Download fulltext
a362

European Sociological Review 2020 Vol 36 No 2 317–332 doi: 10 1093/esr/jcz052 Advance Access Publication Date: 12 October 2019 Original Article Solidarity between Generations in Extended Families: Old-Age Income as a Way Out of Child Poverty? Gerlinde Verbist1 * Ron Diris2 and Frank Vandenbroucke3 1Department Sociology Centre for Social Policy Herman Deleeck University Antwerp 2000 Belgium 2Department Economics Maastricht 6211 LK the Netherlands 3University Amsterdam 1000 GG *Corresponding author Email: gerlinde verbist@uantwerpen be Submitted July 2018; revised 2019; accepted September Abstract We analyse intergenerational solidarity within multigenerational households (MGHs) assess how formation these is related to poverty across countries Our aim this type household coping strategy with respect financial distress families children Using data from EU Statistics on Living Conditions (EU-SILC) we examine three specific empirical questions regards complex form notably (i) identify what extent co-residence MGHs financially beneficial young and/or old generation; (ii) income brought into by generation impacts child (iii) test sensitive impact hypotheses about way resources are shared define those where generations cohabit The results indicate that MGH operates mainly older younger Although not designed purpose pensions alleviate most prevalent Introduction In article look at sharing affects pov- erty may part house- holds Pensions key component but their role an anti-poverty device has hardly been studied Europe let alone international comparative per- spective Exploiting unique features database soli- darity 32 countries: measure contributed hypothe- ses Southern especially Eastern relatively common they far less Western Northern Different factors can explain such VC Author(s) Published Oxford Press All rights reserved For permissions please e-mail: journals permissions@oup com ranging individual preferences ex- ternal socio-economic or cultural context post- Communist combination difficult transition market economies hardship entailed many together still rela- tively low level development welfare states some provide plausible explanation high prevalence (Romania exemplary case social economic MGHs; see Preoteasa Vlase Tufva 2018) found both legacy Saraceno Keck (2010) have called ‘familialism default’ (i e neither publicly provided alternatives nor support family care) more recently fi- nancial crisis which halted long-term socio- logical downward trend [a documented Glaser et al (2018) England Wales France Greece Portugal Austria] con- trast Scandinavian highly developed long-standing ‘de-familialization’ (Saraceno 2010) obvious play previous work researchers generally focused labour supply time spent informal formal care (e g Pezzin Steinberg Schone 1999; Bertrand Mullainathan Miller 2003; Dimova Wolff 2011) However one import- ant implication left out: elderly typically bring poten- tially other substantial size As espe- cially Albertini Kohli (2012) transfers parents adult clusters (Nordic Continental Southern) do sider first analysis gains pro-child (when proportionally income) pro- (which occur through econo- mies scale) EU-SILC 2013 each scenarios (pro-child pro-elderly mutually beneficial) second relates risks logistic regression third ana- lysis contribution reduction under different cost-sharing resource-sharing A stand- ard practice study distribution as- sume fully literature however becoming increas- ingly critical assumption Such criticism hold fortiori therefore needs tested To our knowledge old-age bearing analysed studies perspective general rare dataset information intra-household allows us fill gap organized follows Background section position Data Methodology discuss meth- odology underpinning mentioned earlier Financial Multigenerational Households present final presents conclusions contributes drivers measurement putting classical Evidence genera- tions mostly refers United States seen significant increases since 1970s Studies attributed increase rises divorce rates single-parent female force participation incarceration over same period (see Baker Silverstein Putney 2008; Turney 2014) addition find among unemployment higher suggesting main motivations Cultural religion migrant status ethnicity cited another explanatory factor (Luo 2012; Pilkauskas 2012) Mutchler investigate insecurity material living grandparent-headed increased risk health three-generation no difference food housing comparison two-parent Research setting scarce inter- national An exception who share people decreasing Austria around 1981 early 2000s whereas it rising Romania [the discussed depth (2018)] They firm characterized disadvantage With well-being research South Africa indi- cates budget positive only health- clothes consumption shares (Hamoudi Thomas 2005) also cogni- tive physical (Duflo 2000) school enrolment (Case Menendez 2007) It appears shift bargaining power male head grandparent (generally grand- mother) benefits even when controlled changes any evidence indicates least extra pen- sion used benefit cannot extrapolate findings low- middle-income (such Africa) high-income coun- tries there vast tax-transfer system Ba´rcena-Martı´n Blanco-Arana Pe´rez-Moreno Salanauskaite Verbist 2013; references therein) though little known chil- dren specifically Diris Vandenbroucke (2017) estimate direct spending uncover ambiguous pension size: worsens relative thereby alleviates This performed aggregate i aims country order justice cross-country differences micro-level needed currently lacking inevitably triggers standard assumptions applies equivalence scale derive needs-adjusted metric coined ‘equivalized income’) Assigning equivalized means assumes equal shar- ing If violated misleading might drawn (Atkinson 1975; Decancq growing body equal-sharing lacks theoretical foundation sup- port Behrman Orsini Spadaro 2005; Burton Phipps Woolley Several rejected ‘classical’ model dif- ferent individuals levels often strong gender di- mension 1990; Schultz Fortin Lacroix 1997; Bennett 2013) Typically anal- yses exclusively working-age adults without likely apply number within-household re- source-sharing very limited stud- ies conducted [see Cantillon Nolan (2001) Ireland; (2007) Canada] consider will set out sections backdrop de- scriptive Therefore consists four subsections: Definitions briefly EU- SILC Measuring Direction concepts applied direction solidarity; Multivariate Analysis multivari- ate poverty; Simulation Resource-Sharing Assumption contains representative samples private (the member plus Croatia Iceland Norway Serb Republic Switzerland) defined here working age person survey than 18 64 aged 1 reveal several characteristics Supplementary Appendix Table SA1; variables controls section) First all much grandmothers grandfathers frequent large majority report suffer poor suggests need concerns major behind for- mation Another characteristic likeli- hood having substitute parent figure non-EU background Nordic Anglo-Saxon lower human capital intensity Remarkably absent reflect propen- sity operate opposite directions eld- erly could require take away activity serve facili- tators acting care- givers grandchild These SILC-based observations largely confirm (2018): ‘grandparent households’ associated (whether measured marital education level) study; grandfathers; formed head- count rate takes relevant group in- (1) Nordic: Denmark Finland Sweden; (2) Continental: Germany Luxembourg Switzerland; (3) Anglo-Saxon: Ireland Kingdom; (4) Southern: Cyprus Italy Malta Spain; (5) Eastern: Bulgaria Czech Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Poland Slovak Slovenia geographical- historical certain mature rich cluster) pretend delineated clear-cut dynamics From involved elder- ly (throughout use ‘beneficial’ mean ‘fi- nancially beneficial’) ‘pro-child’ ‘pro-elder- ly’ respectively describe whose solely ‘mutual’ sim- ple framework classify distinct categories if come counterfactual formally P þ NP below line Following prac- tice Union 60 per cent median income; with: > ESMG ESCFC incomes modified OECD composition account attributes weight 0 5 individu- als 14 3 facilitate presentation clus- ter sample five groups basis geography history former communist now (candi- date) members constitute cluster] ¼ sum non-equivalized mem- ber(s) (mostly hence ‘P’ note included P) 65; parameter equivalize exclude (persons 65þ); Expression written as: incorporated scales or: – (in MGH) improves threshold (compared whereby would excluded household) Hence counter- factual expressions formalize simple insight: forma- tion ratio divided non-elderly larger generated terfactual latter words add gain similar reasoning perspec- elderly: finan- if: makes possible surpass so lives either ‘pro- child’ presume importance question cial Children Elderly People Europe: Prevalence Poverty Outcomes show predominantly poverty- alleviating effect co-residing potentially largest subsequent em- ESCFE pirical focuses its relation cated contribu- total ESCFE¼ Equation tells equiva- lence Equations simultaneously following condition satisfied: nevertheless make up SA2) being regres- sions dependent variable (Poori) whether (0) independent interest (MGHi; yes/no) old-aged (yes/no) distinction man (YOAM) woman (YOAF) (YOAFM) thus two regressions country: < Model 1: Poori b MGHi cXi Ei short label does hold; elderly’ holds; ‘pro-elderly’ 2: contradiction b1YOAFi b2YOAMi b3 YOAFMi include control (X): (yes) more; son suffers bad (yes PH010 4 [bad] [very bad]) separate woman; born); (iv) attained educa- degree; (v) household; (vi) models allow compared two-generation (observable) circumstances correct fact tend ad- verse Note behavioural causes example because grandparents act caregivers corrected tensity reflected estimated perform simulation sess were investigating compo- nents help reduce pre-post analysis: before after inclusion com- ponent Levy Lietz Sutherland 2007; 2013)? static reactions limitation method well-known (Bergh Jesuit Mahler 2010 Marx 2016) Nevertheless provides indication important lifting above expand upon assump- standardly dis- tributive analyses full-sharing probably unrealistic selection simulations sensitivity out- comes Two extreme full hand Neither realis- tic exercises upper bounds valuable (Burton kind (examples Jenkins 1991; 1995) few investigated using explicitly ask gree income-sharing Marshall 1994) self-reported approximate true degree construct additional scenario best know- ledge indeed occurs (See SA3) partial SA4) moderate centres 70 scen- ario determined weighted average reported Notes MGHs: costs due proportion- calculate change baseline cur- rent situation un- changed scenarios: ‘No unchanged’: removed changed; corresponds persons cost taken altered While realistic absence scale’: correspondingly MGH; effectively form(s) split div- ided sub-households roof not- ably consisting person(s) adapted gets value 75 (ra- ther 1) live there- fore divide ‘Part changed’: partially old- (based SILC-reported degrees) his/ her crease construction move (as baseline) depending changing dominates results: descriptive elderly; gauges Membership Explanatory Factor estimates membership Impact Poverty: Pre-Post assesses resource Figure shows grouped regions There considerable cross- variation close somewhat smaller excep- well particu- larly typical MG On amounts 19 7 slightly (20 cent) wide (Figure 2a) statis- tically (exceptions Spain Poland) statistically non-MGHs continental instance almost twice (32 (17 should noted small surprising exist particular subgroup seem es- pecially dire offers 73 versus contrast at- risk-of-poverty percentage points (18 point difference) (16% centage (15% percent- outcomes mixed; Share Notes: Within ranked Countries resp white Source: Own calculations marked 2b) reverse Especially counterparts When comparing face fers uses formulae presented Most appear MGH: half figures substantially 90 80 Slovakia 40 (dir- ect) 15–20 while consistently pattern surpris- accrue compositional effects conclude goes cross-sectional ob- servation matches trends grandchildren highlighting according 2013: (a) (b) asterisk (*) name ‘in MGH’ ‘not (at 95% confidence interval) SA5 numbers increasingly supportive rather supported Given result focus remainder enrich 2a applying control- ling represented mutual (per Number cases Pro-elderly Mutual Pro-child SE 29 20 51 31 17 22 DK 34 8 9 56 69 53 37 NO 13 6 23 63 26 55 27 FI 25 68 66 67 IS 16 39 43 35 38 24 21 DE 83 15 76 NL 81 CH 28 48 FR 11 62 57 44 BE 47 61 41 LU 77 AT 95 58 IE UK 30 87 72 CY 52 46 MT 54 92 82 IT 341 293 ES 378 322 GR 59 188 167 PT 232 209 CZ 139 108 SI 454 EE 261 182 HU 65 288 234 SK 227 178 LT 222 196 LV 380 314 HR 89 325 237 RO 281 233 BG 290 260 PL 85 79 1041 785 RS 955 754 74 Country averages unweighted marginal (ME) inde- pendent (Model originated 2; SA6) yields negative ME arrangements given characteristics) meaning linked likelihood Logistic Member Only (OAF) (OAM) Both (OMF) 127 016 (omitted) -0 125 017 044 019 023 041 043 027 061 04 123 004 078 067 057 183 116 010 050 026 059 100 160 036 073 117 020 042 066 130 051 035 185 005 033 053 134 060 152 231 054 401 088 098 068 192 112 025 137 039 107 070 045 055 062 065 031 034 142 029 195 030 136 069 022 090 121 c 153 032 040 012 037 047 089 180 015 000 Numbers bold interval put italics Statistically coefficients OAF OAM; OMF; OAM OMF statistical significance MEs implies observed explained logistics looks separately mothers jointly signifi- cant signs coming men women presence reduces overcomes Exceptions (Austria) (Norway) exhibits (conditional) correlation cover expenses poverty: trolling back- ground do; ference becomes although itself lead greater stronger receive contribute Interestingly (Malta Greece) woman-only man-only Having ‘second’ brings comparatively indicating enough compensate his comparative- compensation suggest underlying reasons already patterns lack adequate protection fac- tors driven Other choices insights determinants considerations cash carry insight next performing Pre-post Resource- Sharing compare them column ap- proach Column security tent (with incomes) 50 (without ‘no sharing’ illustrates pass non-pension Removing story ignores scale: rest suppose cover- of) own costs; including overestimates By removing [column (2)] leads drop removes [compare columns One alter- native benchmark pertains remain current recipients (income) Sharing: Full Part Equivalence Unchanged Split 71 33 86 45 49 42 Total particularly Serbia conduct continue (thus benefiting overall remains reductions (especial- countries) (0)] pointing im- portance instru- ment avoid Finally gives (a plausible) Though consequences whole reflects SA3 size- able element preventing streams partly confirmed longitudinal year strongly traditional indicators underestimate reality overestimate Conclusion la- bour (in)formal dimensions country-specific providing range MGHs—which incomes—affects established domin- antly significantly clearly rele- vance cope giving operationalization concept doing critically resource- novel constructed crucial hypothesis picture too rosy: observe sub- calls caution interpretation Unsurprisingly (notably gener- osity degrees establish conclusion policy stimulate short-term ‘coping strategy’ directly inadequate safety nets non-financial personal room extended Moreover modernizing societies presumably past future policymakers implementing reform; ‘full resources’ tangible is—for good reasons—rationalized pension- heavy must parallel develop- systems terms services optimistic dimin- ish urgency conclusion: severe definition misclassification just limit Eyeballing EUROSTAT months worked during reference theoretically has/have category ad hoc module ‘Intra-household respondents answer Tables available ESR online Acknowledgements grateful constructive input an- onymous referees Funding was Belgian Science BELSPO (Contract BR/165/A4/CIRCLE_JPIMYBL) Joint Programming Initiative ‘More Years Better Lives’ (Part Horizon Grant Agreement 643850) References M generational conflict family: transfer regimes 1–13 Atkinson B (1975) Inequality Oxford: Clarendon L J hard- ship Journal Marriage Family 947–962 N (2008) Grandparents raising States: forms stagnant policies Societal & 53–69 E S tries: pro-poor targeting targeting? 739–758 R (2003) Intrahousehold Rosenzweig Stark O (Eds ) Handbook Population 1A North Holland Amsterdam: Elsevier pp 125–187 F (2013) Researching distribution: overview developments debates methodological chal- lenges 582–597 Bergh (2005) problem state research: redistribution? 345–357 D Public families: World Bank Economic 27–50 reconsidered Micklewright Reexamined 103–125 households: measuring non-monetary Feminist 5–23 Case Does money empower elderly? agincourt demographic surveil- lance area Health 157–164 K (2014) evolution Union: Reconciling Work Reduction How Successful Are Welfare States? 60–93 -C (2011) Do enhance maternal labor supply? 911–933 G taxes pro-poorness orientation Socio-Economic 745–775 Duflo (2000) American 393–398 (1997) unitary col- lective 933–955 Trends grandchild(ren) selected Ageing 237–250 Hamoudi Pension grandchildren: new California Center 043-05 (1991) agenda action 457–483 V Comparing government redistribution second-order Quarterly 91 1390–1404 H C Swapping poli- cies: alternative tax-benefit strategies 625–647 Luo Y grandchil- dren: population-based continuity Issues 1143–1167 I (2016) optimal redistribu- Forces 1–24 Resources Household: Multi-Country Microsimulation Determinants ‘Strategic Weight’ Differentials Their Distributional EUROMOD Working Paper Series EM3/05 (1999) Intergenerational giving: approach Human 475–503 (1995) impli- cations Canada Canadian 177–204 Three-generation ferences structure birth 931–943 reaction crisis: alteration precarious Romanian Societies 111–130 Is neighbour’s grass greener? New 315–331 W Can Europe? 675–696 T (1990) Testing neoclassical fertility 599–634 Women Fiscal 1–22 Intra-household allocation: ferential 635–664 mass incarceration: implications children’s contact 93 299–327 (1994) inequality Wealth 414–432 senior researcher Her interests evaluations microsimulation modelling performance vulnerable migrants) modern post-doctoral School Business His lie economics cog- nitive non-cognitive skills educational tracking Professor He teaches he chair ‘Herman Deleeck’

Download abstract
a361

Download fulltext
A359

the amsterdam centre for european studies ssrn research paper 2019/06 design of a unemployment (re)insurance scheme: lessons from us experience christiaan luigjes georg fischer frank vandenbroucke this work is licensed under creative commons attribution 4 0 international license © luigjes* fischer** vandenbroucke*** 2019 *university email: c f luigjes@uva nl **vienna institute economic fischer@wiiw ac at *** universiteit i g vandenbroucke@uva www aces uva abstract american system insurance (ui) often cited as model potential re-insurance schemes while oversimplified comparisons are to be avoided there europe can learn federal- state relations regarding ui we distinguish three aspects system: first in 1930s federal government was able solve collective action problem that impeded development state-level programs; second during 1950s congress enacted backstop depleted trust funds used finance regular benefits; third 1970s added an extra layer based on intergovernmental co-financing benefits which intensifies crises and thus reinforces protection stabilization where when it most needed now exercise interest about buttressing national systems with supranational shows federal-state cooperation has overcome problems enhanced proved great importance recession effectively expand unemployed workers programs period high rising thereby contribute relevant way efforts obama administration however also some structural weaknesses view what might developed eu identify two risks level depending set-up federal-level financing lead retrenchment terms macroeconomic divergence between vulnerable these although may not its main current challenge simultaneously – other besetting insurmountable draw both positive cautionary lesson minimum requirements generosity coverage levels fundamental prerequisites any keywords: fiscal federalism introduction1 2012 report future monetary union (emu) presented by presidents council commission eurogroup central bank suggested create shock absorption mechanism: “an insurance-type euro area countries” one option mentioned capacity would act “complement or partial substitute systems” (van rompuy et al p 11) since then idea ‘european benefit scheme’ (eubs) particular emu-level ‘unemployment re- insurance’ garnering significant attention 2 her agenda commission’s president ursula von der leyen promises propose “european reinsurance scheme” (von 10) french german ministers le maire scholz agreed scheme july 2018 ecb draghi considered hearing parliament such important (draghi 2018; 2018) spd eu-election program explicitly calls fund reinsure (spd 2019) senior politicians3 including vice-chancellor refer besides social-democrats election manifesto greens cites need risk sharing counter policy makers who favor concept necessarily face hostile audience opinion public support cross-border hits member states but crucially depends features adequate incentives take up employment active 1 thank suzanne simonetta roel beetsma critical comments suggestions version working replaces 2019-version been released online too early accident see among others (2018) (2017a 2017b) carnot (2017) dolls beblavy lenaerts brandolini (2016) strauss dullien (2014) gros andor ragot (2019) 3 former party nahles explained: “we along lines financial power 27 must stand stabilize shocks prevent mass once situation improves will flow back ” https://europeangreens eu/priorities-2019-what-european-greens-fight#manifesto (vandenbroucke discuss concern shortcomings 5 1. caveats reference debates eurozone-level mechanism happenstance supports purchasing citizens downturn therefore automatic stabilizer par excellence existing unions either opt downright centralization (historically canada germany) they demand convergence organization provide really (like combines decentralization) rational behavior reasons pooling enhances resilience against asymmetric notion ‘asymmetric shocks’ should understood broadly here: symmetric origin play out very differently individual countries because conditions differ advantage argument stabilizers more particularly degree cross- border allows interregional smoothing 6 reason why applies completely across no value per se externality; country properly insures itself helps neighbors externality matter common all members organize effective fact have ingredients classical problem: increases labor costs without coordination competitive pressure militates sufficiently generous explained next section indeed response forum volume 52 (may/june 2017) intereconomics journal excellent account issues wandner relatively broad consensus order economically politically legitimate organizes intertemporal issue debt eurozone business cycles partly synchronized symmetric; combined cf de grauwe ji (2017); effectiveness emu whole cluster principles: sufficient rates market segmentation proliferation leave part force poorly insured unemployment; activation individuals implementation principles each ‘stability-supporting’ domestic our strongest arguments conversely stability-supporting become fortiori imperative organized: agree other’s if governments cannot guarantee their functions adequately words tabled here just enhance stability moreover quality policies intrinsically mutually related: condition self-evident further ado develop formal basis appendix various degrees –illustrated caveat concerns level: commitment authority lend induce retrench own generally diminish effort (or federal) aggregate states’ diminishes extent ‘retrenchment risk’ exact shape depend preferences attitudes leaders concerning shown linked first: case dynamic leads social rather than e ‘divergence reduction via commits (our caveat) unavoidable: supranational) sometimes ‘takes over’ less role even explicit purpose intervention and/or (rather convergence) backdrop ‘reduced stabilization’ takes form real examined consider 2. history outline united echoes genesis partnership wherein distinct responsibilities regulation circumstances autonomy operating governments’ primarily through extended follow analysis keep mind different teach europeans legislation provided show how final steps were protecting incomes times making substantial contribution economy regard move (creating benefits) subject related gradually emerged context notably lack ‘minimum requirements’ state’s created 1935 wake depression pursuing interlinked objectives objective offer wage replacement periods involuntary help maintain dispersal trained breakdown standards (price 1985 24) made sense feared interstate tax competition: concerned individually businesses relocate could had tread lightly closely guarded constitutional balance strong following comply those finances respective payroll complies rate reduced 90 percent mostly (to return detail 3) almost complete setting eligibility criteria normal required plays due introduced 1954 1970 ‘backstop’ example receive advance pay obligations advances repaid runs deficit consecutive years charge employers penalty-tax importantly law provides extension maximum duration given rises above certain threshold (we ‘triggers’ below) financed equally ad hoc emergency extensions possible contingent congressional approval fully federally (partially) follows logic complementary adds 7 anticyclical impact especially (dullien 2014 63) crisis laid bare (fischer 3. functioning basic stood test time well crucial factor longevity alter parameters same competition relevance ensures payment extending oversight increasingly emphasized necessity reemployment encouraged grants exchange best practices combination incremental adaptations continued interests recent exhibited building decades re-emerged resulted inadequate funding multiple solutions successful overcoming loosing predominantly taxes lobbied employer organizations lower cope revenues number tightened simply acquiesced near-insolvent 8 long-term perspective appear short-term electoral pressures myopic designed ways: illustrate alternative options impacts choices illustrated figures a3 a4 a5 corresponds qua figure a5; ‘incentive effect’ policy-makers better incentive effect models (although noted only imply permanently activated) does totally preclude possibility indicated earlier substitution intended solvency targets none binding elected legislators theory preempt levies requirement levy least permits reduce employers’ below ‘standard rate’ employer’s so practice actual applied exercising flexibility facto increasing measure today many low still retain credit 9 another essential taxable base (‘tax base’) equal set deemed race bottom adjusted indexed 1983 raised bases varying yet insufficient degrees) run deficits pressuring address insolvency calculated share ineffective lost over last triggers relies proven unreliable original (iur) measures jobs covered iur affected determine themselves became insensitive trends measured total (tur) (o’leary & pp 136-137) consequently downturns triggered barnow 2016 13-14) tighten manifold: (as above) do want respect paid (2019 145) emphasizes obligation maintaining shrinking determined grateful pointing half ideological aversion general apply restrictive recipiency stronger push local assume nevertheless profit improved neighboring attitudinal differences towards result developments increased after followed template resulting fairly homogeneous initially 44) utilized started diverge currently vary somewhat widely 10 finally before 1994 advisory compensation (acuc 1996) reluctant hit confronted 36 insolvent funds11 receiving place led despite did trigger took extraordinary (vroman woodbury 2014) proposed 100 50 adopt tur (actual unemployment) legislated additional 99 weeks accept ‘non-reduction rule’ (states rates) strongly jobless additionally available ‘modernization’ use expanding introducing short-term-work updating old it-systems reached historic 2011 2013) clearly paquier o’leary 11 partially severity lowest point (simonetta overcompensated newly tied expired january returned abandoned modernization retrenched eight exploited loophole non-reduction rule standard robust maintained kept systemic improvements contrast revoked organized utilize already solvent diversity present temporarily muted again post-crisis evolution 12 graph increase typically allowed usa manner specific 13 vroman discusses changes consequence factors results deep oecd temporary unique broader comparing immervoll richardson (2013) source: unsurprising tensions briefly revisited mixture myopia political oriented welfare (weaknesses legacy solution 1930s) stemming recently expense meant true presentation general: intrinsic minimize (section a5) 14 generate outcomes being schelkle (2017 chapters argues ambiguous effects shift cost rescues security congenial; illustrates whereby overall (aggregate) decreases free adjust fit recognizing outgoing 600 nationwide floor states15 host (dol 2016) 16 experts reforms urgently (for thorough proposals adopted 4. experience: inspiration examples tempting close analogy caution comparison origins distinct: encourage existed before; inception homogenous well-established predating method regulate capacity: enticed adhere quid pro quo 1) dollars 2) neither resources nor mandate process institutions decision-making approved agile difficult resistance single sovereign neigh impossible reach resolution system? relationship creation 15 limit discussion encouragement services mutual learning influx buoyed recessions strengthened income massively numbers bolstered (briefly discussed footnotes 14) fourth conditionality imposing interventions showed conditionality: optional stopped glass half-full half-empty limited emphasize conditional 17 massive require major change imagine equivalent taken architecture creates nature mean driver activated (perverse) weaker wage-cost competitiveness ideologically motivated dislike supporting likely constituted contributions obviously states; leeway perverse neutralized? historically rely five presidents: “completing europe`s union” discussions group budgetary instrument ensure potential; instead relied steadily diminished (which determines strength incentives) remained unchanged structure comprehensive architectural upward trend 1958 negatively affects compensated conclusion needs carefully ‘top-up’ (cf footnote 7) ‘accommodate’ suboptimal avoid pitfalls seems quite diverse starting reminder leadership offered advised define approach historical make lasting erosion inaction highly hence moments unsuitable new stricter difficulty pursue well- outset definition negotiation pan-european undoubtedly unduly pessimistic hand european-level government: observation underscores build initiative realm solid acquired extensive expertise hard soft benchmarking domain promotion pillar rights solemnly proclaimed november 2017 constitutes useful framework succession integrity long underlying erosion; otherwise long-run extremely implement happen manipulation instance linking gdp good direction short holds valuable blueprint policies: graphical simplified federation responsible taxation sheds light highlights (re-)insurance representation story told differs respects existence given; initial schemes; offers people complementing providing alternatively exactly impact) permanent: stylized (implicitly) depicted permanent whilst canadian belgian swiss system) actually works yields conceptual blocks understand multi-tiered types risk: associated whether basically characterized (i) (their duration) (ii) job search beneficiaries suitability (below summarize ‘job conditions’) (iii) finding improving skills capacities impediments a1 decision focus core parameter: lever (focusing highlight described body paper; intention picture graphs constructed simplification: average proportional to) authorities treated constants represented presupposes specified exogenous 18 horizontal axis rate: sum necessary activities; latter constant go ‘high’ ‘low’ vertical months person (going ‘short’ ‘long’) line sm ‘feasible set’ s (a maximal security); m collected means abstraction changing activity affect zero (hence it: extreme market-liberal policy) curve containing indifference policy-makers: indifferent combinations (they answer question: ‘how much you taxes?’) 19 curves (relative burden impose) flat; unemployed) steep choose feasible satisfaction policy- (at highest attained policies) optimal them somewhere simplicity always homothetic (i expansion paths linear); hold presenting smooth considerable simplification reality key dynamics polities funded addition consists fixed (paid federation) shifts vertically upwards dashed s’m’ a2 suppose distance s’ s’m’) independently principle display enjoy s’-s adapt (augmented) preferences: p’ (the difference s); federation’s decreasing replace reaction dotted ‘democratic’: values highly; dashed-and- ‘republican’: ‘democratic’ ‘republican’ points democratic higher republican state); react compare d d’ r r’ mainly let protection; improvement modest decreased considerably stringent patterns convergence; assumption everywhere (some observations reactions ‘modernization grants’ correspond theoretical analysis: ‘republican ‘democratic positions stops ) think bit harder ‘complementary extra-number transfer lump money states: allow strings attached (no ui) improve (but s’-s) (in spent money) 20 mix a3) yield ‘lump transfer’ level; replaced expanded sponsored ‘re-insurance’ severe note left decide ‘do’ (between states) initiative: type insurance: pure guarantees every whatever foresees guaranteed 25 a; b 35 argued similar state- politicians suffer availability softens budget constraints reducing relying deal benefits: gap normally shaped (from policy-makers’ view) p” corner solution: zero; collect a4) curves: remains box 22-23); conclude problematic variant intelligent month follows: dollar spends pays set: s’m choice (on s’m) reimburse ’50 reimbursement’ ‘conditional’ invested support: operates administrative let’s same; captures reimbursement ‘matching’) kind emphasis (given curves) compared depict homothetic) means: – l l’ (increased citizens); decrease ol (indicated arrow); t t’ (ol l; reduced) 21 ‘own effort’ organizational obtain little state’ ‘improved protection’ ‘less taxation’ remain excluded here) a1-a5 readily one? belgium (and organized) regions (largely) scenario full generates incentive; elsewhere labeled ‘institutional moral hazard’ sensitive sensitivity institutional hazard conceived materialize ways call supported ‘program a’; borne becomes state-financed unemployment-related (say b’) caseloads gives vigorous reemploying caseload influenced (e support) drawing crossing hands learned summarized obtains achieve direct technically achieved funds) directly upon limits possibilities (some) rapidly severely references acuc (1996) findings recommendations: 1994-1996 washington dc: jara h x sutherland designing 49(4) 184-203 k feasibility (https://www ceps eu/publications/feasibility-and-added- value-european-unemployment-benefits-scheme) carta d’amuri unemployment-based absorber 54(5) 1123–1141 n kizior mourre euro-area: simulation ceb 17/025 y boom busts governance barnard baere (ed (pp 160-191) cambridge: cambridge university press dol year 2017: justification training service department fuest neumann peichl area? alternatives using microdata 25(1) 273-309 question mep weizsäcker: ep committee http://www europarl europa eu/cmsdata/151460/monetary%20dialogue%2009 07 2018_ en pdf zone gütersloh: bertelsmann stiftung (2017a) reflection deepening 31 (com(2017) 291) (2017b) instruments stable within communication december 822 final) partnership: reflections iza 129 1-42 roadmap https://www economie gouv fr/files/files/pdf/2018/finances-euro_area_roadmap- redistribution ‘game changer’ working-age families? migration papers 150 america: europe? insights 23(june) 1-22 24 january) ist die antwort speech spd- fraktionsvorsitzenden andrea unemployment-benefit coverage: drivers outlook paris: j insurance? 20(1) 1-4 upjohn 16-264 price (1985) 1935-85 bulletin 48(10) 22-32 reform: evidence-based recommendations fixing broken 131-210) kalamazoo michigan: w civiliser capitalisme crise du libéralisme européen retour politique fayard solidarity understanding experiment oxford: oxford reform request 23-64) kommt zusammen und macht stark! wahlprogramm für europawahl am 26 mai debate appam conference inequalities: addressing growing policymakers worldwide london 13-14 june van barroso juncker (2012) genuine (december 2012) brussels hazard: vaccination metaphor 52(3) 154-159 burgoon kuhn nicoli sacchi duin hegewald hits: influences citizen (eurs) aissr wood lievens assistance (137) brussels: u my europe: guidelines 2019-2024 https://ec eu/commission/interim_en 103-130) 67(1) 253-268

Download fulltext
a358

euvisions the new european commission must convince citizens pillar is alive and kicking by frank vandenbroucke i’m very grateful to all people – colleagues from academia policy-makers social political actors who contributed forum debate launched this brief conclusion should not be read as a real ‘conclusion’: it possible do justice contributions since many themes broached in would merit more thought nor will i try sketch agenda for rather than ‘concluding’ want explain mindset which together with maurizio ferrera my introduction wrote that solemn proclamation of marks point no return: some years now either convincing recognizable success or high-profile failure may become policy sustains momentum beyond lifetime juncker however if eu fails deliver on promise enshrined initiative backfire frustration generates undermine any attempt equip comprehensive dimension long time come given cost an eventual those us care about politics work interpretation maximizes its positive potential means among other things fit into consistent view role play policy: our perspective ‘european union’ also insisted we identify priority areas parliament council have take initiatives components union let me first recall identified five different ‘components’ brought constitute union’: national spaces transnational mobility space (supranational policies explicit purpose they regulative redistributive nature) fundamental principles call identifying priorities was one components: ‘eu policy’ proper sense supranational multidimensional understanding what ‘social europe’ important use andrew watt’s words claiming europe myth’ because ‘the paucity explicitly based misunderstanding: confuses multi-level entity eu-level narrow act issues when there value-added doing so sure interpret ‘added value’ merely economic material terms here: added value eu- level can increase legitimacy stressed his (i return below) resist temptation download whole onto institution: concern x relevant develop tackle differentiates approach instance trudie knijn’s contribution critical comment knijn writes implementing ‘must go far insurance union’; she mentions need spending public services concur her budgets increased member state resonates pillar’s but consider task states make invest sufficient resources at requires framework allows maintain fair adequate taxation systems welfare funded adequately (notably preventing race bottom corporate taxation); temporary support are hit severe shocks their funding whilst coping declining revenues unemployment benefits basically ‘insurance do; ‘insure’ capacity over responsibility themselves watt adds broader observation caveat eu: cannot separate economic’ social’ indeed inextricably intertwined potentially mutually reinforcing contributors graham room sacha garben others underscore insight each own way tackling interregional inequalities realizing upward convergence sustaining investment (…) large extent matter choices actor agenda-setter vladimir bogoeski’s same spirit bogoeski challenges belief ‘rights-based’ fundamentally: language rights lose battle against inequality notably between core periphery unequal development eu’s addressed long-term true across both ‘redistributive’ ‘pre-distributive policies’ (whereby he links chiara saraceno’s input debate); legitimate leads squarely domain regional policies? bea cantillon’s really takes up challenge priority’ roadmap delivering argues minimum income protection reinforce substance levers rehearse arguments like briefly contrast proposal set out developed enriched useful manos matsaganis repeat: suggested hard ‘holding environment’ whereby word ‘insurance’ understood broad organize mutual risk-sharing case collective action allow (a emphasized rightly waltraud shelkle various series) solidary countries within 20 mind intrinsically related notion access initially proposed ‘hard legislation’ guarantee citizens; second stage opted softer recommendation has been accepted next few needed regard principle suggest selecting ‘access all’ key e put top list first think stabilization merits through organization re-insurance scheme) then see does erode reason utmost including lack incapacity developments labour markets such proliferation independent ‘zzp’ statute netherlands platform economy undermining basic feature spill-overs intellectual confronted forms integrated security schemes unfair competitive pressure (perverse) process exchange learning states’ order better understand nature variety future scenarios solutions uniquely well equipped serve innovative unchartered domains prime example third bolstered citizenship linked every citizen always irrespective sector type activity employment relationship… persons whom depends engaged right’ individual yet confined exchanges high-level experts remaining ivory-tower exercise characterizing peer-review processes too often inform definition enjoyed here benefit matsaganis’ enriches argument linking ‘future work’: ‘[t]he never stronger experimentation best practices’ risk simplifying distinction taken say former focuses specific outcomes achieved latter ‘nuts bolts’ future-proof obviously overlap two wants reconsider importance universal instruments fight poverty give another emphasis nuts bolts states: developing obliges transparent system wages coverage much narrative these respective pronounce final judgment here; approaches cantillon advances (and tables additional cautionary reducing ) emphasize exactly kind determination implementation everything simultaneously: energy capital inevitably limited hence synergy insistence selection detract contribution: delivery presupposes combined implement principles: legislation; coordination benchmarking; substantial semester fiscal macroeconomic surveillance francesco costamagna draw attention highlight mainstream inspiration semester’s recommendations insurmountable contradiction warning artificial opposition social’: austerity presumably were sound ‘stabilisation’ (to costamagna’s terminology) aftermath financial crisis over-emphasis consolidation simply ill-guided policy; definitely well-organized stabilisation making legal greater weight considerations helpful respect observatory (ose) recently published report workers’ group committee commission’s multiannual financial scrutinized (sabato et al 2019) table battery operational budgetary proposals translate refer reader authors reform programme instrument vehicle promote fact mff undergo check’ less convinced suggestion ose introduce imbalances procedure’ main focus corti stefano sabato bart vanhercke adding soft procedure already complicated procedures relatively little per se believe crux provide tangible reforms guided objectives coherent solidarity further (which politically!) allocating context setting ‘social’ militate necessary integration wrong functionalist fallacy martin heidenreich insists ‘functional arguments’ poor basis warns ‘functionalist fallacy’ proposes highly original alternative account idea ‘exit’ options seem foreclosed cautions approach: risks completion emu might blind east-west divide remarks touch upon complex analytical normative problems struggle indicated initial agree stretch functional elsewhere argued thinking bridge shared aspirations ferrera’s search avoid functionalism arguing hand constraints face carry cutting short somewhere said summary thoughts inspired entail deliberately ‘improved citizens’ accessible understandable citizens: applying wages… interesting suggestion: joint ‘just transition’ climate underscores yes promising waiting admittedly pragmatic worry last months continuity: continuity general require effective especially institutions credibility nothing worse impression ‘cheap talk’ quickly forgotten side-remark laszlo andor complains higher profile follow-up 2013 package; mere package barroso probably reduced motivation keep prominently radar pity happen again under formed ursula von der leyen’s presented get respect: only announces full ‘action plan’ being clear-headed ways thus mobilization therefore end note: feed high- neatly organized plan skeptical references: s f b spasova (2019) integrating deepening europe’s monetary brussels: