self-evident: shows proxy important contextual Authors: Anne-Catherine Guio Eric Marlier (1) Frank Vandenbroucke(2) Pim Verbunt (3) Luxembourg Institute Socio-Economic Research (LISER Luxembourg); (2) Vandenbroucke University Amsterdam (Netherlands); Leuven (Belgium) Table contents 3 1. Introduction() 5 2. A robust 7 3. General overview 4. macro-level determinants 17 4.1. Micro-level 4 2 Combining micro- 20 5. estimation strategy 28 6. Results 30 6.1 National 6.2 36 6.2.1. M1-M2: Empty household-level 6.2.2. M3-M12: Assessing institutional 37 6.2.3. M13-M22: 6.2.4. M23-M26: Sensitivity disposable concepts 39 6 Cross-level interactions 7. Conclusions 48 References 50 Annexes 53 1 Introduction(1) Fighting poverty investing children’s well-being has featured agenda (EU) many years February 2013 new step forward was taken published Recommendation “Investing children: breaking cycle disadvantage” (European 2013) subsequently Council Ministers An element calls Member States “(reinforce) statistical capacity where needed feasible particularly concerning deprivation” best way provide accurate actual living children making assumptions about sharing resources within develop child- specific indicators – i e based situation differ parents 2009 wave Statistics Income Living Conditions (EU-SILC) an ad hoc module aimed collecting such first in- depth analysis data carried et al (2012) optimal items identified index proposed These were again 2014 EU-SILC allowing additional (2018) final list consists covering both aspects can aggregated monitor comparative whole (28 as well Iceland Serbia Switzerland (following 2019) doing so seeks obtain better understanding joint micro-determinants (household’s labour market attachment composition costs [due housing bad health…] etc ) types Single make possible identify national risk factors offer variations Specifically allow analysing decomposing country fit measures setting advantage cross-national 31-country pooled dataset Both type Hence remain understand each (as coefficients definition allowed vary wish thank Brian Nolan Jonathan Bradshaw Elena Bárcena-Martín Bertrand Maître Kenneth Nelson Geranda Notten valuable discussions All errors strictly authors’ work been supported third Network (Net-SILC3) funded Eurostat bears no responsibility solely Email address correspondence: anne-catherine guio@liser lu Norway could due large amount missing Introduction specificities micro-drivers captured); complemented (that than populations) So illustrates strength comprehensive levers mobilised fight EU(3) contribution literature second main one view replicates confronts broad spectrum (sometimes diverging) reported suggests reasons why measured (do not) described inclusion (national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) justified fact generous welfare systems prosperous economies lead lower levels once micro-level (household-level) capture received reason would still discussed priori expect explain after relevant crucial question therefore variable whose already into account expected contrarily previous because proxies elements To disentangle replicate number presented variety macro-variables linked (generosity in-cash pro-family adequacy assistance pro- poorness transfers) different countries’ standards added value explicitly certain parents’ education migrant status (quasi-)joblessness next household’s current Often expectation “social stratification” granted further argument fourth Shapley decompositions establish relative independent & Usually econometric used relations goes provides covered organised follows Section defines illustrative reviews macro- presents detail concludes yet another advantage: allows agreed theory driven From theoretical point largely relies Townsend’s concept deprivation: “Poverty defined objectively applied consistently terms […] Individuals families groups population said lack diet participate activities amenities customary least widely encouraged approved societies belong Their seriously below commanded average family effect ordinary patterns customs ” (Townsend 1979 31) analytical framework select draws extensively 1999 Poverty Social Exclusion (PSE) Survey indicator construction methodology (Gordon 2000; Pantazis 2006) ensure item selection examined four aspects: suitability order check citizens sub-groups State) consider them necessary “acceptable” standard live “Suitability” understood face validity amongst exhibits statistically ratios known correlated reliability assess internal consistency closely group Classical Test Theory Item Response Hierarchical Omega Analysis additivity test someone score “2” suffering severe “1” indicator’s components add up successfully passed tests thus considered suitable valid reliable additive candidates being measurement “children” “household” Children items: Some (not second-hand) clothes Two pairs properly fitting shoes Fresh fruit vegetables daily Meat chicken fish vegetarian equivalent Books home age Outdoor leisure equipment Indoor games 8. Regular 9. Celebrations special occasions 10. Invitation friends eat time 11. Participation school trips events 12. Holiday Household 13. Replace worn-out furniture 14. Arrears 15. Access Internet 16. Home adequately warm 17. car private keep mind some collection processing First relating collected themselves adult answering questionnaire” (household respondent) Secondly according survey protocol followed given assumed all belonging course preferable know separately; study households (e g girls likely boys suffer same teenagers younger children?) quite delicate lengthen significantly EU- SILC questionnaire Thirdly “children’s items” relates aged 15 (i bracket) Therefore covers Yet attending (school trips) Besides above 17-item includes As emphasised (2012 2018) impacting immediate indirect Indeed qualitative studies shown financial strain often ask things need try protect stress feelings guilt (Ridge 2002 2011) Using propose aggregate unweighted sum ranging 0 (no lacked) (all (see 2012 110 opt rather weighted deprivations) very high Cronbach’s alpha 70 (the usual minimal threshold) 90 seven EU-28 worth highlighting enforced retained three answer categories proposed: child(ren)/ child(ren)’s (have) item; (do) (they) cannot afford it; Only lacking affordability (and choice reasons) Those “other reasons” treated together who There however questions raised notion (McKnight 2013; McKay 2004) modality encompass range situations: people want/need prevented having caring responsibilities vehicle/ transport feeling unwelcome case adaptive preferences shame admit unaffordable (Guio 34) That investigated replying They (rather simple lack) makes control cultures parental practices discriminate worse-off better-off ensures higher sets threshold rest will analyse (ranging 17) proportion intensity rate(4) (4) level: lacked here looks incidence compared heat map highlights showing several Bulgaria Romania contrary low (Nordic Austria Netherlands Luxembourg) there mixed depending disadvantages advantages others Figure distribution (aged years) Around 50% One lacks two 1: Distribution non-EU (pooled data) (%) Source: cross-sectional computation At ranges 4% Sweden 71% “Heat map” providing Child Fruit Shoes Proteins Celebration Clothes School Friends Car Leisure Arrear Holidays Furniture 8 9 Finland 16 11 24 Denmark Switzerlan Netherland 25 Luxembou Slovenia Spain 13 34 46 Germany Malta 21 22 29 Cyprus 41 40 60 Belgium 19 18 Italy 38 Ireland France Portugal 23 57 Czech Rep 47 Poland 26 United king 35 33 Croatia 32 Greece 54 Estonia 27 Lithuania 61 Slovakia 45 Latvia 42 55 67 Hungary 51 52 43 49 72 Note: Countries ranked 2010 part Europe Heads State Government upon target: lift million “risk exclusion” target basis indicators: at-risk-of rate equivalised 60% median (5) line varies country) entire (MD) following nine (capacity) avoid arrears rent mortgage utility bills unexpected expenses meal meat every day week annual holiday away access (6) washing machine (7) TV (8) telephone (9)(6) opposed paper) (quasi-)joblessness) 20% ratio total months working-age (18-59) members worked theoretically 0-59 children) People “at poor and/or severely materially (quasi-)jobless version usefully constructed replacing considering If five clusters Figures 3) completes hierarchical cluster leads groups: • Cluster (around 70% countries) (32% 39% respectively) nevertheless among lowest (6%) highest (15%) net (disposable) calculated steps: a) monetary member itself (these capital inter-household taxes contributions paid deducted sum); b) size (net) divided “equivalent adults” so-called OECD-modified gives weight (1 subsequent 14); c) finally resulting figure attributed equally (adults referred “severe” MD contrast “standard” initially year before (threshold deprivations nine; see 2009) 2017 decided replace 2016) (items 1-6 plus inability furniture) (inability to: ones spend small money him/herself regular friends/family drink/meal month internet connection) Referred “Material rate” now portfolio progress towards protection objectives (on Bulgaria) characterised prevalence (between 47%) poverty: 13% (one rates EU) against around 25% (almost 30% Serbia) Among (two contains medium-to-high (22 28%): UK heterogeneous (there two-to-one Spain) (Ireland (21%) 9%) side side) Czechia constitute low-to-medium rate/intensity latter exception comparable performance share Nordic (Cluster 5) (except (25%)) clustering heterogeneity situations similar performances essential richness available complement context sections deepen through systematic investigation dependent introduced analyses: 2: Proportion (out non- 3: 4: (average items) existing (material) documented population) distinction drawn “micro-level” “macro-level” socio-economic deprivation(7) By look unemployment inequality state regime example Kenworthy Recently approaches jointly settings Kim 2010; Chzhen 2012; Whelan Israel Spannagel 2014; Visser Saltkjel Malmberg-Heimonen 2017; (2019) concomitant complementary estimating estimated (individual/household-level) country-specific hence variance Then compare effectiveness between- Country-level captured demographic socioeconomic influence Tárki stratification – stratum belongs relation probably complex reduced form empirical for: influences commands extensive review Perry Boarini Mira d’Ercole 2006 specify notwithstanding difficulty distinguish likelihood just 4): longer-term resources; health housing; Deprivation emerges confrontation become clear 1) grouped 2) (but fully) “resources” “needs” its holds instance consumption “proxy” models: support family/friends direct wealth Also highlight crude miss elements: what poor/deprived quality services? depends consume turn “command Although usually association far perfect imperfect link 2001; 2006; 2007; Berthoud Bryan 2011; Fusco explained difficulties measuring notably self-employed people) equal But importantly determined future ability borrow plausibly serve (in addition income) overcome short-term difficulties: educational attainment Borrowing economic jargon permanent liquidity constraints(8) Ceteris paribus (for characteristics) indeed correlate with: i) stronger position less vulnerability adverse shocks precarious employment); ii) educated richer implies bequests wealth; iii) easier constraints; iv) return human born outside correlates factors: vulnerable inherited difficult institutions(9) signal predictor risks hamper constraints Given availability able debt burden mentioned extent individual’s moot question; Brady (2017) recent explorations issue Here start joblessness (9) On de Neubourg evel six variables: yearly non-equivalised households(10) expressed purchasing (PPS)(11) 1000 logarithm linear forms regressions regression obtained enter separately below) parent (operationalised dummies: primary secondary education) medium (upper post-secondary non-tertiary (tertiary reference category) (jobless) equals adults 18- 59 excluding students) potential during past d) dummy whether EU(12) (migrant) e) (debt burden) payment debts hire purchases loans loan connected dwelling heavy f) presence (self-employment) take sub-population experience Needs increase maintain depend tenure 2004; 2019)(13) introduce costs): self-reported (bad health) reports (14) (rent) rents (free reduced) tariff owning own house (15) dummies including repayment (instalment interest) insurance service charges (sewage removal refuse maintenance repairs charges) (heavy light (light category socio-demographic composition: (10) summing deducting (11) Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) Standards (PPS) convert amounts currency artificial common equalises currencies (including currency) noted PPS tool price Reference budgets priced baskets goods services regions cities achieve sound alternative moment (12) (Iceland Switzerland) neither residence (13) Childcare (using childcare attendance) sample had cost ad-hoc 2016 appropriate becomes tested “limitation activity” “suffering chronic condition” alternatives separate renting free gave while insignificant 0-17 students 18-24) (number instead implicitly adjusting equivalence done calculation poverty) oldest 1-15 (age child) basket induces bias favour younger/older single-parent (single parent) perspective (it fewer possibilities employment pooling adult) fixed (housing represent (remember equivalise incomes) (They reconciling life part-time inactivity; inactivity activity dataset) summary statistics found Annex correlation consideration: research wants inappropriate summarises (child) macro typically capita; (2014) whilst raises questions: plausible certainly resources”; presumably literature) objective good leaving bound mix impacts say examining always wrong focuses might want exclude (16) feel uncomfortable discussion he agree conclusion kinds determine except capitamedian accounted prime macro-variable benefits: receipt result prima facie counterintuitive deserves interpretation discuss Literature /Macro- Determinants Sample Econometrics Main Findings Data: (2008) Unit analysis: Individual (below 65 age) Index: Standard Determinants: Micro (female lone two-parent unemployed migrant) (type-case long-term expenditure active (ALMP) non-means-tested benefit expenditure) normally substantial negatively associated After ALMP expenditures Looking effects cross-level author finds reduce individual-level (2009) person) Model: Multilevel Dependent variable: Basic comprises absence adequate heating (logarithm professional occupation (pre-primary gender marital immigrant tenure) Disposable head (GNDH) Gini) person’s basic proportions within- macro-economic contributed relatively little GNDH explanation Further GNDH: contingent society logistic Material (gender youngest activity) controlled Once variation disappears (ESS) Economic Confirmatory factor ordinal (0-6): ‘I manage income’ draw my savings expenses’ cut back holidays equipment’ (quartiles) job urbanization ethnicity) (unemployment changes percentage Macroeconomic circumstances Various crossed found: generosity affect deprivation-reducing (country-level interaction) Bárcena-Martin (2007) cross- sectional Linear frequency weights young old tertiary structure variables) (long-term S80/S20 (jointly) introduction country- reduces percent inequalities decrease (2008-2012) (low owner-occupier works sector (Minimum scheme rate) Total negative minimum Severe Bárcena-Martın urban area owner illness condition female (HRP) HRP HRP) (GDP long s80s20 functions) half specifications strong functions targeted intended appear effective reducing regressed Malmberg- Heimonen birth limiting longstanding self-defined level) (Social inverse Welfare disadvantaged assessing combination group-specific Extension (online appendix) mobilise (total in-kind) targeting families/children pro-poorness adequacy: operationalised expresses derived System integrated Protection (ESSPROS) database % GDP) (cash (in-kind sickness/healthcare disability family/children pension survivor elsewhere classified exclusion benefits(17) Alternatively (any family- benefits) micro-data transfer computed Lacking ESSPROS head) sums evaluate geared (family gross (18) remember cash-transfers coefficient straightforward above) aspect redistributive system degree universalism open debate Following Marx co-authors (2013) Diris distributed deciles pre- (pro-poorness bottom 50) (19)The (more 75%) going Kingdom Again require since descriptive indicates confirmed argues via expenditure-based approach Expenditure-data (17) seem pensions 2017) non-elderly individuals (mainly intergenerational prevalent) (EU-SILC micro-data) (19) pre-transfer (excluding pensions) 20) robustness business refer data(20)) taxation Furthermore looking treatment “household-type” approach): drawbacks cross-country 2014) Household-types simulate standardised averaging Whilst limitations especially representative types” various (Bárcena-Martín Still type” interesting schemes review) (adequacy schemes) focus type: married couple eligible assistance(21) OECD general practice capita) 100 (Serbia) 800 (Bulgaria) 74 500 (Luxembourg) (median Median 230 (Romania) essence value-added produced sectors economy subset Contrary last option captures Even though “(quasi-)jobless” indicator) International Labour (ILO) (ILO concept) population; (20) people/households (with figures (21) sensitivity Tests couples assistance) Altering investigate count suffered binary (3+ Our displays over-dispersion Over-dispersion occurs larger mean recommended binomial technique weakens highly restrictive assumption traditional Poisson Instead estimates random parameter takes unobserved estimate dispersion zero over-dispersed run give precise nested designs respondents (i) (j) useful unobservable Formally formula: ????????[???????????????????????? |�????????h???????????????? ????????cj ???????????????? � = ???????????????????????? ???????? log�???????????????????????? β0 + βℎ????????h???????????????? ℎ=1 ???????? β???????? ????????=1 ???????? ???????????????? eβ0 +∑???????? +∑???????? β????????????????cj+???????????????? ????????????????????????�???????????????????????? �???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ????????�???????????????????????? (i=1 N) j (j=1 … J) conditional overall intercept ????????ℎ???????????????? hth (h H) βℎ ???????????????????????? cth (c C) error term ∼N(0 ????????2 ???????? calculate pseudo R² employed McFadden define (which difference values empty apply (Shapley 1953) calculates exact R²-value method decompose goodness-of-fit (Deutsch Silber indicate interested ran reveals considerable column means household- strongly intensity(22) (Austria Sweden) Conversely typology suggested (high deprivation) (cluster 4) stressed: (they (Hungary) (Greece) (much) smaller (more) (income migration) 55% [“rent” variable]) 38% size) 7% clearly detailed results) (from 36% 37% Greece; household-related confirms independently (22) earlier (23) p>z 05 5% (24) rough “volatility” tend volatility immediately concede convincing evidence hypothesis: weakly (p=0 11) [M14] 15% (after strongest (27-37%) lesser (20-22%) (very) diverging contradict scarce positively majority De Graaf-Zijl (Table 10% 6% self-employment member(s) deprivations: negative; positive (0 partly surveys challenge discriminating personal assets self- close Migration Switzerland: 7-12% 3% Households (this explains analysed) (10-15%) appears countries: almost 43% fit: 27%) (12-18%) (26%) suffers problems Lithuania) (Fusco healthcare modules increases interpreted se thirds studied indirectly deprivation-item section relate intensity) 3+ significances logit commented mainly highlighted non-significant (self-employment households) stated models) right R²-measures Resources Other socio- demograhpics Education Quasi- Debt Migrant Housing Bad Rent 2% 8% 07 1% 22% 9% 14% 29% 09 16% Average “light burden” dropped decomposition did converge Reading note: (full) percentages brackets ranks respective 5: Relative “Resources” refers migration; “Needs” health; “Other socio-demographics” Negative socio-demographics Country Intercept Low Medium (Quasi-) jobless Self- Heavy Light Number Age -0 2934 0001*** 5582*** 3364*** 2649*** 5986*** 5497*** 0046 5538*** 7538*** 3504*** 7013*** 029 2258*** 0142 9403*** 7345*** 3395*** 1331** 1736*** 1375** 0922 7595*** 3546** 0801 0005 0041 1158 0244*** 5801** 0002*** 9064*** 5112*** 086 2469*** 3204*** 3518* 5299*** 6606*** 3321*** 3648*** 0811*** 1972*** 0107* -1 2799*** 5404*** 0504 1335 5449*** 1392*** 7624*** 6162*** 1928*** 4008** 9339*** 0626 2154 0253* 9912*** 9486*** 5119*** 6238*** 2738* 5777*** 1995** 2815*** 5561*** 5807*** 5677*** 0833** 3078*** 0049 382*** 5481*** 2768*** 5406*** 4163*** 419*** 1699** 9254*** 0666*** 237*** 0353 3684*** 0265*** 6408*** 339*** 1798*** 2373*** 3254*** 2902*** 9681*** 2807*** 5288*** 2791*** 0233 1112*** 0017 8189*** 3755*** 1781*** 1048*** 0939*** 0964*** 1776*** 9293*** 5203** 2981*** 1081*** 0472*** 1338** 0028 5108** 5756*** 3957*** 442*** 1505*** 448*** 3259*** 2697*** 1664 2251*** 24*** 0467*** 066 0076** 5168*** 6332*** 3905*** 2235*** 01 3781*** 3299*** 164*** 71*** 3098*** 344*** 089*** 2667*** 0096* -23 6173*** 9207*** 4176*** 4551*** 1635* 2218*** 1625** 0614*** 1233 3335*** 3527*** 163 0044 1116 6864*** 2191*** 2158*** 2077*** 4973*** 3809*** 6938*** 4688** 4857*** 3692*** 0746*** 0158 0035 0202 3697*** 1677*** 1899*** 034 2848*** 1525*** 2895*** 4985*** 3278*** 1542*** 0106 0135*** 1542 6017*** 2827*** 1481** 2177*** 2731*** 1007 3495*** 7091*** 1841*** 1223*** 1118*** 0906 0144*** 9646*** 8792*** 4643*** 0714 4225*** 2672*** 4799*** 7587*** 133*** 0943 1708** 13*** 1155 0042 7437*** 3623*** 1219 1286 3858* 6929*** 4037*** 5178*** 5754** 5629*** 6549*** 009 8042*** 0058 5097*** 0159*** 5985*** 0212 6102*** 1136*** 1384 0151*** 2331*** 1543*** 25*** 0404*** 2127*** 4359* 5236*** 1848** 3472*** 1432* 636*** 1987*** 0945*** 4071** 5662*** 1504** 1435*** 266*** 0034 8299*** 5395*** 2234*** 0587 0355 7384*** 5932*** 7179*** 0258*** 6247*** 7235*** 0492* 4331*** 0082 52*** 1523*** 5769*** 1478 4813*** 9784*** 2211*** 4519*** 668*** 3637*** 6205*** 066* 2845*** 0051 3773** 0793*** 6337*** 076 4437*** 3795*** 6914*** 9752*** 0262 2113*** 3569*** 1073*** 3239*** 0037 261* 5541*** 2571*** 1008** 4336*** 1884*** 1799*** 1159*** 5653*** 1639*** 183*** 0268 0312 0091** 1457*** 0003*** 5131*** 3385*** 1211* 0396 2779*** -15 2373 7842*** 3786*** 1684*** 0965 0486*** 3355*** 0059 1679*** 7046*** 3442*** 1563** 2937*** 437*** 2404*** 8831*** 8745*** 4594*** 1622*** 1164*** 1743** 0024 5961*** 8941*** 4741*** 552*** 2366*** 206*** 2629 02*** 0698*** 2067*** 1554*** 2993** 0071 4217*** 5983*** 2891*** 6315*** 1197* 5583*** 4719*** 5859*** 828*** 3424** 4078*** 0927*** 2259*** 0004 -2 6208*** 0472 4236*** 6224*** 3495* 3778*** 804*** 6201*** 1335*** 7127*** 8543*** 0747* 2699* 0226 9145*** 3394*** 1905*** 2885*** 0731 3892*** 0976** 0651*** 4919*** 4128*** 8403*** 0141 1425*** 0153*** 5677** 5673*** 2272*** 0616 0887 5411*** 2607* 067*** 326** 0468*** 2701*** 0149 0038 014 4812* 6203*** 2509*** 2514*** 3455*** 1104*** 0064 6683*** 1271 2625*** 1341*** 0394*** 141** 0165*** 8659*** 5984*** 3126*** 902*** 3948** 7305*** 55*** 7356*** 9975*** 3889* 926*** 1328*** 7218*** 0001 pool (M1 gradually (M2 Next series containing comparing strengths (M3-12 macroeconomic (M13-22 (M23-25 (M26 residuals Description M1 M2 M3-M12 M13-22 M23-M25 M26 Household-level (all) var (% iables: 70) exist reflects sign magnitude original (57+14=71%) Most income: 57% intercepts compositional costs) role: 19% Models ten purpose Several reveal determinant reduction expected: head/child In-kind respectively 35% (M5 M8) corresponding 23% provision freely (or driver necessities Aaberge conclude policy-wise important: devoted M9) M10) PPS) round pro-families’ (Models M19-20) minor (9% M11) Variables comparatively Measures attain negligible (16% M12) effectively easily explained: former absolute (M13-M22) [M15] [M18]) (M21) regroups kind [M13]) deprivation(23) Family cash) safety nets that: 21% 24% (PPS/head) 28% remains development global accounts Pro-poorness slightly prioritise co- unexplained (quasi- )joblessness aims accounting Why background protected countries? “hidden” gifts conjecture (though hypothesis examination) end distribution: functioning automatic stabilisers edifice volatility(24) words seems “permanent income” Another “qualitative” Richest (education “level development” partially data: insufficient societal cushioning M13-15 longer taking M15 [M26] (84 versus 83% M26) measure: (33% expense striking observation co-regressed omitted (results shown) nuance shaped pointed consensus mitigated affluence (Nelson examine introducing slopes(25) influenced slopes findings nuanced mitigate needs: generate slighter affluent migration interaction low-educated showed qualifications declines (25) slope adding covariance computational conducted none lose significancy change singe relationships slight imply significant) deprivation-increasing positive) (such one’s struggling needs/costs argued significance exceptions lies non-income (Annex M13) insignificance M23) M24) Model (of Coeff 03 00 Self-employment (Quasi-)joblessness 75 Constant Random Estimates Explained 71 91 66 observations 88901 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 04 Cash 08 78 80 81 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 44 02 Adequacy minimum-income 82 77 M13 M14 M16 M17 Unemployment 58 06 88 83 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22 92 99 86 M23 M24 M25 84 Interaction 003 00008 93 Quasi-joblessness 94 00002 (bottom 85 000 demonstrate (current status) (costs powerful predictors are: illustrate systematically schemes; it) predicting operates model) unrelated deprivation; logically don’t shapes (based capturing 27% (micro-) 11% come mind: between-households conceived “affordability” incomes; pursue crossed-effects construe resources”) (rate count) Langørgen Lindgren distributional In: Atkinson B (eds Monitoring pp 159-188 Bárcena‐Martín Lacomba Moro‐Egido Pérez‐Moreno Differences Review Wealth 60(4) 802-820 Blasquez M Budria Moro-Egido 15(4) 717-744 Barcena-Martin Blanco-Arana Perez-Moreno Transfers Countries: Pro-poor Targeting Pro-child Targeting? Journal Policy 47(4) 739-758 (2011) longitudinal 40(01) 135-156 d’Ercole (2006) Employment Working Papers No Paris D Giesselmann Kohler U Radenacker How US Inequality 1-25 Charpentier Mussard 9(4) 529-554 Y Great Recession Innocenti Paper 2014-06 UNICEF Florence J Lone Parents 22(5) 487–506 21(5) 413-431 Martorano Menchini multidimensional 2012-02 Background Report Card Deutsch ‘fuzzy set’ analyze Lemmi Betti Fuzzy Set Approach Multidimensional Measurement Springer New York 155-174 F Verbist Europe: orientation 745-775 Investing Children: disadvantage 2013/112/EU Brussels -C Characterising 132-153 Gordon Adelman Ashworth Levitas Middleton Patsios Payne Townsend Williams (2000) Britain” Joseph Rowntree Foundation “What Learned Indicators Europe?” Methodologies Official Communities (OPOCE) A-C Measuring Child-Specific office Fahmy Nandy Pomati (2016) Improving 26(3) 219- 333 Najera H Towards 11(3) 835-860 convergence Combating (COPE) project “Public Services Are Important Antipoverty Tool” in: Progress Poor Oxford Press Epstein Duerr Lee (2010) states 99(3) 391-404 Tamborini Sakamoto Sources Life Chances: Does Class Category Occupation Short-Term Earnings Predict 20-Year Long-Term Earnings? Sociological Science 206-233 Salanauskaite paradox redistribution revisited: peace? IZA Discussion 7414 Study Bonn (2004) preference: ‘consensual indicators’ really mean? Fiscal 25(2) 201-223 McKelvey Zavoina (1975) “A variables” mathematical sociology 4(1): 103-120 McKnight ‘need’ CASE Annual Centre London Counteracting 22(2) 148-163 “The life” Britain Millennium Bristol Chapter 89-122 (2002) mismatch outcome Zealand 101–127 Ridge Childhood Exclusion: Child’s Perspective everyday childhood: exploring lives experiences low‐income 25(1) 73-84 Malmberg‐Heimonen Generosity Multi‐level Disadvantaged Groups Administration 51(7) 1287-1310 (1953) Value n-person Games Kuhn Tucker Contributions Annals Mathematical Studies Princeton 307–317 Snijders Bosker Analysis: Advanced Modeling (second edition) Sage Publishers Better monitoring instruments policies prepared Secretariat Inclusion Ministry Justice Budapest (1979) Penguin Hardmonsworth Explaining vere 1-42 Gesthuizen Scheepers 2007–2011 115(3) 1179-1203 Layte Understanding dynamic 20(4) 287-302 (2001) community panel sociological 17(4) 357-372 Comparing dynamics: Issues 4(3) 303-323 enlarged 83(2) 309-329 Stratification Mobility 30(4) 489-503 29(6) 1162-1174 Young (1985) “Monotonic solutions cooperative games” Game 14(2): 65-72 High Parent(s) self Renter (child (deprived (1000 69 63 56 96 76 62 68 79 98 95 73 64 89 97 87 (continued) Jobless educcation Self-employed meaning Correlation Pro- minimum- Logistic Estimate Pr>|t| *** ** -5 * -4 -14 -3 -19 -7 -21 Pooled 6: 655 052 224 412 704 228 610 676 187 959 538 728 265 045 166 020 428 139 229 933 531 431 469 557 439 377 436 153 182 184 151 056 012 220 050 159 099 136 001 320 169 340 266 245 433 491 397 394 438 536 474 575 578 530 368 154 467 526 546 152 185 161 221 352 385 310 051 016 222 041 011 175 021 018 178 372 477 520 430 464 601 489 448 540 503 329 370 327 319 369 125 134 146 122 022 055 197 025 032 215 044 192 168 707 013 638 024 005 832 002 940 037 107 033 103 251 211 235 761 160 374 354 389 408 599 620 583 563 309 411 371 421 138 144 141 118 004 817 155 028 026 202 030 072 172 213 027 206 010 679 882 836 692 341 061 283 031 873 096 143 264 367 409 360 392 607 562 614 580 217 113 111 140 116 047 049 274 046 919 851 058 065 119 131 285 668 073 133 157 102 277 080 282 424 420 337 545 550 7: Countries’ abbreviations BE NL BG AT CZ PL DK PT DE RO EE SI IE SK EL FI ES SE FR HR IT CY (non-EU) LV LT RS LU CH HU MT “Pooled data” “Average” sizes Getting touch hundreds Direct Information Centres You centre nearest you at: https://europa eu/contact phone e-mail answers your contact freephone: (certain operators charge calls) number: +32 22999696 via: http://europa Finding Online languages Europa website eu/european-union/index_en download publications https://publications eu/en/publications Multiple copies contacting local eu/european-union/contact_en) law legal 1952 language versions go EUR-Lex http://eur-lex eu Open Data Portal (http://data eu/euodp/en) datasets downloaded reused commercial non-commercial purposes ‘longer-term resources’ ‘household needs’ eu/eurostat/

Download abstract
a364

Download fulltext
a363

167 11 Europese solidariteit De Unie heeft een sociale dimensie nodig Frank vanDenbroucke Universiteitshoogleraar aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam Sociale onzekerheid wordt vaak in verband gebracht met het wegval- len grenzen overtuiging bestaat dat internationale concur- rentie vrijheid kapitaalverkeer en arbeidsmigratie onze nationale stelsels zekerheid ondermijnen Als zo is wat kunnen we er dan doen? Moeten ons beleid op hoger niveau organiseren bijvoorbeeld Europees? In dit hoofdstuk ga ik deze vraag onderzoek mogelijkheden daarvan Het optimisme pioniers Kan je economische afbreken markten één maken zonder gemeenschappelijke standaarden voor minimumlonen bijdra- gen uitkeringen? integratie soci- ale harmonisatie? Die vormde al punt discussie jaren vijftig toen oprichting Economische Ge- meenschap (de voorloper Unie) werd voorbereid Er zelfs heel rapport gewijd: Ohlin-rapport uit 1956 Kort samengevat zei mogelijk was harmonisatie Bertil Ohlin ging ervan verschillen lonen tussen betrokken landen samenhingen productiviteit Hoge werden uitbetaald waar Daarom hoefde men niet te vrezen neerwaartse druk zou ontstaan bij vrijma- ken handel onderstreepte wel mogelijke uiteen- lopende ontwikkelingen inzake gecorrigeerd zouden worden door aanpassingen onderlinge wisselkoersen had dus over muntunie (want die laat geen toe); onbelang- rijk voorbehoud grondleggers project hebben gevolgd Ze waren overtuigd bijdragen ontwikkeling sterke welvaartsstaten overtui- alleen groei alle deel- nemende bevorderen maar ook economisch minder ontwikkelde andere gaan inhalen: convergentie-machine zorg kon gerust gemoed overgelaten voldoende vakbonden politieke partijen bestaan om vruchten netjes verdelen afspreken Landen so- ciaal vooropliepen geremd hun beleid: werkt opwaarts neerwaarts geschiedenis ongelijk gegeven tenminste tot halverwege 2000: inhaalbewegingen nati- onale gingen hand Sindsdien zien echter barsten model eerste barst geleidelijk zichtbaar meerdere hoogontwikkelde zoals Zweden Denemarken Duitsland neemt ongelijkheid toe sinds begin eeuw Zou laatste uitbreidingsgolf Euro- pese hebben? vandaag zijn alleszins grotere (kleinere) negentig véél (nog kleinere) Gemeenschap zestig tweede − spectaculaire scheur eigenlijk crisis 2008: conver- gentie-machine stokte noorden zuiden dreven elkaar Dit natuurlijk alles Kortom: lijkt meer terecht; 2008 binnen aantal lidstaten name eurozone Nederland behoort groep sterk toegenomen hier gegroeid Dat onder verregaande flexi- bilisering Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt flexibilisering sommige mensen weer economie competitief blijven zeer con- currentiële omgeving België sprake stijgende bleef beperkt Bel- gië kent problemen grote relatieve armoede kinderen samenhangt feit veel le- ven gezin waarvan ouders werk lage uitkeringen Ik onderstreep omdat ze aantonen machteloze speelbal golven internationalisering; maakt groot verschil (Vandenbroucke 2017; 2019a) Daarmee wil ontkennen sociaal kan zetten bestel meest Om ander juiste perspectief plaatsen start blik Minimumlonen Europa: inhaalbeweging Figuur 1 toont hoogte minimummaandlonen 2004 zwarte balkjes) 2019 grijze balk- jes) uitgedrukt euro’s Europa Op horizontale as staan algemeen geldend officieel vastgelegd minimumloon minstens (Duitsland Italië daar bij) verti- cale bedragen of koopkrachtpariteiten Zwarte balkjes: minimummaandloon (eerste semester) Grijze bolletjes: omgerekend (kkp) Getallen namen landen: reële stijging (in procenten) rekening houdende consumptieprijzen elk land Bron: Eurostat-website eigen berekeningen gerangschikt basis minimum- loon 2004: Bulgarije laagste Luxemburg hoogste enorm figuur lan- den Oost- Centraal-Europa; Portugal Spanje Ierland tijdens voorbije vijftien jaar stegen nog als corrigeert inflatie getallen geven ‘reële stijging’ zeggen koopkracht: hooguit 2 procent periode jaar; 5 procent; Griekenland daalde koopkracht 13 pro- cent steeg 204 verdrievoudiging bolletjes vergelijking concreet kopen verschillende Met evenveel Letland Litouwen gemiddelde prijspeil lager ligt Deze omrekening ‘koopkracht- pariteiten’ heet verandert plaatje slechts 27 houden leven duurder blijkt 41 concurrentievoordeel mini- mumlonen ten opzichte deel altijd pak goed- koper iets evolueert handomdraai veranderen Wat leren 1? kijken naar Cen- traal-Europa optimistische verhaal eer- ste gezicht bevestigd worden: convergen- tie-machine goede richting afspraken nieuwe profiteerden econo- mische eenmaking enorme stij- intussen gedwongen beneden passen goed nieuws Maar anders: terug lange loonmatiging Frankrijk onderkant loonwaaier belangrijke werknemers haast vooruit uitging muntunie: Duitse stond volledig teken Aangezien wijzigen min loonbeleid sterkste volgen zeker be- kijkt langere termijn dramatische uitwerking gaat impact uitbreiding mate algemene gevoerd misstanden detachering vereisen wetgeving Wil mijn evolutie Centraal-Europa beweren helemaal dumping – oneerlijke concurrentie lagere voorzieningen uitgebreide Europa? Neen geconcentreerd bepaalde sectoren illegale situaties gebrek controle inspectie groeiende gebruik mistoestanden geleid Detachering betekent werknemer (bijvoorbeeld) Polen contract blijft Poolse werkgever gevestigd Zijn verplicht geldende Neder- betalen loonkosten gedetacheerde laag houdt We afschaffen eengemaakte markt immers dienstverlening (Bijvoorbeeld: Stel Italiaans bedrijf Ne- derlands gebouw voorzien airconditioning installatie mankeert moet misschien Italiaanse technici derland sturen enkele dagen Je eisen Italianen ingeschakeld landse want hopeloos ingewikkeld ) deta- chering vlucht genomen niets Acties daarrond ge- lukkig Vanaf 2020 dezelfde minimale loonvoorwaarden genieten controlemogelijkheden aanzienlijk verbeterd Ook afgesproken arbeidsmarktautoriteit komt waarin arbeidsinspecties samenwerken akkoord trans- portsector bedrijven lagelonenlanden transportbedrijven hogelonenlanden onderuithalen besprekingen maatregelen tegen praktijken dum- ping sector vergevorderd Alhoewel grootschalige gunstige ontwikke- lingen toch Europe- se Vanzelfsprekend zal armer Europees tijd liggen rijker land; regel werkenden gedetacheerden recht Daarover duidelijkheid anders gemakkelijk secto- ren werken meegenieten welvaart manier gekoppeld (hoe dergelijke kop- peling geregeld via overleg wettelijk principe zijn) Sociaal ervoor zorgen haar beurt volgt zaak rechtvaardigheid; evenwichtige ling Migratie hoeft leiden Straks kom eerst kwestie aanstippen: invloed migratie meeste doen de- tachering arbeidscontract land: 2017 ruw geschat zowat 10 miljoen Europeanen 8 detacheringen (European Commission 2018) Voor hen gel- loon- arbeidsvoorwaarden rechten plichten daarbij horen rijkere belang hebben: willen stelsel zeker- heid komst Roemenië lagen 2000 betekende extra currentie Verenigd Koninkrijk geschoolde En gebeurt hangt af waarop georganiseerd Neem Koninkrijk: flexibel weinig besliste bovendien vanaf deur meteen open langrijke instroom veroorzaakt boost geeft segment betaald gewerkt mag verbazen Tegelijkertijd Ver- enigd groeiend tekort huisvesting gezondheidszorg Britten zich toene- mende begonnen toegang verwonderlijk factoren spelen bele Britse makelij: opgelegd heeft! leidt genuanceerd geantwoord hoge type aanbiedt migranten daardoor aantrekt Pijler Rechten gebaseerd vrij verkeer mooi behoud méér stichters (en Ohlin) ogen hadden Niet beter samen- werking inspecties ‘eerlijk mensen’ (fair mobility) belangrijk doorgeschoten vormen flexibiliteit banden gelegd geïnformeerd arbeidsvoor- waarden uitzondering gedekt minimumlonen… principes moeten gelden harmonisering systemen gelijken details respect geformuleerde grondprincipes keurden Commissie Parlement samen daarnet geformuleerd heb vind lijnen vormt uitgangspunt toekomst mooie totaal twintig plechtig onderschreven volgende geconcretiseerd tastbaar Sommige zullen veran- deren toegepast worden; vooral erg Een voorbeeld iederéén bescherming krijgen; zzp’ers geval: pensioen ziekte-uitkeringen werkloosheid consequent daarom verklaring kapitaal steeds duidelijker kapitaalver- keer funeste vorm belastingconcurrentie; proberen lokken verlagen winstbelasting Uiteindelijk schaadt iedereen correcte noodzakelijk onderdeel correct belas- tingstelsel welvaartsstaat financieren spelregels vennootschapsbelasting noodzaak internationaal vraagstuk verder reikt stand komen: eerlijk verlopen complexe uitdaging monetaire ver- taald concrete initiatieven ie- dereen vertaald aanbeveling ‘zachte’ weg blijkbaar enige voor- uitgang boeken toepassing komende stipt schokdempers ‘stabilisatoren’ jargon eco- nomen Verenigde Staten Sta- sociaal-economische financiële risico’s indivi- duele staten opgevangen fe- derale Amerikaanse niveau: geldt zowel crisissen banken werkloosheidskas nood hoog gestegen biedt federale steun enigde vanzelfsprekend; grotendeels voorhand gediscussieerd uitbreekt zorgt stabiliteit onbeheersbaar dreigden kwam gang; vereiste moeizame besprekin- waardoor uiteindelijk harde voorwaarden Vele experts eens solidaire verzekeringsmechanismen opzetten zodat lidsta- verzekerd wanneer getroffen ernstige idee ‘schokfonds’ doeling permanente herverdeling armere brengen verzekering: tijdelijk geholpen zo’n schokfonds ontworpen doet beroep aannemen; mogelijkheid werkloosheidsuitkeringen uniforme werkloosheidsverzekering komen; werkloosheidsstelsels bui- tengewoon complex Wel werkloosheids- verzekeringen deelnemende voldoen: genereuze werkloos- heidsuitkeringen; dekking effectieve activering werklozen inmiddels Anders gezegd: nodig; zekere convergentie betreft dergelijk gedis- cussieerd politiek verzet nogal politici misbruik krijgen kiezers opbren- nochtans voorkomen: daarnaar studies gedaan opinieon- derzoek bewijst draagvlak grensoverschrij- dende 2019b) baat ont- wikkeling lonen: gelijke tred arbeidsproductiviteit nu geval lang gematigd; gevolg onevenwicht handelsstromen verdeling rijkdom beide onwenselijk organisatie verschilt elke lidstaat gecoördineerd Naar Toen gang bracht geloofde volstond; veranderd: Enerzijds omwille unie ‘schokdempers’ waarmee klassieke opdracht uit- komen anderzijds uitbreiding; verkeer’ vereist sterker regelgevend kader pleit Unie: níét welvaartsstaat; wel- vaartsstaten gedijen instellingen supranationale domein selec- tief domeinen ondersteuning plechtige afkondiging stap Ursula von der Leyen uitdrukkelijk verwees agenda zij kandidate juli voorgelegd belooft daarin ‘actieplan’ voeren ‘wettelijk instrument’ verzekeren iedere ‘fair minimumloon’ verwijst zware schokken helpen ‘herverzekering’ na- tionale regeringen twee opdrachten: omzetten hele Unie; versterkt veilige haven uitmaken Literatuur European 2018 Annual Report on intra-European Labour Mobility Vandenbroucke Nederland: kleine Vierendertigste Pacificatielezing Breda Via: www frankvanden- broucke uva nl 2019a Addressing Global Inequality: Is the eu Part Equation? In: Diamond Patrick (ed The Crisis Globalization: Democracy Capitalism and Inequality Twenty-First Century London & New York: Tauris frankvandenbroucke 2019b s&d 76(1)