Download presentation
210

QUALITY EUROPE Europe’s World Spring 2015 Unequal Europe: A more caring agenda for the new Commission The EU’s prized project of ‘Social Europe’ has been slipping steadily down its political agenda. Frank Vandenbroucke highlights recommendations a high-level group he chaired Declining public confidence in ability to reconcile openness and cross-border mobility with robust welfare states their generous social protection seen rising disenchantment concept ‘European solidarity’, doubts about European itself. Yet we can be confident future our states, not on basis return pre-crisis status quo, but opportunities change that are still available. Change must address widening inequalities imbalances, open way greater cohesion between EU member states. Widening imbalances are, alas, matter fact Europe now divide both people There is marked inequality good job without one. In many income poverty rising. Some countries enjoying growth, economies others sluggish. often relate skills, although some governments have invested education vocational training, forced drastically cut spending these. nevertheless significant change. We need, first all, self-confidence model. Widespread persistent misrepresentation policies too presented them as an economic burden. This view ill-founded because fundamental living standards all within modern competitive market economy. As well support fairness cohesion, vital competitiveness, crucial investment future. Over last few years, scholarly studies shown this; instance recent OECD report underlined redistributive impact growth. was Belgium’s affairs minister (1999- 2004) employment Flemish Regional Government (2004-2009). He currently professor at University Leuven holds chairs Universities Antwerp Amsterdam |69 isn’t say well. room improvement there weaknesses performance policies, labour policies. But rather than calling essence into question, need wide-ranging review balance demand supply different programmes services, costs. should backed by EU-wide effort improve states’ systems. Although responsibilities lie essentially national level, over-arching policy framework could make valuable contribution. To promote innovation strengthen Europe-wide comparisons efficiency equity outcomes, don’t start from scratch. If look laboratory learning, already instruments like Open Method Co-ordination. Australia, Canada, United States other federal quasi-federal systems take positive Co-ordination, yet it met scepticism, being perceived soft deliver, or feeble excuse inconsistency economic, budgetary Stronger credible links certainly built budgetary, therefore clarify how will ‘mainstreaming’ social, employment, empty word routinely pops up official declarations. mainstreaming tangible reality, idea mutual learning also regain credibility. approach takes us away behind-closed-doors character Parliament making joint commitment Union’s basic goals giving comprehensive rolling inequalities. help authorities own schemes ensure resources allocated most balanced possible drawing experience focus attention capacity tackle inequalities, setting-up such broad-ranging ambitious would signal seriousness which today’s Related articles www.europesworld.org • Social far dead John Monks jobless youth: evolving lifestyles drive flexibility? Helena Helve Why stop talking ‘lost generation’ young Jörg Asmussen cannot afford lose entire generation Lauri Ihalainen Heikki Räisänen 70| dialogue key component model; system institutional set-up EU, even if sometimes forgotten. There’s no denying difficulty organising level; countries, effective, efficient representative, partners lost representativeness credibility, barely exist. And financial crisis managed, notably so-called programme odds normal functioning dialogue, weakened position partners. upshot invest partners’ play meaningful role, revisiting role tripartite summit, persistently placing emphasis decentralised collective bargaining. challenge just reach agreements topical issues, challenges ahead, ways reformed. highlevel conference level hold thorough debate orientations; ‘big conference’ real exchange views involving people. successful aim priority bold action youth employment. guarantee implementation Youth Guarantee launched year ensuring under 25 – whether registered services get good-quality, concrete offer four months leaving formal becoming unemployed. On proposals put forward reinforce through initiatives better mobilisation ESF funds package replace €6bn ‘Youth Employment Initiative’ place until end this year. Complementing quality traineeships apprenticeships and/or another possibility, point develop ‘good policy’; convince citizens cares what means “ ” |71 lead ‘parking’ unemployed inefficient training occupational activities. Europeans resist protectionism forms. Mobility unquestionable right, context freedom movement, problematic issues identified addressed. Myths intra-EU systematically disproved. At same time, Court Justice confirmed simply move state claim benefits: Member prevent ‘benefit tourism’ existing legal framework. Nevertheless, blind problems; large scale dumping, blatant cases addressed illegal work exploitation linked problems inspection enforcement regulations. go beyond dumping. For people, moving country reasons represents success, failure; half London’s homeless population repeatedly made migrants, citizens, so failures free movement. An introduced protect fair mobility, ensures finance desks, information mobile workers Europe. Where possible, define minimum conditions protection, taking account forms parttime workers. carefully monitor directive posting workers, consider gradual introduction ‘a guaranteed wage floor’. measures increasing portability supplementary pensions across sectors, strengthening rights migrant examine initiative freedoms right industrial action. solve raised court decisions affecting relationship education, exerted enough pressure highest levels decision-making priorities 72| migration clear distinction intra-European permanent migration, external dimensions. Discussion placed longer-term demographic context, shrinking major source resentment immigration migrants’ nationality status. potential creating second-class workforce dangerous, flexibility market, peripheral adversely affects country’s core contributes downgrading working conditions. issue only manage flows professional integration. recognise enormous waste immigrants’ skills when they adequately integrated allowed entrepreneurship potential. confronted greatest house integrate migrants support, fund attached Fund give integration considered. Education investment. issued excellent Recommendations modernisation priorities. alarming given limited success improving education. risk seeing grinding halt. higher reverse trend diverging Simultaneously, pursue reform skill one strategy child care, health care development overall. Investment Package adopted two years ago starting point, contribution |73 deliver it, while recognising broader needed. Tangible needed, delivery. case delivery needed too. Homelessness societal problem crossborder features where co-ordination difference. disparate nature hostels shelters trigger promised delivered Platform Against Poverty, proper use Funds against homelessness. fails complex needs homelessness included One possibility Care who leave step towards Vulnerable turn 18, every 18-year-old gets plan identifies proposes appropriate solutions pursued complement Guarantee. Union stronger sense common purpose based shared ambitions. won’t easy see signs erosion solidarity generations. witnessing growing distrust fuelled part frustration lack leadership transparency institutions response current crisis. ammunition those minimise encourage withdraw altogether. Breaking vicious circle feasible. ground, short self-confidence. unequal unbalanced Europe, stand hope solemn declarations, practical day-to-day [email protected] Friends Union’, article reflects “Unequal: EU”. full document downloaded http://www.friendsofeurope.org/event/unequal-europe-recommendations-caring-eu/

Download presentation
260

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES DPS16.27 NOVEMBER 2016 How does early deprivation relate to later-life outcomes? A longitudinal analysis Ron DIRIS and Frank VANDENBROUCKE Public Economics Faculty of Business Diris* Vandenbroucke† Abstract Measures material are increasingly used as alternatives traditional poverty indicators. While there exists extensive literature focusing on the impact that growing up in a (financially) poor household has future success, little is known about how relates long-run outcomes. This study uses data from 1970 British Cohort Study assess relationship between outcomes adult life. We control for an set observable characteristics, further employ valueadded generalized sensitivity nature this relationship. find diverse outcome variables, but magnitude conditional relationships generally small. Immaterial indicators family quality show relatively stronger ties outcomes, especially with respect non-cognitive skills. Keywords: deprivation, poverty, disadvantage JEL Classification: I32, J13, J62 *Department Economics, Maastricht University, 6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands, [email protected] (corresponding author) †University Amsterdam, KU Leuven University Antwerp. would like thank Erwin Ooghe, Brian Nolan, Geranda Notten, Kristof de Witte, participants APPAM conference London PE seminar their helpful comments. 1 Introduction Classifications or social exclusion have traditionally relied measures individual income. Material (MD) alternative indicator exclusion. refer list ’basic necessities’ households different domains The increasing use these reflects perception captures more than lack Although depends what perceived basket necessities at given point time, it essentially absolute measure poverty. contrasts commonly at-risk-of-poverty rate, which relative income positions within country.1 become popular international intertemporal comparisons. ‘Severe deprivation’ included target Europe 2020 strategy European Union (European Commission, 2010). However, contrast specifically related important success. analyzes confronted (BCS), follows total 17,000 individuals born Britain first week April 1970. BCS reports information child its parents birth contains follow-ups multiple ages both childhood life, until age 42. It provides possessions circumstances well vast range variables several progress extensively extent raw correlations driven by associations other determinants progress. Moreover, we value-added developed Imbens (2003) address selection bias establish whether likely causal remains. Using factor analysis, six 1The character should be interpreted nuance. Poverty can also character, least context one country, when threshold anchored time. based arbitrary choice base year (in defined). is, principle, possible construct countries. Notten Roelen (2012) show, constructing basis hazardous exercise. 2 estimated. two strands literature: studies analyzing (or complementary) background former group mainly focuses explaining mismatch being income-poor materially deprived,2 encompassing items.3 Advocates emphasize benefits over strictly income, conceptual view (income neglects circumstances, preferences risk factors) terms measurement (yearly volatile across time prone error, extremes distribution). shows into matters greatly success There strong children later example educational attainment income.4 Evidence adoption indicates variation families not solely due genes, therefore ‘family quality’ crucial importance children.5 still unclear specific aspects capture quality. Studies composite socio-economic status (SES) typically combine parental education, occupation, home and/or linked those outcomes.6 Brooks-Gunn Duncan (1997) provide overview focus relation conclude life (preschool school years) most strongly remains difficult empirically disentangle occu- 2See, e.g., Perry (2002); Whelan et al. (2004). 3Different methods elicit single MD, such prevalence weighting, principal component item response theory structural equation modeling, no consensus exists. For examples each approaches, see, Cappellari Jenkins (2006); Maˆıtre (2005); Tomlinson (2008). An provided Nolan (2010). 4See, Corak (2013) intergenerational transmission and, OECD (2015) 5See, Bjorklund Sacerdote (2008); Beckett (2006). ¨ 6See, Bradley Corwyn (2002) overview. 3 pation quality, neighbourhood rearing behavior, etc. Recent aimed uncover direct links Many role credit constraints attainment. type research finds short-term becomes limited, best, once factors achievement concludes permanent markedly liquidity (Heckman, 2000; Carneiro Heckman, 2003; Dearden al., 2004; Chevalier 2013). Still, (permanent) factors. Several exploited exogenous directly impact. example, Frijters (2005), using sibling fixed effects combination event German reunification, identifies low health, while Løken (2010), Norwegian oil boom shock, Other identify comparatively larger estimates substantially below simple suggest; Blanden Gregg (2004) (partially same (British) paper) Akee These results call question provision will lead substantial improvements prospects families. (2009) through evaluation EMA program, students weekly cash transfers attendance. program staying school, clear alleviation constraints, because reduce opportunity costs education. Overall, findings tend suggest correlation large part variables. led researchers argue largely immaterial (see, Heckman (2008)). explanation limited that, advocates often argue, 4 only imperfectly restrictions opportunities face. As such, meaningful analyze exclusion, either substitute complement Establishing existing emphasis put policy evaluation, policies targeted reducing deprivation. Identifying relations towards improve evaluations policies. In general, few key Filmer Pritchett (1999) exception, conducting macro-level they link differences wealth (measured presence basic facilities drinking water electricity) Relying rich micro-level data, current various measured Additionally, add addressing potentially confounding likelihood effects, providing comparison sample. paper organized follows. introduce theoretical considerations Section 2. describes methodological issues discussed 4. 5 presents empirical results. 6 discusses robustness analyses, 7 concludes. Theory 2.1 Defining section, discuss concept arise measuring constructs definition states “material refers inability afford consumption goods activities typical certain society irrespective people’s items” (OECD, 2007). words, concerns able ‘typical’ goods. major broad characterization be. considerable exact construction Virtually all incorporate items housing conditions. More elaborate include access healthy lifestyle Since aim broadest sense, since unexplored domains, analysis. ultimately want affects developmental process, child’s learning development (outside formal processes extra-curricular programs) additional domain. define deprivation: possessional health already suggested definition, ‘material’ aspect always adhered. aspects. make distinction ‘immaterial’ discussion reflected subdivision possession, housing, domain nature.7 ambiguous contain tangible tools intangible support. thereby divide sub-domain separately might alternatively thought cultural ‘capital’ thereof). 7One crime material, believe conceptually tied household’s living arrangements (which evidently captured domain), categorize under material. types goes beyond aspect, (often depending subjective interpretations) see them things everyone ‘should have’. Ermisch (2008) makes similar his parenting inequality labels ‘what buy’ versus do’. consider light bigger matter most, simultaneously recognize aware comparing interpreting 2.2 Measuring Another variable. Data availability inevitably determines some any application, criteria employed. First all, clearly goods, services society, case 1970s 1980s. concern ‘enrichment’ available share population. connotation leaves room interpretation. study, specify constraint half could seen rather loose constraint, analyses estimated limit higher prevalence. result affordability preferences. reason, comprise questions distinguish having personal preference. looks children, who bound own predominantly parents. ranks value necessity, never completely ‘irrespective preferences’, technically requires.8 made odd, situated high-crime neighbourhood. reasons, do preference our main conduct stage where order final potential assessing considered data. natural consequence difference ‘concise’ rely very dataset rich. Hence, although lower bounds fact inexhaustible relevant include, viewed upper explain studies. Study, adulthood (we label ‘cohort members’). baseline characteristics 17,196 individuals, 5, 10, 16, 26, 30, 34, 38 42.9 suffer amount observations, sample drops out fairly (86% 10 73% 26). waves 0 8The interpretation dependent adaptive feelings shame recognized e.g. Fusco (2011), addressed analyses. exception (2006), adapt Item Response approach correct differential reporting propensities item. 9The wave around 8 administered only, tests. 16 following (i.e. cohort members). school-level teachers principals waves. taken conditions verbal wide services. focal somewhat weighted specification. supplementary Each background. Parental categorical variable (seven categories eleven 16). follow McKnight assigning midpoint band. including obtained quali- fications, status, mental body mass index, satisfaction, gross net structure. four variables: reading highest qualification, income,10 general health. qualification self-reported If missing, impute next recent observation. apply increases rapidly observe avoid missing observation leads measure.11 non-missing years established trends then calculate average express rank 100 10To confusion member’s serves serve ‘adult income’, ‘parental income’ control. 11The mean values stable age. 9 test scores intelligence, math. Questionnaires carried skills well. sets allow self-esteem, locus person feels life) Rutter index behavioral problems. reported members, latter 16. Locus self-esteem Estimation 4.1 Measurement mentioned 2, separate health/nutritional subdivided sub-domain. rate 50%. inputs take affected (intermediate) dummy education aspiration levels desired level particular child, performs school. Similarly, exclude number friends visited same-aged peers assume choices child. subjective, carry section ‘ambiguous’ items. determine, domain, best fit relevance uniqueness measures). choose method explanatory power weighting weight assigned inverse sample). cases, includes ages. Being deprived of, TV sources overlap items, automatically ensures much receive weight, excluded altogether. All standardized zero standard deviation 1.12 assessment approaches purpose paper, report 6.6 completion. presented Table A1.13 4.2 model estimate OLS model: Yi = β0+β1P ossi+β2Housei+β3Neighi+β4Healthi+β5EduMi+β6EduIi+β7Soci+θX0 i+i (1) vector X0 birth, employment, 12The Cronbach’s alpha are: 0.801 0.700 0.640 0.554 0.545 eduational 0.447 13The defined unlikely (e.g. appliances), chosen priors expected ex ante. affect indirectly by, spend child-rearing. 11 style, complete Appendix A2. inclusion account into, outside controls effect operate spending tutoring classes). on, among households. When available, ages, father’s employment without controls, impacts parameter  Model represents classical error term. represent achievement, attainment, status. mechanisms progress.14 array cognition socio-emotional play mediating outcomes.15 4.3 Imputation waves, observations To ensure enough sample, values. observed 14We channels shaped. contrast, grows in. 15See, Almlund (2011) cognitive 12 imputation Woßmann ‘fundamental’ (labeled F) fundamental virtually observations. birth; gestational age, mother’s ethnicity, wedlock gender, was hospital-born family. M, (Mk ) (Mj ). regress Mj F coefficients regression Mk . Further, dummies indicate imputed not. Results correlational specification regresses isolation. step, jointly subsequently relationships. signals chances grow obtaining favourable (including domains). results, correlational, informative evidence holding constant. reflect unobservable characteristics. issue Sections 5.2 5.3. 13 1. portrayed graphically Figure figure (Model 1), finally additionally specifications, Tables A4 A6. detail. 5.1 Main estimation 5.1.1 Reading shown left quadrant A3. Not surprisingly, strongest domains. increase reduction 0.29 deviation. remain statistically significant included, coef- ficient suggests 0.10 per increase. With included. last rows marginally reduces coefficients. appear mechanism measure. 5.1.2 Educational mem- 14 ber, (different of) categorical, distinguishing signifi- cantly specifications controls. especially, associated decrease 0.7 corresponds 0.25 deviation). Including severely estimates. longer full (mainly income). coefficient -0.22. drive further, previous exist high Achievement appears (both domains) noncognitive cutoff degree levels. attributed alternatives, comparable. Among GCSE A-C connections Dummy end 15 distribution weaker 5.1.3 Adult during right A5. smaller here. small margin. (‘separate’) ranking percentiles. added, decreases 0.9 percentile. compared initial estimate. specification, Controlling coefficients, possession Part operates skills, mimics 42) incomes, highly consistent 5.1.4 Health 42, Interestingly, dominate Social adulthood. 0.136 five-point scale (and 1). initially association hardly (observed) change added (once occur taken. adulthood, questionnaires predate physical problems prominent.16 selective controlling class). Similar mediate 5.1.5 Non-linearity assumed now linear. worthwhile explore whether, extreme impact, need reach before effect. nonlinearities subsection, estimating polynomials domains.17 non-linearity. apparent Comparing inhibits non-linear tendencies. quadratic positive, indicating negative diminishing. deprived. possibly skewed left. implies distribution. fits hous- 16See, Kessler (2007). 17These request. 17 ing interesting (especially) severe non-linearities certainly involve sign reversal non-linearity surprising, linear begin with. case, attenuated fit. Finally, interaction complementarity neighbourhoods, vice versa. 5.1.6 assessed noteworthy summarized A7. Coefficients (the size 0.1 well-being), possessional, (immaterial) Estimates satisfaction. Furthermore, acts relationship, rooms house highlights persistence proper Body Mass Index (BMI). BMI allows 42 positively negatively 18 appliances microwaves) less diet. weaker, lag 10. adolescence. Value-added Because points lagged model. earlier achieved growth exercise one. lags half, positive lags. math low, negative. contrasting remarkable. electronics, bedroom 19 opposite scores.18 measures, line revealed score, extent. control, variable, shaped exhibit adolescence adulthood.19 5.3 unobserved investments, identified biased. influence (GSA) extended Harada continuous unobservables required 18We speculate underlying reasons result. One watching complementing subjects (Borzekowski Robinson, 2005; Sharif ways development. 19See, Cunha (2010); (2011). 20 insignificant.20 plausibility parameters partial R2 ’s parents, ethnicity structure, observable. needed render insignificant combined, plausibly On hand, if away , selection. plots plausible cases: requires estimate, straightforward. so (unobservable) weak best. GSA produces emphasized variance explained plotted graph conservative, addition 20One value. 21 implausible, even though (very slightly) X.21 adding classroom peer 0.01, 0.017. case. representative X curve scores, self-esteem. area 5.4 Explanatory valuable joint marginal reveals uniquely explains (extensive) student 21Additionally, statistical significance (at 10% level), 0. majority cases conclusion condition, lines above 22 before, minor, means (especially self-esteem) compare ‘gross’ ‘net’ latter. A1 look reversed). naturally shares limited. figures con- firms adverse 5.5 better essence argued bands subject error. Keeping mind, portray restrict overall Correlations slightly perform (an imperfect eliciting at-risk 23 modest third fourth column split pattern indicator; subset predictive math, second except again are, average, achievement. significant. dominance remarkable (strictly) (likely attenuated) ‘traditional’ error.22 weakest characteristics). worth noting here, lose multidimensional advantages. unique seven defined, 22One focused bottom broad, distinguishes (its close normal, long tails side). similar, topcoded. 24 siderably does, 5.6 Differences constructed indicators, too robustly age-effects Robustness model, assumptions relax assumptions. 6.1 Bad problem away. styles, divorces, 25 downwardly 10; 5; birth. ‘bad controls’ specifications. Deprivation incorporating surprising Nonetheless, panel B contribute downward influenced Conversely, excludes controlled for, test, 6.2 Affordability count it. executed belong (these 26 domain). 5. unconditional Only looking simply owning connection (possessional) 6.3 Different specified restriction cannot limit, society. 50% 25% 15%. tighter remove 20% 40% respectively. fall changes. 25-50% 15-50% strongly. changes restrictive almost Sensitivity thresholds gradually three models 15% approach. 27 6.4 Endogenous items? present misleading estimates, process way around. visits museum, library plays musical instrument, partially interest (partially) parent-child activities, member club. estimation. Especially expect interest, however, lies relatively. A9 proportional little. zero. significant, positive. achievement.23 ex- 23The restricted subdomains: neighbours financial constraints. responsible scores. 28 ercise should, interpret care. determine truly resulting (also) personality independently state household. representing (perceived) environment support surrounding 6.5 Attrition heterogeneity members disappear altogether Further attrition non-random. Those differ Most prominently, male (58.4% vs. 49.4%), non-native (16.8% 8.6%) (12.2% 5.6%). fully population period. external validity may selective. turns gender. boys. out-of-wedlock None large, similarly moderate loss representativeness 29 described imputed. employing conventional identifying attenuation sensitivity, interactions corresponding (thereby allowing intercept slope respective variable), A8 approaches: applied estimation, sum binary latter, remarkably small, (commonly used) relating sizes Judging fit, 30 6.7 Financial hardship broad. incorporated lacking namely ability face unexpected expenses arrears bills. directly, ask were troubled past year. insignifi- cant Conditional percentage 0.100 Conclusion experienced reveal Plausible adds (mental) analyzed ‘deprivation’, form (a capital, (conditional) 31 diminish environment. Previous huge children. Our households, isolated, contributor literature, impacts. disconnect ‘material state’ with, causally to, supportive McLanahan Bianchi (2006) educated fathers mothers style contributors Research investments low-income improved changing guidance beliefs, relief (Kautz 2014). ‘immaterial (imperfectly measured) nature. At invalidate alto- 32 gether. Basic (although groups things, improves identifier limitations paper. automatic taking life-time perspective changed inevitable linking achievements. causality likely) exploitation elements help segments Future precisely links. greatest challenge exactly why obtain widely References Akee, R. K., W. E. Copeland, G. Keeler, A. Angold, J. Costello Parents incomes children’s outcomes: quasi-experiment. American economic journal. Applied economics 2(1), 86–115. Almlund, M., L. Duckworth, T. D. Kautz Personality psychology economics. Handbook Education, Volume 4, pp. 1–181. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 33 Beckett, C., B. Maughan, M. Rutter, Castle, Colvert, C. Groothues, Kreppner, S. Stevens, O’Connor, Sonuga-Barke Do persist adolescence? Findings English Romanian adoptees study. Child Development 77(3), 696–711. Bianchi, P. Milkie Changing Rhythms Of Family Life. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Bjorklund, A., Lindahl, Plug (2006, August). origins asso- ciations: Lessons swedish Quarterly Journal 121(3), 999–1028. Blanden, attainment: review Britain. Oxford Review Economic Policy 20(2), 245–263. Borzekowski, N. Robinson (2005). remote, mouse, no. pencil: media academic grade students. Archives Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 159(7), 607–613. Bradley, H. F. (2002). Socioeconomic Annual 53(1), 371–399. Brooks-Gunn, (1997). 55–71. Cappellari, Summarizing ISER Working Paper Series, 2006-40. Carneiro, (2003). Human capital policy. Krueger, Friedman (Eds.), Inequality America: What Role Capital Policies?, 77–239. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chevalier, Harmon, V. O’Sullivan, I. Walker (2013). schooling IZA Labor 1–22. 34 Corak, Income inequality, equality opportunity, mobility. Perspectives, 79–102. Cunha, F., Schennach Estimating technology skill formation. Econometrica 78(3), 883–931. Dearden, L., Emmerson, Frayne, Meghir (2009). dropout rates. Resources 44(4), 827–857. McGranahan, Sianesi Credit Constraints Choices: NCDS BCS70. CEE DP 48. ERIC. Ermisch, Origins immobility inequality: National Institute 205(1), 62–71. Commission 2020: smart, sustainable inclusive growth. Filmer, (1999). 35 Population 25(1), 85–120. Frijters, P., Haisken-DeNew, Shields health: german reunification. 24(5), 997–1017. Fusco, A.-C. Guio, Marlier Technical report, CEPS/INSTEAD. Harada, (2012). Generalized NYU working (2000, March). Policies foster human capital. 54(1), 3–56. (2008, July). Schools, synapses. Inquiry 46(3), 289–324. Imbens, (2003, May). exogeneity evaluation. 93(2), 126–132. Kautz, T., Diris, Ter Weel, Borghans (2014). Fostering skills: Improving promote lifetime Bureau Research. Kessler, Amminger, Aguilar-Gaxiola, Alonso, Lee, Ustun Age onset disorders: literature. Current opinion psychiatry 20(4), 359–364. Løken, K. education: norwegian experiment. Labour 17(1), 118–129. McKnight, (2015). Downward mobility, hoarding glass floor. report. McLanahan, Diverging destinies: faring demographic transition. Demography 41(4), 607–627. non-monetary exclusion: Europe? Analysis Management 29(2), 305–325. new tool monitoring (child) poverty: cumulative Indicators 5(2), 335–355. Society Glance: 2006 Edition. Organisation Co-operation Development. Together: Why Less Benefits All. Paris, France: Publishing. Perry, Zealand, 101–127. Sacerdote, Nature nurture learned twins adoptees? Economics. NorthHolland. 36 Sharif, I., Wills, Sargent Effect visual performance: prospective 46(1), 52–61. Tomlinson, Walker, Williams concept, 1991 2003. 37(04), 597–620. Whelan, Layte, Understanding dynamic comparative Sociological Review, 287– 302. Vulnerability perspectives europe: latent class Societies 7(3), 423–450. Woßmann, equal opportunities? US. CESifo 1162. 37 1: Possess House Neighbour Educ (M) (I) −.3 −.2 −.1 .1 −.6 −.4 Educ. att. −3 −2 −1 −.05 .05 Raw C C+M Notes: reading. portrays (‘Raw’), (‘C’) (‘C+M’). ‘C+M’ horizontal bars 95% confidence intervals. equally spaced categories. averaged expressed percentile range. 2: .2 .4 .6 Partial .8 EV −−> P HE .3 .5 HO (partial (‘EV’; deprivation) level. (D) (X0 Figures (C (I)) (all row), (P) (HE) (HO) row). 39 3: Math Self−esteem Mental Life satisfaction Controls Domains (vector 1) regressing 40 Possession Housing Neigh Panel A: VA Reading16 0.035* 0.003 0.001 -0.030*** -0.050*** -0.107*** -0.001 (0.021) (0.018) (0.010) (0.011) (0.012) LC 0.051*** 0.016 -0.006 -0.018* -0.029** -0.054*** 0.002 (0.019) (0.016) (0.009) Reading10 -0.051*** -0.020** -0.026** -0.138*** -0.008 (0.014) -0.031** -0.019* -0.021** -0.110*** -0.005 (0.013) Math16 -0.066*** -0.002 -0.014 -0.059*** -0.049*** -0.093*** -0.024 (0.025) (0.020) (0.015) -0.040* 0.019 -0.010 -0.038*** -0.027** -0.030* -0.022* (0.017) Rutter16 -0.007 -0.056*** -0.028*** -0.032*** -0.046*** -0.065*** -0.047*** -0.025*** -0.035*** -0.024** -0.028** -0.044*** Rutter10 -0.036** -0.019** 0.007 -0.070*** -0.020 0.009 -0.009 -0.048*** (0.008) Locus16 -0.042** -0.016 -0.019 -0.027 -0.041*** (0.023) 0.014 -0.038** -0.015 -0.023 -0.037*** Self-esteem16 -0.030 0.026 -0.033*** -0.047** -0.161*** 0.029 -0.046** -0.157*** B: Reading5 -0.077*** -0.034*** 0.004 -0.004 -0.111*** -0.011 Math10 -0.057*** -0.022** -0.018** -0.042*** -0.121*** Rutter5 0.041*** 0.053*** 0.026*** 0.006 0.015 0.027*** Locus10 -0.023** -0.003 -0.045*** Self-esteem10 -0.027*** -0.025** table ‘LC’ (taken outcomes) available. regressions. ‘Rutter’ scale. ‘Locus’ internal 41 No Y (all) 0.801*** -0.818*** -0.434*** -0.594*** 0.179*** -0.295*** -0.127*** -0.249*** (0.035) (0.039) (0.046) (0.043) (0.042) (0.038) 7.29*** -7.26*** -5.20*** -3.30*** 3.66*** -2.51*** -0.999** -2.34*** (0.396) (0.399) (0.436) (0.440) (0.484) (0.450) (0.439) (0.382) 0.154*** -0.179*** -0.113*** 0.054*** -0.087*** -0.055*** 0.242*** -0.218*** -0.172*** 0.042* -0.026 0.010 (0.024) (0.022) 0.301*** -0.335*** -0.176*** -0.244*** 0.038** -0.131*** -0.124*** 0.279*** -0.307*** -0.213*** 0.079*** -0.149*** -0.100*** -0.082*** (0.029) (0.027) (0.026) 0.130*** -0.197*** -0.123*** -0.119*** 0.026* -0.072*** -0.079*** 0.129*** -0.258*** -0.114*** -0.231*** 0.041 -0.219*** -0.184*** 0.898*** -1.25*** -0.468*** -1.27*** 0.291 -0.790*** -0.240 -0.937*** (0.138) (0.157) (0.162) (0.161) (0.193) (0.194) (0.184) (0.169) (Y) Effects separately. (all), (I). estimations Possession16 Possession10 Possession5 Housing16 Housing10 Housing5 -0.036 -0.035 -0.032 -0.033 0.028 (0.036) (0.031) -0.192 0.342 -0.951*** -0.872*** -0.783*** 0.158 (0.311) (0.395) (0.329) (0.245) (0.246) (0.253) 0.012 0.039* -0.034* 0.025* Age-specific 4: Exclusion -0.209*** -0.418*** -5.13*** (0.312) lim -2.09*** (0.288) -0.028 -0.137*** -1.82*** (0.028) (0.317) -0.288*** -0.730*** -5.57*** -0.136*** (0.301) -0.064*** (0.297) -0.208*** -2.43*** (0.306) -0.264*** -0.513*** -4.03*** -0.112*** (0.310) -0.242*** -0.463*** -3.76*** -0.098*** (0.019 (0.279) -0.043* -0.062** -1.23*** (0.305) -0.203*** -2.65*** (0.030) (0.341) -0.205*** -2.50*** (taking together) 43 5: Lack (A) (B) -0.426*** 0.027 -0.423*** -0.0024 0.025 -3.49*** -1.31*** 0.022 -3.48*** -0.729*** 0.018 (0.286) (0.307) (0.275) 0.0093 -0.089*** -0.026*** 0.017 (0.0098) (0.0097) Add -0.210*** 0.054** 0.104 -0.196*** 0.075*** 0.101 -1.77*** -0.574** 0.072 -1.63*** -0.118 0.069 (0.303) (0.283) (0.273) 0.030 -0.017* 0.0065 -0.040** 0.00011 (0.0095) -0.059** 0.235 0.034 -0.434 -0.740*** 0.225 -0.405 -0.188 0.224 (0.295) (0.265) (0.298) (0.251) -0.0027 -0.013 0.054 -0.0058 0.053 0.0055 0.248 0.0098 0.00018 (0.0091) compares afforded (B). 44 6: maximally allowed (main) -0.083*** -0.025 -0.031 -0.088*** -0.061** 0.231 -0.790** -0.922*** -0.537** -0.630*** -0.310 -1.718*** -1.010*** 0.324 (0.333) (0.272) (0.228) (0.232) (0.249) (0.271) -0.053*** 0.047 0.013 -0.103*** 0.237 -0.067** -0.085*** -0.060*** -0.226*** -0.039* 0.229 -0.416 -0.826*** 0.507** -0.433* -0.303 -1.674*** -0.615** 0.321 (0.313) (0.229) (0.233) (0.239) (0.262) (0.250) -0.012 0.028*** -0.036*** 0.008 0.011 0.236 -0.038 -0.181*** 0.226 -0.771** -0.648** 0.120 -0.399* -0.762*** -1.178*** -0.257 0.319 (0.319) (0.269) (0.237) (0.231) (0.260) (0.256) -0.016* -0.031*** 0.045 0.005 -0.099*** 0.232 top 50%, 25%, regressions 45 A1: variance: (reversed) measures. 46 Items • Possessions: (does own:) refrigerator, washing machine, dryer, TV, car, phone, video recorder, camera, stereo, radio, PC, sewing vacuum cleaner, microwave 16); freezer, holiday 10); phone 5); child: cassette player, bicycle 16) Health: eats meat fish times week, breakfast, lunch, iron, vitamins, milk, fibre, carbons, sugar intake breakfast 10) Neighbourhood: noisy, graffiti neighbourhood, youth loitering streets, drunks rubbish street, victim crime, beak-in, unsafe night (age 5) Housing: bathroom, indoor toilet, hot water, garden, kitchen, bed, difficulties heating house, moisture problems, untidy furniture state, (material): played books home, studying, newspapers, calculator constructional toys (immaterial): read little, library, Social: neighbours, participate activity (excursions, charities, concerts), talk rarely participates misses money, club organization 16), friends, 47 A2: Control Birth controls: abnormalities, hospital born, head circumference, mother married father Household income: eligibility free lunch class: employment: works (averaged hours worked 5), work experience structure: people older siblings, younger siblings Parenting style: attitude toward gender independence authoritarian world smoking (ever), pregnancy, heavy pregnancy 48 A3: Separate -0.128*** -0.169*** -0.289*** – -0.044** -0.096*** -0.193*** 0.115 0.000003 -0.039*** -0.017 0.181 0.000 -0.020* -0.167*** -0.021* 0.132 -0.081*** -0.170*** 0.144 Parent empl -0.041** -0.029*** -0.091*** -0.198*** 0.119 structure -0.031* -0.188*** 0.141 -0.090*** -0.165*** 0.133 Non-cog (NC) 0.021* 0.249 (WC) row regressed separately, jointly. isolation). Rows (WC). Row See contained A2 49 A4: -0.560*** -0.449*** -0.260*** -0.451*** -0.707*** -0.433*** -0.271*** -0.140*** -0.162*** -0.486*** 0.106 -0.261*** -0.130*** -0.171*** -0.456*** 0.118 0.198 -0.074** -0.056** -0.057** -0.135*** -0.390*** -0.101*** 0.147 -0.153*** -0.055** -0.126*** -0.399*** -0.129*** 0.159 -0.239*** -0.147*** -0.462*** -0.104*** -0.092*** -0.148*** -0.160*** -0.425*** 0.142 -0.187*** -0.071*** -0.132*** -0.394*** 0.137 -0.058*** -0.192*** -0.080*** 0.243 -0.047 -0.073*** -0.045* 0.301 -0.078*** -0.141*** -0.429*** 0.128 -0.018 -0.194*** 0.242 -0.037* 0.303 50 A5: -5.17*** -4.12*** -2.81*** -3.04*** -4.17*** -4.82*** -2.89*** (0.299) (0.282) (0.254) (0.266) (0.278) (0.268) -2.630*** -1.700*** -1.540*** -2.392*** -2.158*** -2.576*** -0.454 0.071 (0.353) (0.255) (0.264) (0.308) -2.260*** -1.583*** -0.971*** -0.956*** -0.851*** -3.238*** -1.399*** 0.276 (0.321) (0.284) (0.281) -1.651*** -1.394*** -1.140*** -2.097*** -1.611*** -1.383*** -0.153 (0.354) (0.309) (0.261) -0.901** -1.055*** -1.239*** -2.231*** -1.889*** -1.798*** -0.088 0.099 (0.371) (0.314) (0.276) -2.148*** -1.552*** -1.300*** -2.208*** -1.929*** -2.071*** -0.462 0.090 (0.358) (0.277) (0.285) -2.381*** -1.592*** -1.537*** -2.394*** -2.178*** -2.552*** -0.419 (0.364) (0.315) (0.287) -2.562*** -1.570*** -1.527*** -2.374*** -2.070*** -2.527*** -0.368 (0.360) -2.052*** -1.469*** -1.376*** -2.255*** -2.016*** -1.964*** -0.326 0.084 (0.357) -1.684*** -1.085*** -1.314*** -1.838*** -1.425*** -0.544* -0.116 0.129 (0.348) (0.304) -0.639* -0.726*** -0.516** -0.270 0.077 -0.600** -0.976*** 0.363 (0.326) (0.221) (0.242) (0.243) -2.572*** -1.612*** -1.371*** -2.182*** -2.046*** -2.402*** 0.052 0.083 (0.352) (0.292) -0.792** -0.857*** -0.401* -0.476** -0.222 -1.526*** -0.549** 0.332 (0.332) (0.270) -0.650** -0.710*** -0.204 0.113 -0.563** -0.699*** 0.366 description 51 A6: -0.108*** -0.125*** (0.0099) (0.0092) (0.0093) -0.040*** 0.031 0.038 -0.030** 0.036 -0.068*** 0.037 -0.069*** 0.035 0.044 0.048 0.059 0.061 Subjective 52 A7: Arrests34 0.030*** (0.007) (0.006) health42 -0.300** -0.117 -0.066 -0.262*** -0.105 -0.709*** (0.147) (0.121) (0.095) (0.098) (0.101) (0.122) (0.103) satis34 -0.043** -0.150*** (0.120) Finances42 0.024* 0.033*** 0.024** BMI42 -0.276*** 0.190*** 0.345*** -0.057 0.057 (0.091) (0.073) (0.059) (0.063) (0.064) (0.078) (0.065) -0.278** -0.034 0.221*** 0.239*** 0.088 -0.042 0.240 (0.115) (0.099) (0.060) (0.076) (0.071) BMI16 -0.053 0.197*** 0.040 -0.046 (0.048) (0.032) (0.053) 0.060* 0.060 0.067* 0.275 (0.047) BMI10 0.020 0.151*** 0.046 BMI42) ‘BMI’ member. ‘Arrests34’ arrests 34.‘Mental health42’ score Warwick Edinburgh well-being scale, ‘Finances42’ situation 53 A8: Comparison (educational attainment) Factor PW -0.332*** -0.191*** -0.357*** -0.122*** 0.093 Sum -0.292*** -0.158*** -0.037 -0.517*** -0.118*** 0.086 Binary -0.633*** 0.129** -0.527*** -0.982*** -0.199*** (0.057) (0.056) (0.058) -0.095*** -0.049** -0.224*** -0.099 -0.138** -0.476*** -0.130** -0.065 0.228 (0.061) (0.055) (0.054) (baseline) ‘Factor’ ‘PW’ ‘Sum’ sums applies. ‘Binary’ 0/1 75th labeled deprived). 54 A9: Excluding Exclude -0.062*** -0.166*** 0.227 -1.000*** -1.028*** -0.573** -0.714*** -0.286 -1.166*** 0.320 (0.334) (0.230) (0.248) (0.234) -0.021 0.023 partly member) excluded. exclusively 55 Copyright © @ author(s). Discussion papers draft form. distributed purposes comment only. reproduced permission copyright holder. Copies author.

Download presentation
259

7 POLITIQUE SOCIALE ET UNION MONETAIRE : PUZZLES, PARADOXES PERSPECTIVES1 PAR FRANK VANDENBROUCKE L’avènement d’Etats-providence nationaux forts et l’unification européenne étaient les plus beaux projets politiques du 20ème siècle ils porteurs d’espoir. Le rôle des Etats-providence était de ‘délivrer peuples la crainte besoin’. L’intégration devait mettre un terme à une histoire faite guerres meurtri- ères. Aujourd’hui, ces deux semblent dans l’impasse. L’Union (UE) est confrontée questions d’ordre existentiel qui ont trait l’objectif même coopération. Ce n’est pas remis en question, mais il semble que Etats sont moins mesure réaliser qu’ils se fixé – protéger gens. Je ne vais parler cette succession crises secoué l’Union. non tous challenges devant lesquels nos trouvent. Certaines problématiques cruciales seront donc traitées. me focalise sur question spécifique pourrait-il poursuite développement projet européen le soient pour comble malheur contradictoires ? Serions-nous présence d’un dilemme tragique, fait objectifs (intégration ouverture par l’Union, protection sécurité assurées nationaux) seraient conciliables Une école chercheurs universitaires croit effet selon Fritz Scharpf, l’UE, telle qu’elle conçue, peut être économie marché sociale ; elle pousse systématiquement membres voie modèle libéral.2 Les fondateurs n’avaient absolument cela tête, bien au contraire (1) Allocution prononcée l’occasion sa nomination comme professeur l’Université d’Amsterdam, 1er juin 2016. L’auteur remercie Anne Van Lancker, Natascha Mechelen, Sarah Marchal, Michael Jungen, Jan Vandenbroucke, Christina Grauls, Chris Luigjes, Bea Cantillon Brian Burgoon leurs commentaires ponctuels leur aide, collaborateurs Centre for EURpean Policy Studies (CEPS) discussions stimulantes concernant l’idée d’une réassurance EURpéenne systèmes chômage Philippe Claes traduction. (2) Voir Scharpf (2009) synthèse point vue qu’il a développé ce propos série publications importantes. situe cadre large d’analyses l’impact social l’UE Vandenbroucke (2013). REVUE BELGE DE SECURITE – 1e TRIMESTRE 2016 signataires Traité Rome persuadés l’intégration économique contribuerait riches inclusifs. Rétrospectivement, convictions pourraient synthétisées suit § n’allait seulement favoriser croissance l’ensemble pays participants permettrait aussi économiquement développés rattraper autres serait machine convergence.3 La gestion politique pouvait laissée aux instances nationales, c’est-à-dire niveau où pression syndicats partis suffisante distribuer correctement fruits économiques l’intégration. Il n’était nécessaire convenir normes sociales. pointe matière freinés convergence porterait atteinte cohésion interne. En résumé, credo founding fathers reposait dogmes, nous devons différencier entre cohé- sion sein membres. faut ajouter ici d’emblée deuxième dogme (la convergence) suscitait débats. savoir si faire sans harmonisation discussion années 50. rapport Ohlin, publié 1956, qui, avec Spaak, jeté bases création Communauté Economique Européenne, consacré question. Bertil Ohlin4 partait principe écarts coûts salariaux concernés liés productivité l’on s’inquiéter qu’une baisse salaires découlerait libération commerce. Ohlin insistait toutefois suivant d’éventuelles évolutions sens divers productivité, susceptibles survenir tard, corrigées adaptations taux changes pays. n’avait tête union monétaire s’agit réserve importante. suivi mesure.5 (3) L’expression ‘machine convergence’ empruntée Gill Raiser (2012). (4) lauréat prix Nobel d’économie, surtout connu ses travaux relatifs commerce international, synthétisés Heckscher-Ohlin theorema; fut également politicien suédois président parti. été l’Organisation Internationale Travail (OIT, 1956). (5) J’écris ‘dans mesure’, car constituait a, certains domaines, bel lié l’harmonisation haut niveau, notamment santé lieu travail années’ 80 ’90. Un aperçu développée l’Union figure Vanhercke (2014), Anderson (2015), Leibfried (2015) Rhodes (2015). 8 9 L’histoire n’a donné tort fathers, jusqu’au milieu 2000 intégration, processus rattrapage allaient pair. Depuis dizaine d’années, voyons cependant apparaître fissures modèle. première fissure déjà visible avant crise 2008. tournait, plusieurs européens très développés, inégalités augmentaient ‘cohésion fonctionnait plus. fissure, s’est avérée lézarde spectaculaire, révélée s’arrêtait nord sud l’union commençaient diverger. 2008, augmentent donc, membres, particulier zone euro. Dans l’analyse suit, l’accent mis quelle signification posée in abstracto doit service européen. De fait, je commencerai expliquer quel l’ambition particulière, certainement on l’applique l’Europe élargie d’aujourd’hui. Europe grandes, convient sous-estimer double challenge cohésion. L’EUROPE DES INEGALITES 1a montre côté constituent Etats-Unis (figure 1b) souci simplicité, appellerons ‘Etats’ description suit. petits carreaux gris représentent individuels. carré noir figures ‘Etat représentatif’ fictif, veut dire Etat membre ou américain correspond, revenus habitants répartition revenu, moyenne américaine. 6 Sur l’axe horizontal figure, chaque Etat, revenu médian dont disposent Etats, moyen ‘l’Etat représentatif’.7 vertical échelle l’inégalité l’Etat, exprimée règne représentatif’. L’échelle coefficient GINI comparons coefficients (6) arithmétique pondérée chiffres (membres), tenir compte taille diverse (membres). (7) basés l’enquête EU SILC 2014 (EURstat); données Bureau of the Census. sous-jacents tout comparables. Pour disponible ménages individu, standardisé différences composition ménages; montants exprimés parités pouvoir d’achat; pays, l’année 2013, sauf Royaume-Uni l’Irlande, rapportent 2014. Etats-Unis, dollars, base ménages, 10 eux. Lorsqu‘un (petit carreau gris) trouve droite l’Etat représentatif fictif (le noir), y élevé l’inverse, lorsqu’un petit gauche faible. Lorsqu’un représentatif, élevée bas l’iné- galité faible représentatif. cercle pointillé inclut Suède, Danemark quatre euro l’Autriche, Belgique, Finlande Pays-Bas. d’Etats comparés moyen, sensiblement (avec supérieur 34 % 53 moyenne) égale inférieur 17 moyenne). contient Roumaine Bulgarie Lettonie, Lituanie, l’Estonie, Grèce Portugal, compris 29 (Roumanie) 72 (Portugal) européenne, 13 européenne. illustre hétérogène monétaire, là donnée particulière. FIGURE 1A DIVERSITE ETATS MEMBRES l’UE28 11 1B ETATS-UNIS Source Eurostat U.S. Census Bureau, voir note détails. L’Etat 1b comparable élevé, réparti manière inégale. comparaison démontre américains eux beaucoup disparates européens, quant montant répartition. grande inégalité caractérise tant résultat chacun Etats. Europe, va autrement considérons seul élevée, combiné (modérée) majorité outre, pauvres enregistrent interne souvent d’inégalités riches. C’est ressort 1a, d’autres l’écart encore grand prenons échelon l’échelle revenus. Cela illustré tableau 1 compare cinq positions différentes classement revenus, moyenne, mêmes positions, fictif. Au (au sommet premier quintile, 20 inférieurs revenus), Roumain dispose aujourd’hui égal 23 12 quintile quatrième gagnent population), Roumains 32 correspondante. dévoile bonnes mauvaises nouvelles. bonne nouvelle, c’est réalisé l’Est centrale après 2006, échelons mauvaise nouvelle correspond l’inverse s’y produit puisque grecs situent présent, sous Pologne. TABLEAU COMPARAISON REVENUS A DIFFERENTS ECHELONS SUR L’ECHELLE RAPPORTS AVEC LA MOYENNE EUROPEENNE Point Moyenne 27 Roumanie Pologne Allemagne 2006 2013 Quintile 4 100% 26% 32% 123% 133% 48% 70% 138% 65% 3 24% 30% 132% 140% 45% 67% 93% 62% 2 21% 28% 139% 145% 88% 58% 18% 23% 144% 152% 43% 136% 82% 53% Légende standardisés disponibles l’UE27 réalisée d’achat (PPA) 2007 2013. Ceci explique pourquoi véritable pauvreté, seuil pauvreté commun, donne pourcentage pourcentages (mais quelque peu amélioré durant dernières années).8 Si traditionnellement USA, obtenons rapprochent américains. (8) analyse détaillée critères pan-EURpéens opposés d’inégalité Goedemé Collado (2016). DILEMMES TRAGIQUES OU DEFAUTS CONSTRUCTION REPARABLES L’une fonctions consiste redistribuer fortement passé modèles résisté récente crise, Suède l’Allemagne, l’effort redistribution s’affaiblir. Ils seuls évoluait défavorablement crise. Bien sûr, j’utilise définition relative segment plupart risque diminué chez pensionnés, nombreux touché personnes âge actif enfants. allocations lutte contre actifs augmenté.9 Nous disposons européennes comparables détaillées période postérieure 2004, European Survey Income and Living Conditions (EU SILC) arrivé son terme. Comme coïncidait l’élargissement tentation forte d’y preuve tragique diminution capacité payer moindre moteur tournait mettait mal pointe. L’optimisme d’Ohlin aurait justifié différenciaient l’un l’autre, club 28 hétérogènes. pense recette marche plus, s’agit-il autant préciser enjeux, importe distinguer tendances sociales fondamentales, part, réglementation insuffisante mouvements transfrontaliers travailleurs situations irrégulières liées, d’autre part. Par exemple, problèmes ‘détachement’ bénéficient depuis certain temps d’attention détachement signifie travaillent Pays-Bas restent entreprise étrangère. système réformé j’y reviendrai loin. organisé défaut construction réparable. Comment pourrait-elle créer explication plausible liée minima. On pourrait supposer minima exerce toute façon meilleure (9) constat lequel risques l’objet (2014); Rinaldi problématique EURpe. 14 compétitive l’évolution progression commencerait inférieure, avancés, moyens. pivot l’assistance, finit exercer l’édifice social. Cette hypothèse plausible, réalité complexe. groupe fixés officielle publie10 données, constatons glissement résulte vers salaire minimum avantageux l’élargissement, tendance ensuite (en concerne relatif) favorable, améliorée. eu positifs, nombre nouveaux augmentation forte, termes absolus, minima, Royaume-Uni. suggère fonctionné commencé développés. qu’un élément. Pas gouvernements pris mesures 15 d’impôts cotisations afin d’améliorer net gagnant A1 l’annexe l’importance cet effort aujourd’hui. mots, ait incité renforcer pouvoirs publics soutenir nets ‘décharger’ certaine employeurs responsabilité n’empêche fournissent effort.11 Tout ceux-ci maintiennent travail, prestations passe soutenus dépend possibilités priorités budgétaires. Cantillon, Marchal Luigjes indiquent finalement favorable 90 (c’est-à-dire balance favorables défavorables, examinée éventail mitigée).12 n’y d’indications lesquelles dernière vague d’élargissement empêché l’amélioration (10) affirmation (tentative) 1999-2008 comprennent Danemark, Finlande, l’Italie (11) configuration institutionnelle existante peut-être d’opérer adaptation, permet d’avoir, principe, asymétrique. (12) (2016) touchant minimum. plutôt choix politiques, opérés non, contexte autorités doivent jouer accru engager davantage moyens budgétaires ailleurs, dehors l’Europe, confrontés changements démographiques n’ont rien l’Européanisation, créent tensions imposent orientations nouvelles elles veulent combattre pauvreté. croissant familles monoparentales égard facteur important sociétés devient norme, ménage enfants suffit généralement maintenir celui-ci au-dessus quand convenable fortiori remplacement développer outils compensation auxquels prend d’importance.13 L’immigration produite joue manifeste migrants provenant général nées anciens secondaire ‘tourisme social’ vaut travaillent. courent l’UE. possible aspects entrent principalement concurrence occidentaux ‘classiques’, ‘supplantent’ derniers, difficultés monter sociale.14 analysé raisons lesquelles, l’opinion publique, l’immigration réduit soutien faveur sociale. égard, intégration important, renforce préoccupation public laquelle met soutenabilité financière Etats-providence.15 ainsi vicieux. âpre (non rémunération qualité travail) jouent rôle, complexe forces l’œuvre. Anthony Atkinson souligne, (13) Vinck (14) analyse, Pays-Bas, SEO (2014). (15) contextualisation problème, 16 œuvre l’inégalité, facteurs contribue l’inégalité.16 Ces diffèrent peuvent connaître divergentes. examiner marchés capitaux travail. d’évolutions technologiques influencent l’emploi. rapports force codes conduite. formés ménages. Et sociales, politiques. croissantes consé- quence ‘lois d’airain’, s’agisse stock (sur Piketty l’accent), globalisation l’Européanisation. cruciale élaborer contrer sociologiques engendrent termes, résister l’inégalité. l’Européanisation suivante l’adhésion besoin redistribution, effective nationales effet, présente prendre découle lois naturelles chimie physique, monde idées distinct. dossier Brexit Cameron, minimum, l’illustre bien. J’y l’heure, lorsque j’aborderai nouveau détachement, d’abord redistribuer. UNE SANS AMORTISSEUR Avec apparue fathers. L’écart dramatiquement creusé, arrière. lors, croître, nettement dilemmes tragiques dé- fauts réparables monnaie unique. J’examine aspect, manque d’amortisseurs. stabilisateurs automatiques intégrés progressivité impôts l’octroi protègent cas ralentissement l’activité économique, d’atténuer chocs écono- (16) (2015); Salverda al. miques. vont pair détérioration temporaire finances publiques. durement touchés dû désactiver trop vite automatiques, cause réactions financiers d’austérité convenue Conseil publication, Commission dépenses correspondait initialement stabilisateur auquel normalement s’attendre, que, seconde phase cas.17 renvoie maintenant connue. sait moins, seule tels partiellement centralisés monétaire. 2, basée économistes FMI, Etats-Unis.18 ATTENUATION CHOCS ECONOMIQUES Furceri Zdzienicka (2013) 18 (17) chapitre III.2, pp. 276-278, (18) J’ai, basant (2013), séries suivantes: colonne IV Tableau (chiffres reprennent d’Asdrubali) (II) (III) A1. affectent ‘produit intérieur’ individuels conséquences Autrement dit, comment amorti consommation autorités. 1963-1990 période, 75 amortis. distinction opérée trois mécanismes Des affectant production amortis basé partie rendement capital investi hors proprement dit EtatsUnis, mécanisme permis compenser, considérée, 39 ayant représente noire barre (techniquement parlant, l’influence ‘revenus facteurs’, ajoutée, dépréciation capital). ‘mécanisme d’assurance’ transfrontalier fonctionne via privés. épargnent (ou inversement, boom production) grise hachurée crédit, permettent d’épargner prêter internationale, importants second transfrontalier. Aux fédérales stabilisation fiscalité fédérale programmes sociaux fédéraux Washington sert réassureur renforçateur d’assurance-chômage organisés L’impact n’en soi s’agit, l’étude traitée (voir quadrillée barre). Mais complémentarité importante suite. l’organisation assurances-chômage différencient fédéraux, Canada organisent entièrement central. soutenues crédit fédéral aide régimes l’autorité associe dès lors uniformisation répondre certaines exigences minimales. assure, graves, prolongement fédéral, biais d’allocations supplé- mentaires financées budget fédéral. même, 19 d’extended benefits d’emergency appliqué l’administration fédérale. Du reste, caisses peuvent, conditions déterminée, emprunter l’argent lorsqu’elles rouge.19 souligne Etats-Unis. américaines généreuses l’Allemagne Belgique. Quand l’économie américaine frappée choc l’emploi, éventuel limité montrent microsimulations (l’Italie constitue exception qu’aux Etats-Unis).20 constats paraissent contradictoires, pas. existe facto idiosyncratiques, (UME), transferts rôle. opérons précédé l’a suivie idiosyncratiques former tard été, cours ’80 ’90, absorbés canal l’épargne internationaux tandis pratiquement joué aucun 45 (comparativement américains). Après l’épargne/ désépargne qu’à 26 mécanismes. L’analyse s’arrête ici. auteurs j’emprunte transfrontalière l’UME systématique, graves récente, coupés crédit. élé- ment tenues d’assurer propres banques (contrairement réassurées fédérale) retrouvées ‘étreinte mortelle’ confiance brusquement inversée. (19) sophistiqué expliqué (20) Figure (2016), Dolls, Fuest Peichl oublier avaient, périodes d’avant dégagé marge budgétaire fonctionner keynésiens classiques périodes. L’union complétée ensemble dispositifs amortir intégré capitaux, tel celui matière, réalisable court L’objectif urgent mise place bancaire, ‘l’étreinte mortelle’. travaille résistances considérables. fond ‘d’assureurs privés’, souscrire assurance crédible d’assurance publique catalyseur garantie adéquat privée.21 POURQUOI LES ASSURANCES-CHOMAGE SONT-ELLES ORGANISEES AU NIVEAU CENTRAL Toutes unions monétaires l’exception l’assurancechômage central n’optent centralisation (comme Allemagne), encadrement uniformistation chômage, degré réassurance, s’avère Etats-Unis). optique rationnelle connues. J’ai mentionné et/ou assurent idiosyncratiques. raison qualifient d’‘externalités’ toujours symétriques. externalité s’assure lui-même rend voisins. assurance-incendie vous souhaitez votre voisin assurance-incendie, n’aimeriez soit dégâts flat incendie propage flat. raisons, assurances-incendie, assurances-auto, imposées exemple vaccination, l’archétype vacciner protège maladie contagieuse, gens contact. l’efficacité rationnel subsidier vaccination l’imposer générale (même ceci Pays-Bas). danger contamination purement ou, paraphrasant Coen Teulings, (21) Cet argument utilisé Allard (2015, p. 239). 21 violent grand.22 soumis ‘exigences qualitatives minimales’ national. préventives (comparables obligatoire) impliquent évidemment accumuler déficits structurels, perdre alors manœuvre budgé- taire économique. évident satisfaire Couvrent-ils excluent-ils grands groupes Italie, Italie tellement ?23 sont-ils assez généreux avoir incidence stabilisatrice, pièges l’emploi considérations illustrent Etats-providence, nez légendaire chameau bon amortisseur, effets secondaires d’activation, gagner … cluster principes d’emploi cohérente. subventionnée, obligatoire l’est pas, fruit hasard théorie subventionner biens services externalités positives d’amener optimal. subventionnement l’ordre jour d’associer minimales qualité, sorte puissent difficiles. illusoire penser cependant, domaine, prime relativement modeste d’obtenir utile ample budget. quoi ressemblerait années, propositions publiées, relation nationaux.24 prévoient paient fonds, verse négatifs. variantes, uniquement (22) Teulings (2014, 34). (23) couverture Esser (24) Bablevy al Oksanen analysent fondement schéma EURpéen, pré- sentent éventuelles bibliographie étendue. historique débat relatif l’assurance-chômage figurent Strauss 22 ‘chocs asymétriques’, fonds jamais situation déficit. schéma, paieront touchés. D’autres considèrent demande d’être solidaires politiquement difficile judicieux plan possibilité crée temporairement dettes, contribuer symétrique. Certains proposent empêchent puisse s’opérer, auprès liquidé temps. lient nationaux, loin lien préconisent intervention directe perçues citoyen. suis associé étude sujet, direction (CEPS), sera prochainement remise tôt prononce s’il faut, coupler approche adopter. clair complexité sous-estimée. L’idéal réassure budgétaires, exclut permanents profit évite structurelle (plutôt simple profite). d’entrer détails techniques, préfère raisonnement sous-tend l’équilibre solidarité souveraineté mieux, formelle découle. affaire mieux prévenir guérir. n’organisons moné- taire. existé d’âpres négociations chefs gouvernement advenue vertu automatique ex ante inhérent européen, post. comporte inconvénients. institutions niveaux, uns autres, post conflictuelle polarisante. coût d’éviter dommages s’accroissent. cycles vu balancier attisés attentes, l’attente amortisseur remplir fonction permettant importants.25 ‘mécanismes privés’ faisant appel publics’ reposant complémentaires, l’avons évoqué auront l’issue lorsqu’ils savent aidera durs. UN PUZZLE DONT ELEMENTS ONT POUR NOMS SOLIDARITE SOUVERAINETE Vous objecterez beau reste political fiction. profonde méfiance réciproque, résistance partage l’aléa moral (moral hazard hamacs adéquates). sommes paradoxe consolident faibles forment logique. L’UE parvient Plutôt lamenter propos, demandions quels obstacles, l’agenda recherche relatif. Politiquement, puzzle compliqué n’importe ambitionnant stabilité l’intérêt tous, d’arriver ‘donnant-donnant’ arrive-t-on méfie l’autre Evoquons fois pièces constitutives classique ‘dilemme prisonniers’. solidaire nature n’offre solution déséquilibre structurel continuer surveiller compétitivité. Indépendamment intervenir divergences structurelles réponse symétrique, charges d’ajustement26), sous-entend limitation nationale. vrai cycliques l’acceptabilité règles rigoureuses (25) similaire l’argument Grauwe défendre l’action collective titres créance l’UME, EUR-obligations. (26) signifie, qu’en compétitivité différente, surplus courant lancer actions. 24 performance devenir transparentes nécessité ‘flexibilité’ rencontrée d’assurance. Etre s’immisce domaine raisons. d’amortisseurs d’autant efficace amortisseurs fonctionnent eux-mêmes. logique d’établir relatives stabilisatrice réassurance. droits sociaux, l’entendent classiquement considéré agenda positif avançons terrain sensible Quant caractère inévitablement ‘invasif’ solidarité, décrite induit d’aléa hazard). Aléa assuré adapte comportement, peur amplifie compenser. L’aléa inévitable rejette organiser considérablement ré- duit financiers. laquelle, diffère propre profil national passé, ‘seuil’ franchi défini n’intervienne importants. prévoir récupération cessent déterminer remboursés Plus dispositions strictes, d’assurance, nécessaires politique. posant d’activation impact réel nationale, latitude grande. L’Europe vocation Etat-providence débouchons tension connue responsabilités d’assistance niveaux d’administration différents responsable entités fédérées, provinces, régions communes responsables l’activation, institutionnel moral. Canada, Suisse 25 d’intéressants laboratoires. révèle enjeu politique, explicite implicite, solutions existent respecter, financement complexes, contrôle direct coordination…27. lancement Stratégie 1997, ‘coordination’ Garantie jeunesse 2014, s’inscrit tradition qualifiée ‘garantie qualité’ d’activation. soft servir nationaux. déclencheur rendre ambitieux rigoureux, classique. engagements contraignants nécessaires, diversifiée l’essentiel directives convenues réalisées, qu’elles détaillées. uniforme, accords clairs conclus éléments. CONSENSUS BASE LE MODELE SOCIAL EST INDISPENSABLE présenté section précédente large. Alors claire ‘modèle européen’ considérée dix ans exercice vraiment essentiel, devenue existentielle consensus concentre arguments spécifiquement monétaire.28 manuels d’économie expliquent avantages inconvénients trade-offs (un trade-off équilibre caractéristiques caractéristique pourra prononcée). symétrie flexibilité. d’output, suffisamment corrélées. flexibilité mobilité interrégionale internationale déterminent, ‘choc asymétrique’, d’adaptation indispensable (27) comparent huit l’assistance l’activation chômeurs béné- ficiaires l’aide (28) circonstanciée ‘Union EURpéenne’. intérieure conserver l’avantage trade-off, avons parlé asymétriques compensés diminue. désireux durable flexibilité, symétrie, socialement neutres. entraîne obligent trouver fonde. Prenons d’évolution salariaux. Celle-ci l’exposition l’assure automatiquement. d’augmentations salariales nécessite l’intervention ‘main visible’. d’accord ligne conduite ‘règle d’or’ lie augmentations nationales. implique position d’institutions capables coordonner main efficace.29 concept générique. régulés, temporaires Kurzarbeit (réduction Allemagne, main-d’œuvre polyvalente hautement voies cadre, oppose ‘voie haute valeur’, investir capacités professionnelles fondée régulation font influent n’obtiennent d’aussi bons résultats lorsqu’il combiner coordination concertation salariale (29) thèse rupture actuelle. législation ‘six-pack’ procédure détection correction déséquilibres macroéconomiques visent expressément décideurs EURpéens. actuelle unilatéralement affiche déficits. préoccupée surplus. d’organiser diapason; lierait (Vandenbroucke, 2015). d’actifs nuit stabilité). fonctionnement commune fournir conseils détaillés limite diversité s’adapter, fondamentales.30 base. SOCLE EUROPEEN DROITS SOCIAUX Existe-t-il perspectives l’obtention mars 2016, lancé consultation provisoire ‘Socle sociaux’. initiative activités ‘pour approfondie, équitable’, suite Rapport présidents 31 L’initiative axée euro, participer s’ils veulent. terminologie ‘droits’ perturbante, benchmarking, elle-même ‘Les proposés remplacent existants, offrent d’évaluer et, l’avenir, rapprocher performances d’emploi. (…) instauré, socle devrait référence d’examiner participants, conduire réformes l’échelon spécifique, d’indiquer suivre renouer euro.’ domaines d’action regroupés volets égalité chances accès équitables adéquate viable essentiels qualité. répond potentiellement j’ai décrit. sociaux’ nécessaire. temps, risque. vécue réédition stratégies existantes coordination, telles Méthode ouverte l’inclusion donner aucune dynamique scepticisme prédo- (30) élaboré pension long (31) minant renforcé. impact, Premièrement, fasse leaders partenaires niveau. dotée fiscal compact (pacte budgétaire), faudrait convienne ‘pacte social’. Deuxièmement, lesquels, compétences existantes, effectifs, juridique terme, créés compétences. légiférer, l’initiative législative négligée évident, benchmarking rigoureux instruments résultats, aille présent coordination.32 Troisièmement, moment initiatives ‘dures’ (c’est-à-dire, ‘soft’ coordination) préparation instrument d’accroître sensibilité RECIPROCITE MOBILITE TRANSFRONTALIERE Mon plaidoyer réciprocité risques, assorti d’exigences strictes auxquelles assurés satisfaire. application ‘réciprocité’ riche donnant-donnant. Samuel Bowles définit ‘réciprocité forte’ disposition collaborer partager attitude, avantage individuel.33 l’‘intérêt personnel éclairé’, étant ‘conditionnelle’. réciprocité, précité, ciment offerte revient appliquer dosage mantra impitoyable, tient droit compassion. surdose engendrer généralisée, débouche l’obsession empê- che assurances mutuelles. doit, dose, inspirer Ainsi faudrait-il débats transfrontaliers. J’illustre brièvement. (32) défis d’analyse stratégique comparative, rapportent, abordés (33) repose non-discrimination citoyens traiter Polonais Néerlandais citoyen entrer d’existence n’impose générosité immédiate inconditionnelle, contrairement pensent. organisent. facilite concrétise idée citoyenneté justifie l’employeur travailleur polonais paie néerlandais. territoire tolérons (qui cher) néanmoins exactement ‘détachement’. technique rester assujetti polonaise. courtes missions l’étranger, nécessaire, contrôlée. essentielles, valent hôte, respectées, déloyale. demandent, Belgique réforme détachement. laborieuse. Commissaire Thyssen, prise entre-temps rejetée (ainsi Danemark). David Cameron exclure britanniques spécifiques Européens recourent dérogation non-discrimination. Sa motivée travaillant salaire, payée employeurs. britannique attire frais contribuable britannique. annexe grand, apparaît simultanément Grande-Bretagne publics, sens, factuel convaincant. Britanniques l’égard peser débat. l’ai auparavant, 30 crucial contribuent l’adhésion. obtenu éventuellement exclus avantageux. clairement délimitée. fondamentale cours. familiales nuancée.34 croissante boussole principe. limitations possibles (car profite Polonais) simultanément, porte base, déroge recul Pologne). mangent volontiers râteliers plaint abus l’Est, mine Simultanément, Premier ministre Rutte comportaient nombreuses choses positives. manger plaisir ça néerlandais discours élémentaire compliquent compromis raisonnable d’Europe 35 devraient ‘Nous voulons discriminer comprenez financières minées débridée détachement.’ (34) belges d’enfants doivent-elles élevées résident Pologne, vie requiert d’argent strictement (et élargi pensions, exemple) secondaire. pragmatiques opter EURpéen résident, adaptées permanence rythme différent EURpéens évolue vite, évolution pays). Outre l’aspect pragmatique, s’interroger priorité (35) L’attitude cohérente, souhaite mobilité. départ, conclure meilleur accord, Néerlandais. dérogations multiplient, évoluerons importante, convaincus Etats-providence. Selon eux, confiée tort, 2000. oblige réfléchir peut-elle réussite qu’union prospères devienne Etat-providence. essayer rétablir limitant option, voulions vivre d’illusions. cohérent d’Union J’utilise l’expression ‘union sociale’ invite présenter clair, opposition notion d’‘Europe sociale’, utilisée aller l’appel habituel consistant ‘dimension sociale’. L’affirmation dimension fondée. mobiles, toutes acquis négligeable, cinquante avant. solide légale lutter discrimination Union fi positif. étapes suivantes reposent acquis, défi. comprendre nouveauté défi au-delà ajout hasard. héritages historiques diverses. tangible qu’entités collectives, réciprocité. objectif interpersonnelle par-delà frontières. continuerait subsidiarité organisateur fondamental.36 n’équivaut l’harmonisation. L’idée résumée soutiendrait systémique clés orienterait substantiel États-providence définissant généraux, laisserait oeuvre s’appuyant opérationnelle ‘Modèle européen’. coopéreraient référant d’où européenne’. stabilisation, j’aurais pu exemples fixation sociétés, permettre régime équilibré. gagnerait recourir d’emprise nationale dernier noeud synonyme perte d’influence, ‘perte maîtrise situation’. prêts souveraineté, ‘maîtriserons notre partagés retrouver mener effective. forts, faibles. ENVOI intéressant imperfections présentes l’architecture considère ‘exemple suivre’, structure trouvons inculte n’existe monde, d’exemple d’Etats-providence’, l’être. académique, (36) perçue allant sens. L’organisation supranational subsidiarité. indique EURpéenne, perspective repenser l’application également. 33 normatif qu’empirique. veux poursuivre d’université Amsterdam. (Traduction) ANNEXE L’IMPACT SALAIRES MINIMA, IMPOTS, COTISATIONS PRESTATIONS POUVOIR D’ACHAT MENAGES couple situant faisons REVENU D’UN COUPLE GAGNANT SALAIRE MINIMUM MPI CSB Version 3/2013 Mechelen (2011). BIBLIOGRAPHIE Anderson, K.M., Social Union, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Allard, C., Bluedorn, J., Bornhorst, F. Furceri, D., Lessons from crisis: minimal elements area, C. Cottarelli M. Guerguil (réd.), Designing Fiscal Union. experience federations, Abingdon, Routledge, Atkinson, A.B., Inequality. What Can Be Done?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Beblavy, M., Marconi, G. Maselli, I., Unemployment Benefit Scheme. The rationale ahead, CEPS Special Report n°. 119, Bowles, S., collaboration Fong, Gintis, H., Jayadev, A. Pagano, U., Essays New Economics Inequality Redistribution, Cambridge, Cambridge 2012. Burgoon, B., Political Economy Re-embedding Liberalism, Immigration, Integration Support Redistribution World Politics, 66, 365-405, B. Decent Poor: Which Role Europe?, Improve Final Conference Paper, Anvers, février S. Working Paper 15/20, Centrum voor Sociaal Beleid Herman Deleeck, Reconciling Work Poverty Reduction How Successful Are Welfare States?, Employment Developments 2015, Bruxelles, Compléter préparé Jean-Claude Juncker étroite coopération Donald Tusk, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Mario Draghi Martin Schulz, Fuest, Peichl, A., Automatic Stabilizers Economic Crisis: US vs. Journal Public Economics, 96 (3-4), 279-294, 36 Esser, Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Palme, J. Sjöberg, O., Benefits Member States, DG Emploi, Affaires Inclusion (EMPL), D. Zdziencicka, Euro Area Need Supranational Risk Sharing Mechanism?, IMF 13/198, Gill, I.S. Raiser, Golden growth. Restoring Lustre Model, Washington, Banque mondiale, Goedemé, T. Collado, Convergence Machine at Work. To EU’s Poorest Citizens?, Common Market Studies, 1-17, International Labour Organization, Aspects Co-operation. by Group Experts (résumé), Review, 74 (2), 99-123, 1956. Policy. Left to Judges Markets?, H. Wallace, M.A. Pollack Young Policy-Making 7th edition, 263-292, Oksanen, Smoothing Asymmetric Shocks Area: Simple Proposal Dealing with Mistrust Area, CESifo No. 5817, Rhodes, Between Efficacy Experimentation, 293-318, Salverda, W., Nolan, Checchi, Marx, McKnight, Toth, I.G. van Werfhorst, Changing Inequalities Rich Countries. Analytical Comparative Perspectives, F., Asymmetry Integration, or Why cannot be market economy, KFG 6, 1-35, Berlin, Kolleg-Forschergruppe ‘The Transformative Power Europe’, 2009. SEO, Grensoverschrijdend Aanbod Personeel: Verschuivingen Nationaliteit Contractvormen op Nederlandse Arbeidsmarkt 2001-2011. Onderzoek opdracht het Ministerie Sociale Zaken Werkgelegenheid, Amsterdam, Economisch Onderzoek, 37 Strauss, R., history debate Scheme, presented APPAM Inequalities: Addressing Growing Challenge Policymakers Worldwide, London, 13-14 Toekomst Europa: een essay over schuld, moraal solidariteit, Management & Organisatie, 5(6), 33-38, N., I. CSB-Minimum Protection Indicators dataset (CSB-MIPI), Series WP 11/05, 2011. Vinck, Child poverty risks Belgium, Wallonia Flanders: Accounting worrying performance, Revue belge sociale, 57 (1), 51-98, Rinaldi, Inégalités europe. cohésion, Notre Institut Jacques Delors, 147, cembre luxe nécessité, 54 195-237, Case From Muddling Through Sense Purpose, Marin Future Global Ashgate, Aldershot UK, 489-520, Analysis Brink Era, Analysis: Research Practice, 1-13, Vanhercke, Union: Ten Tough Nuts Crack, Background Friends High-Level ‘Social Institutional multi-tiered regulation unemployment assistance activation. summary eight country case studies, 38 DISPENSABLE TABLE MATIERES PERSPECTIVES

Download presentation
258

5 SOCIAAL BELEID IN EEN MUNTUNIE: PUZZELS, PARADOXEN EN PERSPECTIEVEN1 DOOR FRANK VANDENBROUCKE Sterke nationale welvaartsstaten en Europese eenmaking waren de mooiste politieke projecten van 20ste eeuw: ze gaven hoop. Welvaartsstaten zouden mensen ‘bevrijden vrees nood’. De integratie moest een einde stellen aan geschiedenis bloedige oorlogen. Beide lijken nu vast te lopen. Unie (EU) is geconfronteerd met vragen die existentieel zijn omdat gaan over het doel zelf samenwerking. Het wordt niet in vraag gesteld, maar indruk bestaat dat steeds minder staat hun algemeen aanvaarde – beschermen waar maken. Ik zal hebben aaneenschakeling crisissen Unie. ook alle uitdagingen onze voor staan. Belangrijke vraagstukken blijven daarmee buiten gezichtsveld deze lezing. zoom op één specifieke kwestie: zou kunnen verdere ontwikkeling project tot overmaat ramp strijdig elkaar? Zouden we maken tragisch dilemma, doelstellingen (integratie openheid door Unie, bescherming zekerheid welvaartsstaten) als langer verenigbaar zijn? Een school academische onderzoekers mening inderdaad toegedaan: volgens Fritz Scharpf kan EU, zoals opgevat is, onmogelijk sociale markteconomie vormen; duwt lidstaten systematisch richting liberaal model2 . grondleggers dachten absoluut niet, wel integendeel: ondertekenaars Verdrag Rome ervan overtuigd economische bijdragen rijke inclusieve na- (1) Oratie bij benoeming Universiteitshoogleraar Universiteit Amsterdam, 1 juni 2016. dank Anne Van Lancker, Natascha Mechelen, Sarah Marchal, Michael Jungen, Jan Vandenbroucke, Christina Grauls, Chris Luigjes, Bea Cantillon Brian Burgoon punctueel commentaar hulp, medewerkers Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) stimulerende discussies herverzekeringen werkloosheidsuitkeringen voorbereiding tekst. (2) Zie (2009) synthese opvatting hij daarover ontwikkelde reeks belangrijke publicaties. situeer breder geheel analyses impact EU Vandenbroucke (2013). BELGISCH TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR SOCIALE ZEKERHEID – 1e TRIMESTER 2016 tionale welvaartsstaten. Terugblikkend je overtuiging volgt samenvatten: § alleen groei deelnemende landen bevorderen toelaten economisch anderen inhalen: was convergentiemachine3 ; zorg beleid kon gerust gemoed overlaten niveau, voldoende druk vakbonden partijen bestaan om vruchten netjes verdelen. Sociale standaarden afspreken nodig. Landen sociaal voorop liepen, geremd worden beleid: convergentie-machine interne cohesie aantasten. Kort samengevat, credo founding fathers rustte twee geloofsartikelen, goed moeten onderscheiden: convergentie-door-integratie tussen lidstaten; cohesie-in-de-convergentie binnen lidstaten. moet hier meteen toevoegen tweede geloofsartikel (cohesie-in-de-convergentie) onomstreden was. of zonder harmonisatie vormde punt discussie jaren vijftig. Ohlin-rapport uit 1956, samen Spaak-rapport basis legde creatie Economische Gemeenschap, kwestie gewijd. Bertil Ohlin4 ging verschillen loonkosten betrokken mate samenhingen productiviteit men ongerust diende neerwaartse lonen ontstaan vrijmaken handel. Ohlin onderlijnde volgende uitgangspunt: mogelijke uiteenlopende ontwikkelingen inzake later optreden, gecorrigeerd aanpassingen onderlinge wisselkoersen landen. had dus muntunie: geen onbelangrijk voorbehoud. grote gevolgd.5 heeft ongelijk gegeven, ten minste halverwege 2000: integratie, inhaalbewegingen uitbouw gingen hand hand. Sinds tiental zien echter barsten dit model. eerste barst al zichtbaar crisis 2008. convergentiemachine draaide, meerdere hoogontwikkelde (3) uitdrukking ‘convergentiemachine’ ontleend Gill Raiser (2012). (4) Ohlin, Nobelprijswinnaar economie, vooral bekend werk internationale handel, samengevat Heckscher-Ohlin theorema; Zweedse politicus partijvoorzitter. rapport werd gepubliceerd Internationale Arbeidsorganisatie (ILO, 1956). (5) schrijf ‘in mate’, zich ontwikkelende Gemeenschap marktintegratie bepaalde terreinen gekoppeld hoog name veiligheid gezondheid tachtig negentig. overzicht vindt Vanhercke (2014), Anderson (2015), Leibfried (2015) Rhodes (2015). 6 7 MUNTUNIE nam ongelijkheid toe: ‘cohesie-in-de-convergentie’ klopte meer. barst, spectaculaire scheur eigenlijk, crisis: stokte, noorden zuiden muntunie dreven elkaar. 2008 neemt toe aantal lidstaten, eurozone. In lezing focus ik wat betekent monetaire beleid? abstracto gesteld: gaat dienen. breng daarom eerst beeld hoe bijzonder ambitie zeker toepast uitgebreide Europa vandaag. immers groot, dubbele uitdaging convergentie onderschatten. HET ONGELIJKE EUROPA Figuur 1a brengt naast staten deel uitmaken Verenigde Staten (Figuur 1b); eenvoud noemen beschrijving volgt, allemaal ‘staten’. grijze ruitjes individuele staten. zwarte vierkantje midden beide figuren denkbeeldige ‘representatieve staat’, wil zeggen lidstaat Amerikaanse staat, qua inkomen er wonen verdeling beantwoordt Europese, respectievelijk gemiddelde.6 Op horizontale as lees elk mediane waarover inwoners beschikken, verhouding staat’.7 verticale maatstaf uitgedrukt heerst staat’. ongelijkheidsmaatstaf GINI-coëfficiënt: vergelijken GINI-coëfficiënten Wanneer (een grijs ruitje) rechts ligt representatieve (het vierkant), dan hoger staat; omgekeerd, wanneer ruitje links lager. groter (6) ongewogen rekenkundige gemiddelde cijfers (lid)staten, rekening houden omvang (lid)staten. (7) gebaseerd SILC 2014 (Eurostat); VS data Bureau the Census. onderliggende helemaal vergelijkbaar. Voor beschikbare huishoudinkomen per individu, gestandaardiseerd samenstelling huishoudens; bedragen koopkrachtpariteiten; betrekking 2013, behalve Verenigd Koninkrijk Ierland, 2014. inkomens dollars, huishoudbasis, 8 lager staat. cirkel stippellijnen bevat Zweden, Denemarken vier eurolanden: Oostenrijk, België, Finland Nederland. Dit vergelijking aanzienlijk rijker (met mediaan 34% 53% gemiddelde) meer gelijke inkomensverdeling kennen GINI-coëfficiënt 9% 17% gemiddelde). omvat Roemenië Bulgarije eurolanden Letland, Litouwen, Estland, Griekenland Portugal, slechts 29% (Roemenië) 72% (Portugal) gemiddelde, GINI 13% gemiddelde. illustreert Eurozone even heterogeen EU: gegeven. FIGUUR 1A: DIVERSITEIT LIDSTATEN EU28 9 1B: STATEN VSA Bron: Eurostat Census, zie noot details. 1b vergelijkbaar 1a: hoger, veel ongelijker verdeeld. leert onderling divers inkomenshoogte verdeling. (VS) land kenmerken, resultaat anders: beschouwen, hoog, gecombineerde (matige) meeste Bovendien zo armere intern vaak rijkere Dat blijkt 1a, andere cijfers: spreidstand nog vergelijkingspunt nemen lagere sport inkomensladder. Tabel dit: vijf verschillende plaatsen rangschikking dezelfde lidstaat’. Onderaan inkomensladder (aan top quintiel, laagste 20% inkomens) Roemeen vandaag gelijk 23% quintiel; bovenaan vierde waarmee 80% bevolking achter laat) 10 32% overeenkomstige toont slecht nieuws. Goed nieuws inhaalbeweging Oost- Centraal-Europese na 2006 gemaakt hebben, sporten Dramatisch Griekenland: daar omgekeerde gebeurd zodat Griekse quintiel zelfs beneden Poolse niveau liggen. TABEL 1: INKOMENSVERGELIJKING OP VERSCHILLENDE SPORTEN DE LADDER: VERHOUDINGEN MET EUROPESE GEMIDDELDE Vergelijkingspunt Gemiddelde 27 Polen Duitsland 2013 Top Quintiel 4 100% 26% 123% 133% 48% 70% 138% 65% 3 24% 30% 132% 140% 45% 67% 93% 62% 2 21% 28% 139% 145% 88% 58% 18% 144% 152% 43% 136% 82% Legende: netto besteedbare gestandaardiseerde huishoudinkomens, EU27; gebeurt koopkrachtpariteiten (PPP) prijsverschillen Eurostat; 2007 2006; 2013. alles legt waarom echt armoede, gezamenlijke armoedegrens, armoedepercentage oplevert armoedepercentages (maar enigszins verbeterde tijdens voorbije jaren).8 Als naar kijken traditioneel kijken, krijgen dichter buurt komen cijfers. TRAGISCHE DILEMMA’S OF HERSTELBARE CONSTRUCTIEFOUTEN functies herverdelen inkomens. sterk verleden model stonden recente doorstaan Zweden Duitsland, lijkt herverdelingsinspanning verzwakken. Zij enige armoede reeds ongunstig evolueerde. definieer daarbij (8) analyse pan-Europese versus maatstaven Goedemé Collado (2016). 11 relatieve betekenis; onderkant inkomensverdeling. daalde armoederisico gepensioneerden, heel werkzame leeftijd kinderen. rol uitkeringen bestrijden af; inkomenskloof gezinnen sterke band arbeidsmarkt zwakke groeide.9 Gedetailleerde vergelijkbare gegevens periode 2004, Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU SILC) uitgerold is. Omdat samenviel uitbreiding verleiding groot hierin bewijs dilemma zien: afnemende herverdelingskracht prijs betaald bescherming: convergentiemotor tastte meest geavanceerde aan. Ohlin’s optimisme gegrond geweest verschilden elkaar, club 28 zeer heterogene denk recept werkt, dilemma? Om scherp nodig onderscheid gebrekkige regelgeving grensoverschrijdend verkeer werknemers mistoestanden samenhangen enerzijds, fundamentele maatschappelijke tendensen anderzijds. Mistoestanden detachering sinds tijd aandacht; Nederland werken dienst buitenlands bedrijf. systeem hervormd worden; kom verder terug. georganiseerd stelsel dilemma: herstelbare constructiefout. Hoe creëren? plausibel aanknopingspunt minimumlonen. Men veronderstellen minimumlonen beste zet marge stijging landen; daardoor achterop beginnen lopen t.a.v. lonen. spil bijstand, leidt hele bouwwerk. Deze hypothese aannemelijk, werkelijkheid complexer. groep officieel vastgelegd waarvoor publiceert10, (9) vaststelling armoederisico’s toenamen welvaartsstaten, voorwerp (2014); Rinaldi problematiek Europa. (10) Eurostat-gegevens waarop me baseer ruwe statement maken, slaan 1999- omvatten niet: Denemarken, Finland, Italië. 12 zekere verschuiving Er treedt midden: minimumloon/gemiddeld loon gunstig uitbreiding, tendens nadien dalend (wat betreft); was, vaak. Positieve nieuwe absolute toename minimumlonen, Koninkrijk. gelezen indicatie deed begon zetten bouwwerk Minimumlonen element. Nogal regeringen 15 jaar maatregelen genomen belastingen nettokoopkracht verbeteren minimumloon werken: A1 bijlage belangrijk inspanning Nog anders gezegd, lageloonlanden overheden aangezet grotere overheidsinspanning netto-inkomens werkgevers ‘ontlasten’ verantwoordelijkheid; verhindert opbrengen.11 Net nettolonen arbeidsmarkt, uitkeringen. ondersteund afhankelijk budgettaire mogelijkheden prioriteiten. Cantillon, Marchal Luigjes wijzen erop evolutie uitkeringsbestel gunstiger gemengd gunstige ongunstige evoluties landen) 2000 negentig.12 aanwijzingen laatste uitbreidingsgolf maakte netto-inkomen verbeteren. veeleer keuzes worden, context waarbij spelen middelen inzetten beschermen. Overigens Europa, demografische veranderingen, niets Europeanisering spanningen creëren dwingen oriëntaties willen tegengaan. toenemende eenoudergezinnen factor: samenlevingen tweeverdienerschap norm wordt, volstaat gezin kinderen boven armoedegrens til- (11) sommige bestaande institutionele configuratie misschien dergelijke aanpassing waardoor EU-integratie, principe, asymmetrisch effect hebben. (12) (2016) 13 len, behoorlijk is; hetzelfde geldt a fortiori vervangingsinkomens. Overheden instrumenten ontwikkelen; compensatie kosten belangrijker.13 Migratie gang kwam speelt aanwijsbare armoedecijfers: EU15 migranten oude geboren zijn. neveneffect ‘bijstandstoerisme’; merkelijk EU. Nu ene verband houdt: EU-migranten concurreren ‘klassieke’ niet-westerse migranten, ‘verdringen’ moeilijker hen ladder geraken.14 onderzocht migratie publieke opinie eerder steun herverdeling steun. Slechte factor, want versterkt bezorgdheid financiële houdbaarheid verzorgingsstaten onder zet.15 Zo dreigt vicieuze ontstaan. scherpere concurrentie (niet salariëring kwaliteit werk) rol, complex krachten werk. Anthony Atkinson onderlijnt levenswerk factoren bijdraagt ongelijkheid.16 land, ontwikkelingen. Je kapitaalmarkten arbeidsmarkten kijken. technologische evoluties, werkgelegenheid beïnvloeden. machtsverhoudingen gedragscodes. wijze huishoudens vormen. En uitkeringen, keuzes. Toenemende gevolg ‘ijzeren wetten’, groeiende kapitaalvoorraad (waar Piketty klemtoon legt), globalisering Europeanisering. patronen land. sleutel ontwikkelen sociologische leiden tegenkracht tegen ongelijkheid. (13) besproken Vinck (14) Dergelijke men, betreft, SEO (2014). (15) bredere inkadering probleemstelling, (16) (2015); Salverda et al. 14 vraagstuk gesteld worden: draagvlak herverdeling, effectieve vermogen doen, is? Let wel, politiek komt stand natuurwetten: chemie fysica, wereld ideeën aparte deze. Brexit-dossier Cameron, minimumloners, dat. straks terug, heb detacheringskwestie, inzoomen herverdelen. ZONDER SCHOKDEMPER Met opgetreden fathers. dramatische ware achteruit draaien. sindsdien Hier beslist tragische dilemma’s constructiefouten muntunie. belicht aspect, gebrek schokdempers. ingebouwde automatische stabilisatoren: progressieve zorgen ervoor koopkracht beschermd inzinking, schokken uitgevlakt worden. stabilisatoren gepaard tijdelijke verslechtering overheidsbegroting. zwaar getroffen werden, moesten snel uitschakelen. reacties markten strakke bezuinigingsbeleid Raad overeenkwamen. publicatie Commissie uitgaven initieel beantwoordde stabiliserende patroon normaal gesproken verwachten, fase geval.17 herhalen. Wat ter waarin dele gecentraliseerd 2, economen IMF, VS.18 (17) hoofdstuk III.2, pp. 276-278, Commission (18) heb, Furceri Zdzienicka (2013) reeksen gecombineerd: kolom IV (cijfers zij overnemen Asdrubali) (II) (III) A1. 2: UITVLAKKEN VAN ECONOMISCHE SCHOKKEN (2013); 18 welke ‘binnenlands product’ treffen, gevolgen bestedingen Ze woorden consumptie gedempt wordt. 1963-1990: gemiddeld 75% uitgevlakt. figuur drie mechanismen: Schokken productie doordat opbrengst kapitaal eigen geïnvesteerd mechanisme, beschouwde 39% productieschokken compenseerde: gedeelte balk (technisch invloed zogenaamde ‘factorinkomens’, depreciatie toegevoegd is). ‘verzekeringsmechanisme’ werkt via private kapitaalmarkten. sparen peil (of omNettobelastingen transfers 16 gekeerd, productieboom); gearceerde mechanisme zorgde uitvlakking Grensoverschrijdende kredietmarkten, internationaal gespaard geleend daarin belangrijk, vormen ‘verzekeringsmechanisme’. zorgt federale overheid stabilisatie: belastingstelsel programma’s effect, bovendien Washington herverzekeraar versterker werkloosheidsystemen organiseren. daarvan zichzelf belangrijk; studie verwerkt schokken, gerasterde balk. Maar complementariteit mechanismen dadelijk organisatie werkloosheidsverzekeringen verantwoordelijkheid staten; staten, Canada volledig centrale statelijke federaal belastingkrediet helpt werkloosheidsstelsels betalen; koppelt stroomlijning aan: minimale eisen beantwoorden. tijden erge crises verlengstuk, bijkomende gedeeltelijk gefinancierd begroting. Ook extended benefits emergency toegepast administratie. werkloosheidskassen voorwaarden periode, geld lenen rood staan.19 risicospreiding VS. genereus België. economie werkgelegenheidsschok, stabilisator inkomens, berekenen microsimulatie, beperkter (Italië uitzondering daarop; VS).20 vaststellingen klinken tegenstrijdig, tegenstrijdig. toont, facto idiosyncra- (19) gesofisticeerde uitgelegd (20) (2016), Dolls, Fuest Peichl 17 tische belangrijker Muntunie (EMU), grensoverschrijdende spelen. We daarna: idiosyncratische vormen, negentig werden opgevangen spaarkanaal terwijl haast speelden; vorming (in staten). Na verminderde sparen/ontsparen: gedempt. stopt niet. auteurs wie ontleen, illustreren EMU stelselmatig afgenomen, kredietmarkten gebreke diepe crisissen. bepaald ogenblik zuiderse Eurolanden afgesneden kredietmarkten. feit instaan verzekering banken tegenstelling VS, herverzekerd overheid) speelde rol: hielden elkaar ‘dodelijke omarming’ vertrouwen sloeg om. Daarbij mogen vergeten goede onvoldoende ruimte hadden gecreëerd klassieke keynesiaanse laten slechte tijden. conclusie voorzieningen opdat geïntegreerde kapitaalmarkt, principe spelen, korte termijn realiseren. urgente bankenunie, omarming’. Daar gewerkt, tegenstand. bankenunie volle ‘private verzekeraars’ afsluiten: geloofwaardige vorm katalysator garantie verzekering.21 (21) argument gehanteerd Allard (2015, p. 239). WAAROM WORDEN WERKLOOSHEIDSVERZEKERINGEN GECENTRALISEERD? Alle muntunies centraliseren werkloosheidsverzekering; regelrechte centralisatie kiezen (zoals Duitsland), omkadering werkloosheidsstelsels, herverzekering, centralisering nood VS). rationeel, bekende redenen. aangegeven: en/of herverzekering schokken. reden ‘externaliteiten’ noemen, altijd symmetrisch Nationale verzekeringssystemen veroorzaken externaliteit: verzekert, bewijst buren dienst. brandverzekering: wenst buurman brandverzekering heeft, schade jouw flat betalen brand uitslaat flat. brandverzekeringen, net autoverzekeringen, verplicht. Of neem vaccinatie, archetypische voorbeeld vaccineert, beschermt besmettelijke ziekte, contact komt. Daarom louter vanuit standpunt efficiëntie rationeel vaccinaties subsidiëren verplichten (ook niet). besmettingsgevaar gemeenschappelijke markt, of, Coen Teulings zeggen, risico uitslaande brand.22 onderworpen ‘minimale kwaliteitseisen’ stabilisatiecapaciteit bestel. Preventieve (te verplichte vaccinatie) structurele tekorten opbouwen, verliezen bewegingsruimte overheidstekorten groeien inzinking. werkloosheidssystemen voldoen. Dekken groepen onverzekerd Italië, uitlegt Italië beperkt is?23 Zijn inactiviteitsvallen veroorzaken? ander spreekwoordelijke neus kameel zijn: schokdemper zijn, neveneffecten, hangt activeringsbeleid, hoogte verdienen … eigenlijk cluster principes werkloosheids- werkgelegenheidsbeleid coherente manier (22) (2014, 34). (23) dekkingsgraad Esser 19 Vaccinatie gesubsidieerd, zowel verplicht toevallig: gegeven theorie goederen diensten positieve externaliteiten verbruik optimaal brengen. orde; koppelen kwaliteitseisen, kost moeilijke omstandigheden betalen. begroting illusie; relatief kleine verzekeringspremie domein nuttige bereiken omvangrijke interstatelijke eruitzien? Tijdens voorstellen gepubliceerd, werkloosheidsstelsels.24 veelal neer fonds, uitkeert negatieve varianten ‘asymmetrische schokken’, fonds nooit tekort crisis, zullen minst dergelijk schema, Andere beschouwen problematisch solidariteit vraagt voelen moeilijk zinvol. voorzien mogelijkheid stabilisatiefonds tijdelijk schulden opbouwt, stabilisatie eurozone symmetrische treffen. Bepaalde verhinderen komen, aanhouden aangezuiverd Sommige werkloosheid begrotingstransfers, werkloosheidssystemen. koppeling werkloosheid: pleiten rechtstreekse interventie burgers krijgen. Zelf ben grootschalig onderzoek hierover, leiding (CEPS), binnenkort opgeleverd Commissie. vroeg spreken werkloosheidsuitkeringen, benadering Wel duidelijk complexiteit onderschat mag aangewezen (24) Bablevy Oksanen bespreken rationale Europees verzekeringsschema, voorstellen, bieden bibliografie. historiek debat werkloosheidsverzekering bibliografie Strauss 20 herverzekert permanente voordele uitsluit (eerder loutere iedereen baat heeft) vermijdt. Eerder technische details afruil soevereiniteit beter, formele hierbij ontstaat. zaak gezond boerenverstand: voorkomen beter genezen. organiseren kwam, moeizame onderhandelingen regeringsleiders; zat ex ante automatisme ingebakken systeem, post stand. nadelen. gelaagde instellingen tegenover staan, conflictueus polariserend. duurder oploopt. Bij cycli geval: vermits slingerbewegingen aangevuurd verwachtingen, verwachting doen zware voorkomen.25 verzekeringsmechanismen’ ‘publieke begrotingstransfers complementair aanstipten: verloop weten ergste dempten. PUZZEL SOLIDARITEIT SOEVEREINITEIT U ongetwijfeld opwerpen praktijk hopeloze political fiction blijft. diep wantrouwen, weerstand delen moral hazard (de hangmatten adequate subsidiëren). staan paradox: consolideren solidariteitsmechanismen consequente lukt ondersteunen niveau. klaagzang houden, ons afvragen obstakels agenda relevant on- (25) gelijkaardig Grauwe gebruikt collectieve actie schuldtitels EMU-landen, bv. euro-obligaties. 21 derzoek. Politiek puzzel: eender welk schema stabiliteit beoogt, ieders voordeel, ‘gelijk steken’ risico’s; doe vertrouwt? leg puzzelstukjes ‘gevangenendilemma’ eens rij. solidair verzekeringsmechanisme aard biedt oplossing scheefgroei blijft begrotingspositie bewaken, kostencompetitiviteit. Los best divergenties antwoord is: symmetrisch, spreiding aanpassingslast26), effectief optreden inperking veronderstelt. verzekeringsstelsel cyclische aanvaardbaarheid regels competitiviteit begrotingsposities; transparanter ‘flexibiliteit’ verzekeringsschema. Solidariteit indringen elkaars terrein, schokdempers des effectiever functioneren. logisch minimumeisen koppelen. rechten klassiek begrepen bewegingen, gezien EU; gevoelige terrein zekerheid. onvermijdelijk ‘indringend’ volgende: hazard. Moral diegene verzekerd gedrag aanpast, risicoschuw compenseren risico’s maakt. onvermijdelijk: enkel wenst, verzekeringssysteem ingeperkt mechanismen. afwijkt profiel verleden, niveauverschillen ‘drempel’ overschreden vooraleer uitkeert, streng gedefinieerd ernstige tussenkomt. recuperatiesysteem (26) betekent, bijvoorbeeld, overschotten lopende rekening, ondernemen. 22 bepalen stoppen uiteindelijk terugbetaald stringenter bepalingen zwakker verzekeringsmechanisme, noodzakelijk draagvlak. verminderd activerings- beleid, ontstaat krachtig verzekeringsmechanisme. unie roeping welvaartsstaat spanning verantwoordelijkheden werkloosheid, bijstand bestuursniveaus situeren: verantwoordelijk deelstaten, provincies, regio’s gemeenten activering, institutioneel Niet Canada, Zwitserland interessante laboratoria opzicht. gedetailleerde landen, expliciet impliciet, aandachtspunt gamma oplossingen bestaat: minimumeisen, min complexe financieringsmodellen, controle coördinatiemechanismen ….27 lanceren Werkgelegenheidsstrategie 1997 ‘coördinatie’ Jeugdgarantie 2014, aansluit traditie Werkgelegenheidsstrategie, ‘kwaliteitsborging’ activering. soft waarborg gelden trigger ambitieuzer strakker ‘voor hoort wat’ redenering. bindende afspraken pas, diversiteit uitwerking: essentie afgesproken richtlijnen gerealiseerd gedetailleerd eenheidsworst ingrediënten heldere bestaan. BASISCONSENSUS OVER MODEL IS NOODZAKELIJK Mijn betoog vorige sectie vaststelling. Terwijl zoektocht omschrijving ‘het model’ tien geleden afgedaan noodzakelijke oefening, existentiële geworden basisconsensus (27) acht activering werklozen bijstandsgerechtigden. 23 model, leden muntunie, concentreer argumenten muntunie.28 handboeken leggen voordelen nadelen termen trade-offs trade-off eigenschappen: ene, andere). Leden symmetrie flexibiliteit. Symmetrie verwijst gelijklopende output, prijzen. Flexibiliteit loonflexibiliteit interregionale arbeidsmobiliteit: schok’ bijsturingsvermogen Minder maakt flexibiliteit noodzakelijk: vereiste binnenlandse aanpassingsvermogen voordeel behouden. trade-off, sectie: asymmetrische beperkt. duurzame overeenkomen flexibiliteit, mobiliteit stabiliseren Keuzes symmetrie, neutraal. meebrengt, consensus bestel steunt. Neem loonkosten. Die geleerd vanzelf komt: blootstelling marktwerking voor. ‘zichtbare hand’ nastreeft loonstijgingen. richtsnoer pas laat lopen: zo’n ‘gouden regel’ loonsverhogingen productiviteitsverhogingen. impliceert uitspraak cruciaal verdelingsvraagstuk arbeid arbeidsmarktinstellingen coördineren: zichtbare doeltreffend zijn.29 (28) Argumenten omstandige idee ‘Europese Unie’. (29) stelling breuk huidige beleid. ‘six-pack’-wetgeving procedure macro-economische onevenwichten sporen corrigeren, uitdrukkelijk bedoeld beleidsmakers versterken. eenzijdige nadruk gelegd bijsturing deficieten rekening. liet surplussen ongemoeid. lopen; productiviteitsverhogingen (Vandenbroucke, 2015). 24 containerbegrip. gereguleerde arbeidsmarkten, Kurzarbeit (arbeidsduurvermindering) hoogopgeleid polyvalent arbeidsaanbod wegen arbeidsmarktflexibiliteit. ‘hoogwaardige weg’ arbeidsmarktflexibiliteit, inzet beroepsvaardigheden verbetering arbeidsorganisatie, ‘laagwaardige weg’, arbeidsmarktderegulering berust. scoren systemen arbeidsmarktregulering combinatie coördinatie loonoverleg, (dat werkenden schaadt oogpunt stabiliteit). werking unie. haar detail adviseren arbeidsmarkt. grens waaraan aanpassen, kenmerken.30 PIJLER RECHTEN perspectieven werken? maart brede raadpleging gestart voorlopige gepresenteerd pijler rechten’ initiatief werkzaamheden diepere billijkere muntunie’, opvolging Verslag Vijf Voorzitters Voltooiing Muntunie. 31 gericht eurozone, instappen willen. terminologie ‘rechten’ verwarrend, benchmarking, aangeeft: ‘De voorgestelde beginselen plaats rechten, aanreiken prestaties beoordelen toekomst af stemmen aldus (…) Eens gekomen, referentiekader vlak monitoren, hervormingen nationaal stimuleren en, bijzonder, kompas dienen hernieuwde eurozone.’ beleidsgebieden hoofdthema’s gegroepeerd: kansen toegang arbeidsmarkt; billijke arbeidsvoorwaarden; essentiële hoge kwaliteit. (30) gelijkaardige redenering ontwikkeld pensioensystemen lange (31) 25 potentieel behoefte geschetst heb. breed ‘pijler basisconsensus. Tegelijkertijd risicogehalte. Indien ervaren heruitgave coördinatiestrategieën, Open Coördinatie insluiting, nieuw momentum creëren; heersende scepticisme betekenis Opdat belangrijk. Ten overleg leiders partners hoogste Zoals fiscal compact (begrotingspact), ‘sociaal pact’ domeinen bevoegdheden juridische woord, arbeidsvoorwaarden) beschikt. wetgevend wetgevende verdrukking geraken; evident indringende benchmarking resultaten diverse coördinatieprocessen.32 derde ‘hardere’ initiatieven stabilisatie-instrument; én gevoeligheid WEDERKERIGHEID GRENSOVERSCHRIJDENDE MOBILITEIT pleidooi wederkerigheid: solidaire strenge verzekerden toepassing u wil. ‘Wederkerigheid’ iets begrip. Samuel Bowles definieert ‘sterke wederkerigheid’ bereidheid ingesteldheid levert individueel nettovoordeel op.33 Wederkerigheid ‘verlichte eigenbelang’, ‘voorwaardelijk’. Wederkerigheid, opgevat, cement bieden. wat’-principe juiste dosis passen: verworden hardvochtig mantra, oog recht mededogen. overdosis allesoverheersend (32) vergelijkende beleidsanalyse hiermee samenhangen, bespreek (33) 26 obsessie blind verzekeringen. wederkerigheid nut ons, gepaste dosis, inspireren wederkerigheidsprincipe toepassen debatten verkeer. illustreer kort. gebouwd niet-discriminatie burgers: Pool behandelen Nederlander burger bestaansmiddelen aankomen bijstand: soort onmiddellijke onvoorwaardelijke generositeit op, denken. bouwt werkt: opgenomen organiseert. mogelijk. concretiseert burgerschap. rechtvaardigt Nederlander. Nederlands grondgebied socialezekerheidssysteem goedkoper is) Nederlandse. nochtans precies ‘detachering’. techniek Detachering grondprincipe Ter wille opdrachten buitenland nodig, gecontroleerd. oneerlijke loon- arbeidsvoorwaarden gastland, geschonden België Nederland, brengt. loopt moeizaam. Commissaris Thyssen intussen (en Denemarken) afgewezen. David Cameron Europeanen werknemer slag géén gebruik detachering, uitsluiten Britse voordelen. Hij afwijking niet-discriminatieprincipe. doet laag loon, aantrekt belastingbetaler. tegelijkertijd werken, Groot-Brittannië middelen, doen. zin feitelijke overtuigend. Brexit-discussie Britten debat. zegde, natuurwetten; opvattingen cruciale mee verkregen eventueel gedurende voordelige uitgesloten streng, speelruimte krijgen, afgebakend. gangbare principes. kinderbijslag genuanceerder.34 kwesties gevoerd kortetermijnoverwegingen, principieel kompas. Lidstaten weinig mogelijk beperkingen (want uit), grondprincipe, vormt, aantasten achteruitgang Polen). eten graag strijdige ruiven. Nederlandse regering klaagt terecht misbruik Centraal-Europa, ondermijnt. Premier Rutte gezegd goeds Cameron. positie walletjes eten: bestel; denken zomaar schendt elementair wederkerigheid, verstandig compromis vinden detacheringskwestie.35 Eigenlijk Nederlanders zeggen: ‘Wij enkele discrimineren, maar, begrijp wij genereuze ondermijnen ongebreidelde detachering.’ (34) Moet Belgische verblijven, eenzelfde levensstandaard vergt België? strikt uitgebreid pensioenen, bijvoorbeeld), secundaire kwestie. pragmatische gecompliceerd bijslag voortdurend aangepast ritme verschilt evolueert snel, land). Behalve pragmatiek, gaan. Zelfs (35) houding inconsistent, tenzij natuurlijk wenst. principiële uitgangspunt uiteindelijk, Nederlanders, betere deal. afwijkingen non-discriminatieprincipe heen grijpen, evolueren bescherming. vanwege produceert. UNIE grotendeels overlaten. 2000. dwingt opnieuw vraag: succesvolle bloeiende herstel soeverein monetair optie, illusies onderhouden. coherent concept ‘sociale unie’ weloverwogen nodigt helder vage begrip ‘een Europa’, opduikt geeft signaal gebruikelijke oproep dimensie’ voegen. Beweren dimensie houdt steek. socialezekerheidsrechten mobiele werknemers, normen werkplaats, dragen niet-onbeduidend acquis, vijftig stapjes vooruit. solide wettelijke discriminatie EU-burgers bestrijden. ontkent acquis Hoewel stappen zetten, voortbouwen, beantwoorden uitdaging. begrijpen: behelst dimensie’. toeval. Welvaartsstaat: Welvaartsstaten, historische erfenissen instellingen. creëert tastbare entiteiten, wederkerigheid. doelstelling interpersoonlijke grenzen heen. 29 subsidiariteit fundamenteel organisatorisch toepassen.36 Convergentie harmonisatie. kernidee samengevat: systemisch belangrijkste oriënteren algemene doelstellingen, uitwerking overlaat operationele definitie model’. woorden, samenwerken vandaar stabilisatie, voorbeelden geven Denk bijvoorbeeld vastleggen spelregels vennootschappen, evenwichtig fiscaal handhaven. oversteken’ vertrouwt denkt greep situatie verliest? vormt kern debat: synoniem verlies invloed, ‘greep situatie’. bereid delen, situatie’ verliezen. Risico’s gedeeld beleidsvermogen heroveren. sterker zwakker. ENVOI interessant nadenken gebreken architectuur beschouw ‘na volgen voorbeeld’, noch staatsstructuur, bevinden onontgonnen terrein: ‘unie welvaartsstaten’, bijgevolg (36) Subsidiariteit onrecht richting. supranationale subsidiariteit. stipt realiteit, perspectief subsidiariteitsprincipes herdenken. 30 academisch onderzoek, normatief empirisch vlak. universiteitshoogleraar Amsterdam ontwikkelen. BIJLAGE IMPACT MINIMUMLONEN, BELASTINGEN, BIJDRAGEN UITKERINGEN KOOPKRACHT HUISHOUDENS koppel verdiend minimumloon. A1: INKOMEN KOPPEL, MINIMUMLOON CSB MIPI Databank Versie 3/2013; Mechelen (2011). 32 BIBLIOGRAFIE Anderson, K.M., Social Union, Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Allard, C., Bluedorn, J., Bornhorst, F. Furceri, D., Lessons from minimal elements union euro area, C. Cottarelli M. Guerguil (red.), Designing Fiscal Union. experience federations, Abingdon, Routledge, Atkinson, A.B., Inequality. What Can Be Done?, Oxford, Oxford University Press, Beblavy, M., Marconi, G. Maselli, I., A Unemployment Benefit Scheme. The challenges ahead, CEPS Special Report No. 119, Bowles, S., samenwerking Fong, Gintis, H., Jayadev, A. Pagano, U., Essays New Economics Inequality Redistribution, Cambridge, Cambridge 2012. Burgoon, B., Political Economy Re-embedding Liberalism, oratie uitgesproken Immigration, Integration Support Redistribution Europe, World Politics, 66, 365-405, B. Decent Poor: Which Role Europe?, Improve Final Conference Paper, Antwerpen, februari S. Working Paper 15/20, Centrum Sociaal Beleid Herman Deleeck, Reconciling Work Poverty Reduction How Successful Are Welfare States?, Fuest, Peichl, A., Automatic Stabilizers Economic Crisis: US vs. Journal Public Economics, 96 (3-4), 279-294, Commissie, Employment Developments Europe 2015, Brussel, voltooiing Europa’s Monetaire Jean-Claude Juncker nauwe Donald Tusk, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Mario Draghi Martin Schulz, 33 Esser, Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Palme, J. Sjöberg, O., Benefits Member States, Rapport DG Werkgelegenheid, zaken Inclusie (EMPL), D. Zdziencicka, Euro Area Need Supranational Risk Sharing Mechanism?, IMF 13/198, Gill, I.S. Raiser, Golden growth. Restoring Lustre Model, Washington, Wereldbank, Goedemé, T. Collado, Convergence Machine at Work. To EU’s Poorest Citizens?, Common Market Studies, 1-17, International Labour Organization, Aspects Co-operation. by Group Experts (samenvatting), Review, 74 (2), 99-123, 1956. Policy. Left to Judges Markets?, H. Wallace, M.A. Pollack Young Policy-Making 7th edition, 263-292, Oksanen, Smoothing Asymmetric Shocks Area: Simple Proposal Dealing with Mistrust Area, CESifo 5817, Rhodes, Between Efficacy Experimentation, 293-318, Salverda, W., Nolan, Checchi, Marx, McKnight, Toth, I.G. Werfhorst, Changing Inequalities Rich Countries. Analytical Comparative Perspectives, Scharpf, F., Asymmetry Integration, or Why cannot be social market economy, KFG 6, 1-35, Berlijn, ‒ Kolleg-Forschergruppe ‘The Transformative Power Europe’, 2009. SEO, Grensoverschrijdend Aanbod Personeel: Verschuivingen Nationaliteit Contractvormen Arbeidsmarkt 2001-2011. Onderzoek opdracht Ministerie Zaken Economisch Onderzoek, 34 Strauss, R., history debate Scheme, presented APPAM Inequalities: Addressing Growing Challenge Policymakers Worldwide, Londen, 13-14 Teulings, Toekomst Europa: essay schuld, moraal solidariteit, Management & Organisatie, 5(6), 33-38, N., I. CSB-Minimum Protection Indicators dataset (CSB-MIPI), Series WP 11/05, 2011. Vinck, Child poverty risks Belgium, Wallonia Flanders: Accounting worrying performance, Belgisch Tijdschrift Zekerheid, 57 (1), 51-98, Rinaldi, inequalities Europe. challenge convergence cohesion, Vision Summit Consortium (eds.), Redesigning welfare states. Ways forward, Gütersloh (http://www.vision-europe-summit.eu/), 38-77, luxe noodzaak, 54 197-238, Case From Muddling Through Sense Purpose, Marin Future Global Ashgate, Aldershot UK, 489-520, Analysis Brink Era, Analysis: Research Practice, 1-13, Vanhercke, Union: Tough Nuts Crack, Background Friends High-Level ‘Social Institutional multi-tiered regulation unemployment assistance activation. summary eight country case studies, 35 INHOUDSTAFEL PERSPECTIEVEN

Download fulltext
260

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES DPS1627 NOVEMBER 2016 How does early deprivation relate to later-life outcomes? A longitudinal analysis Ron DIRIS and Frank VANDENBROUCKE Public Economics Faculty of Business Diris* Vandenbroucke† Abstract Measures material are increasingly used as alternatives traditional poverty indicators While there exists extensive literature focusing on the impact that growing up in a (financially) poor household has future success little is known about how relates long-run outcomes This study uses data from 1970 British Cohort Study assess relationship between adult life We control for an set observable characteristics further employ valueadded generalized sensitivity nature this find diverse outcome variables but magnitude conditional relationships generally small Immaterial family quality show relatively stronger ties especially with respect non-cognitive skills Keywords: disadvantage JEL Classification: I32 J13 J62 *Department Maastricht University 6200 MD Netherlands rdiris@maastrichtuniversitynl (corresponding author) †University Amsterdam KU Leuven Antwerp would like thank Erwin Ooghe Brian Nolan Geranda Notten Kristof de Witte participants APPAM conference London PE seminar their helpful comments 1 Introduction Classifications or social exclusion have traditionally relied measures individual income Material (MD) alternative indicator refer list ’basic necessities’ households different domains The increasing use these reflects perception captures more than lack Although depends what perceived basket necessities at given point time it essentially absolute measure contrasts commonly at-risk-of-poverty rate which relative positions within country1 become popular international intertemporal comparisons ‘Severe deprivation’ included target Europe 2020 strategy European Union (European Commission 2010) However contrast specifically related important analyzes confronted (BCS) follows total 17 000 individuals born Britain first week April BCS reports information child its parents birth contains follow-ups multiple ages both childhood until age 42 It provides possessions circumstances well vast range several progress extensively extent raw correlations driven by associations other determinants Moreover we value-added developed Imbens (2003) address selection bias establish whether likely causal remains Using factor six 1The character should be interpreted nuance Poverty can also least context one country when threshold anchored based arbitrary choice base year (in defined) principle possible construct countries Roelen (2012) constructing basis hazardous exercise 2 estimated two strands literature: studies analyzing (or complementary) background former group mainly focuses explaining mismatch being income-poor materially deprived encompassing items3 Advocates ofMDemphasize benefits over strictly conceptual view (income neglects preferences risk factors) terms measurement (yearly volatile across prone error extremes distribution) shows into matters greatly There strong children later example educational attainment income4 Evidence adoption indicates variation families not solely due genes therefore ‘family quality’ crucial importance children5 still unclear specific aspects capture Studies composite socio-economic status (SES) typically combine parental education occupation home and/or linked those 6 Brooks-Gunn Duncan (1997) provide overview focus relation conclude (preschool school years) most strongly difficult empirically disentangle occu- 2See eg Perry (2002); Whelan et al (2004) 3Different methods elicit single such prevalence weighting principal component item response theory structural equation modeling no consensus For examples each approaches see Cappellari Jenkins (2006); Maˆıtre (2005); Tomlinson (2008) An provided (2010) 4See Corak (2013) intergenerational transmission OECD (2015) 5See Bj¨orklund Sacerdote (2008); Beckett (2006) 6See Bradley Corwyn (2002) 3 pation neighbourhood rearing behavior etc Recent aimed uncover direct links Many role credit constraints type research finds short-term becomes limited best once factors achievement concludes permanent markedly liquidity (Heckman 2000; Carneiro Heckman 2003; Dearden 2004; Chevalier 2013) Still (permanent) Several exploited exogenous directly Frijters (2005) using sibling fixed effects combination event German reunification identifies low health while Løken Norwegian oil boom shock Other identify comparatively larger estimates substantially below simple suggest; Blanden Gregg (partially same (British) paper) Akee These results call question provision will lead substantial improvements prospects (2009) through evaluation EMA program students weekly cash transfers attendance staying clear alleviation because reduce opportunity costs Overall findings tend suggest correlation large part led researchers argue largely immaterial (see (2008)) explanation advocates often 4 only imperfectly restrictions opportunities face As meaningful analyze either substitute complement Establishing existing emphasis put policy policies targeted reducing Identifying relations towards improve evaluations In general few key Filmer Pritchett (1999) exception conducting macro-level they link differences wealth (measured presence basic facilities drinking water electricity) Relying rich micro-level current various measured Additionally add addressing potentially confounding likelihood providing comparison sample paper organized introduce theoretical considerations Section describes methodological issues discussed 5 presents empirical discusses robustness analyses 7 Theory 21 Defining section discuss concept arise measuring constructs definition states “material refers inability afford consumption goods activities typical certain society irrespective people’s items” (OECD 2007) words concerns able ‘typical’ major broad characterization considerable exact construction Virtually all incorporate items housing conditions More elaborate include access healthy lifestyle Since aim broadest sense since unexplored ultimately want affects developmental process child’s learning development (outside formal processes extra-curricular programs) additional domain define deprivation: possessional already suggested ‘material’ aspect always adhered make distinction ‘immaterial’ discussion reflected subdivision possession nature7 ambiguous contain tangible tools intangible support thereby divide sub-domain separately might alternatively thought cultural ‘capital’ thereof) 7One crime believe conceptually tied household’s living arrangements (which evidently captured domain) categorize under types goes beyond (often depending subjective interpretations) them things everyone ‘should have’ Ermisch makes similar his parenting inequality labels ‘what buy’ versus do’ consider light bigger matter simultaneously recognize aware comparing interpreting 22 Measuring Another variable Data availability inevitably determines some any application criteria employed First clearly services case 1970s 1980s concern ‘enrichment’ available share population connotation leaves room interpretation specify constraint half could seen rather loose limit higher result affordability reason comprise questions distinguish having personal preference looks who bound own predominantly ranks value necessity never completely ‘irrespective preferences’ technically requires8 made odd situated high-crime reasons do our main conduct stage where order final potential assessing considered natural consequence difference ‘concise’ rely very dataset Hence although lower bounds fact inexhaustible relevant viewed upper explain adulthood (we label ‘cohort members’) baseline 196 10 16 26 30 34 38 429 suffer amount observations drops out fairly (86% 73% 26) waves 0 8The dependent adaptive feelings shame recognized Fusco (2011) addressed adapt Item Response approach correct differential reporting propensities 9The wave around 8 administered tests following (ie cohort members) school-level teachers principals taken verbal wide focal somewhat weighted specification supplementary Each Parental categorical (seven categories eleven 16) follow McKnight assigning midpoint band including obtained qualifications mental body mass index satisfaction gross net structure four variables: reading highest qualification self-reported If missing impute next recent observation apply increases rapidly observe avoid leads measure11 non-missing years established trends then calculate average express rank 100 10To confusion member’s serves serve ‘adult income’ ‘parental 11The mean values stable 9 test scores intelligence math Questionnaires carried sets allow self-esteem locus person feels life) Rutter behavioral problems reported members latter Locus Estimation 41 Measurement mentioned separate health/nutritional subdivided 50% inputs take affected (intermediate) dummy aspiration levels desired level particular performs Similarly exclude number friends visited same-aged peers assume choices carry ‘ambiguous’ determine fit relevance uniqueness measures) choose method explanatory power weight assigned inverse sample) cases includes Being TV sources overlap automatically ensures much receive excluded altogether All standardized zero standard deviation 112 assessment purpose report 66 completion presented Table A113 model estimate OLS model: Yi = 0+ 1Possi+ 2Housei+ 3Neighi+ 4Healthi+ 5EduMi+ 6EduIi+ 7Soci+X0 i+i (1) vector X0 employment 12The Cronbach’s alpha are: 0801 0700 0640 0554 0545 eduational 0447 13The defined unlikely (eg appliances) chosen priors expected ex ante affect indirectly spend child-rearing 11 style complete Appendix A2 inclusion ofX0 account outside emphasize controls effect operate spending tutoring classes) among When father’s without impacts parameter  Model represents classical term represent mechanisms progress14 array cognition socio-emotional play mediating outcomes15 43 Imputation To ensure enough observed 14We channels shaped grows 15See Almlund cognitive 12 imputation W¨oßmann ‘fundamental’ (labeled F) fundamental virtually birth; gestational mother’s ethnicity wedlock gender was hospital-born M (Mk) (Mj ) regress Mj F coefficients regression Mk Further dummies indicate imputed Results correlational regresses isolation step jointly subsequently signals chances grow obtaining favourable (including domains) informative evidence holding constant reflect unobservable issue Sections 52 53 13 portrayed graphically Figure figure (Model 1) finally additionally specifications Tables A4 A6 detail 51 Main estimation 511 Reading shown left quadrant A3 Not surprisingly strongest increase reduction 029 remain statistically significant coefficient suggests 010 per With last rows marginally reduces appear mechanism 512 Educational mem- 14 ber (different of) distinguishing significantly associated decrease 07 corresponds 025 deviation) Including severely longer full (mainly income) -022 drive previous exist high Achievement appears (both noncognitive cutoff degree attributed comparable Among GCSE A-C connections Dummy end 15 distribution weaker 513 Adult during right A5 smaller here margin (‘separate’) ranking percentiles added decreases 09 percentile compared initial Controlling Part operates mimics 42) incomes highly consistent 514 Health Interestingly dominate Social 0136 five-point scale (and initially association hardly (observed) change (once occur questionnaires predate physical prominent16 selective controlling class) Similar mediate 515 Non-linearity assumed now linear worthwhile explore extreme need reach before nonlinearities subsection estimating polynomials domains17 non-linearity apparent Comparing inhibits non-linear tendencies quadratic positive indicating negative diminishing possibly skewed implies fits hous- 16See Kessler (2007) 17These request ing interesting (especially) severe non-linearities certainly involve sign reversal surprising begin attenuated Finally interaction complementarity neighbourhoods vice versa 516 assessed noteworthy summarized A7 Coefficients (the size 01 well-being) (immaterial) Estimates Furthermore acts rooms house highlights persistence proper Body Mass Index (BMI) BMI allows positively negatively 18 appliances microwaves) less diet lag adolescence Value-added Because points lagged earlier achieved X0) growth lags contrasting remarkable electronics bedroom 19 opposite scores18 line revealed score exhibit adulthood19 unobserved investments identified biased influence (GSA) extended Harada continuous unobservables required 18We speculate underlying One watching complementing subjects (Borzekowski Robinson 2005; Sharif ways 19See Cunha (2010); 20 insignificant20 plausibility parameters partial R2’s needed render insignificant combined plausibly On hand if away plots plausible cases: requires straightforward so (unobservable) weak GSA produces emphasized variance explained plotted graph conservative addition 20One implausible even though (very slightly) X21 adding classroom peer R2 001 0017 representative X curve area 54 Explanatory valuable joint marginal reveals uniquely explains (extensive) student 21Additionally statistical significance (at 10% level) majority conclusion condition lines above minor means (especially self-esteem) compare ‘gross’ ‘net’ A1 look reversed) naturally shares figures confirms adverse 55 better essence argued bands subject Keeping mind portray restrict overallMDare Correlations slightly perform (an imperfect eliciting at-risk 23 modest third fourth column split pattern indicator; subset predictive second except again dominance (strictly) (likely attenuated) ‘traditional’ error22 weakest characteristics) worth noting lose multidimensional advantages unique seven con- 22One focused bottom distinguishes (its close normal long tails side) topcoded 24 siderably 56 Differences constructed too robustly age-effects Robustness assumptions relax 61 Bad problem styles divorces 25 downwardly 10; 5; ‘bad controls’ Deprivation incorporating Nonetheless panel B contribute overall downward influenced Conversely excludes controlled 62 Affordability count executed belong (these unconditional Only looking simply owning connection (possessional) 63 Different specified restriction cannot 25% 15% tighter remove 20% 40% respectively fall changes 25-50% 15-50% restrictive almost Sensitivity thresholds gradually three models 27 64 Endogenous items? present misleading way visits museum library plays musical instrument partially interest (partially) parent-child member club Especially expect however lies A9 proportional achievement23 ex- 23The restricted subdomains: neighbours financial responsible 28 ercise interpret care truly resulting (also) personality independently state representing (perceived) environment surrounding 65 Attrition heterogeneity disappear attrition non-random Those differ Most prominently male (584% vs 494%) non-native (168% 86%) (122% 56%) fully period external validity may turns boys out-of-wedlock None similarly moderate loss representativeness 29 described employing conventional identifying attenuation interactions corresponding (thereby allowing intercept slope respective variable) A8 approaches: applied sum binary remarkably (commonly used) relating sizes Judging 67 Financial hardship incorporated lacking namely ability unexpected expenses arrears bills ask were troubled past Conditional percentage 0100 Conclusion experienced reveal Plausible adds (mental) analyzed ‘deprivation’ form (a capital (conditional) 31 diminish Previous huge Our isolated contributor disconnect ‘material state’ causally supportive McLanahan Bianchi educated fathers mothers contributors Research low-income improved changing guidance beliefs relief (Kautz 2014) ‘immaterial (imperfectly measured) At invalidate alto- 32 gether Basic (although groups improves identifier limitations automatic taking life-time perspective changed inevitable linking achievements causality likely) exploitation elements help segments Future precisely greatest challenge exactly why obtain widely References R K W E Copeland G Keeler Angold J Costello Parents children’s outcomes: quasi-experiment American economic journal Applied economics 2(1) 86–115 L Duckworth T D Kautz Personality psychology Handbook Education Volume pp 1–181 Amsterdam: Elsevier 33 C Maughan Castle Colvert Groothues Kreppner S Stevens O’Connor Sonuga-Barke Do persist adolescence? Findings English Romanian adoptees Child Development 77(3) 696–711 P Milkie Changing Rhythms Of Family Life New York NY: Russell Sage Foundation Lindahl Plug (2006 August) origins associations: Lessons swedish Quarterly Journal 121(3) 999–1028 attainment: review Oxford Review Economic Policy 20(2) 245–263 Borzekowski N remote mouse pencil: media academic grade Archives Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 159(7) 607–613 H Socioeconomic Annual 53(1) 371–399 55–71 Summarizing ISERWorking Paper Series 2006-40 Human Krueger Friedman (Eds) Inequality America: What Role Capital Policies? 77–239 Cambridge MA: MIT Press Harmon V O’Sullivan IWalker schooling IZA Labor 1–22 Income equality mobility Perspectives 79–102 Schennach Estimating technology skill formation Econometrica 78(3) 883–931 Emmerson Frayne Meghir dropout rates Resources 44(4) 827–857 McGranahan Sianesi Credit Constraints Choices: NCDS BCS70 CEE DP 48 ERIC Origins immobility inequality: National Institute 205(1) 62–71 2020: smart sustainable inclusive 35 Population 25(1) 85–120 Haisken-DeNew Shields health: german 24(5) 997–1017 Guio Marlier Technical CEPS/INSTEAD Generalized NYU working (2000 March) Policies foster human 54(1) 3–56 (2008 July) Schools synapses Inquiry 46(3) 289–324 (2003 May) exogeneity 93(2) 126–132 Diris Ter Weel Borghans (2014) Fostering skills: Improving promote lifetime Bureau Amminger Aguilar-Gaxiola Alonso Lee Ustun Age onset disorders: Current opinion psychiatry 20(4) 359–364 education: norwegian experiment Labour 17(1) 118–129 Downward hoarding glass floor Diverging destinies: faring demographic transition Demography 41(4) 607–627 non-monetary exclusion: Europe? Analysis Management 29(2) 305–325 new tool monitoring (child) poverty: cumulative Indicators 5(2) 335–355 Society Glance: 2006 Edition Organisation Co-operation Together: Why Less Benefits Paris France: Publishing Zealand 101–127 Nature nurture learned twins adoptees? North- Holland 36 I AWills Sargent Effect visual performance: prospective 46(1) 52–61 Walker Williams 1991 2003 37(04) 597–620 Layte Understanding dynamic comparative Sociological 287– 302 Vulnerability perspectives europe: latent class Societies 7(3) 423–450 equal opportunities? US CESifo Working 1162 37 1: Possess House Neighbour Educ (M) (I) −3 −2 −1 −6 −4 att −05 05 Raw C+M Notes: portrays (‘Raw’) (‘C’) (‘C+M’) ‘C+M’ horizontal bars 95% confidence intervals equally spaced averaged expressed 2: Partial EV −−> HE HO (partial R2) (‘EV’; deprivation) (D) (X0) Figures (C (I)) (all row) (P) (HE) (HO) 39 3: Math Self−esteem Mental Controls Domains (vector regressing 40 Possession Housing Neigh Panel A: VA Reading16 0035* 0003 0001 -0030*** -0050*** -0107*** -0001 (0021) (0018) (0010) (0011) (0012) LC 0051*** 0016 -0006 -0018* -0029** -0054*** 0002 (0019) (0016) (0009) Reading10 -0051*** -0020** -0026** -0138*** -0008 (0014) -0031** -0019* -0021** -0110*** -0005 (0013) Math16 -0066*** -0002 -0014 -0059*** -0049*** -0093*** -0024 (0025) (0020) (0015) -0040* 0019 -0010 -0038*** -0027** -0030* -0022* (0017) Rutter16 -0007 -0056*** -0028*** -0032*** -0046*** -0065*** -0047*** -0025*** -0035*** -0024** -0028** -0044*** Rutter10 -0036** -0019** 0007 -0070*** -0020 0009 -0009 -0048*** (0008) Locus16 -0042** -0016 -0019 -0027 -0041*** (0023) 0014 -0038** -0015 -0023 -0037*** Self-esteem16 -0030 0026 -0033*** -0047** -0161*** 0029 -0046** -0157*** B: Reading5 -0077*** -0034*** 0004 -0004 -0111*** -0011 Math10 -0057*** -0022** -0018** -0042*** -0121*** Rutter5 0041*** 0053*** 0026*** 0006 0015 0027*** Locus10 -0023** -0003 -0045*** Self-esteem10 -0027*** -0025** table ‘LC’ (taken outcomes) regressions ‘Rutter’ ‘Locus’ internal No Y (all) 0801*** -0818*** -0434*** -0594*** 0179*** -0295*** -0127*** -0249*** (0035) (0039) (0046) (0043) (0042) (0038) 729*** -726*** -520*** -330*** 366*** -251*** -0999** -234*** (0396) (0399) (0436) (0440) (0484) (0450) (0439) (0382) 0154*** -0179*** -0113*** 0054*** -0087*** -0055*** 0242*** -0218*** -0172*** 0042* -0026 0010 (0024) (0022) 0301*** -0335*** -0176*** -0244*** 0038** -0131*** -0124*** 0279*** -0307*** -0213*** 0079*** -0149*** -0100*** -0082*** (0029) (0027) (0026) 0130*** -0197*** -0123*** -0119*** 0026* -0072*** -0079*** 0129*** -0258*** -0114*** -0231*** 0041 -0219*** -0184*** 0898*** -125*** -0468*** -127*** 0291 -0790*** -0240 -0937*** (0138) (0157) (0162) (0161) (0193) (0194) (0184) (0169) (Y) Effects estimations Possession16 Possession10 Possession5 Housing16 Housing10 Housing5 -0036 -0035 -0032 -0033 0028 (0036) (0031) -0192 0342 -0951*** -0872*** -0783*** 0158 (0311) (0395) (0329) (0245) (0246) (0253) 0012 0039* -0034* 0025* Age-specific 4: Exclusion -0209*** -0418*** -513*** (0312) lim -209*** (0288) -0028 -0137*** -182*** (0028) (0317) -0288*** -0730*** -557*** -0136*** (0301) -0064*** (0297) -0208*** -243*** (0306) -0264*** -0513*** -403*** -0112*** (0310) -0242*** -0463*** -376*** -0098*** (0019 (0279) -0043* -0062** -123*** (0305) -0203*** -265*** (0030) (0341) -0205*** -250*** (taking together) 5: Lack (A) (B) -0426*** 0027 -0423*** -00024 0025 -349*** -131*** 0022 -348*** -0729*** 0018 (0286) (0307) (0275) 00093 -0089*** -0026*** (00098) (00097) Add -0210*** 0054** 0104 -0196*** 0075*** 0101 -177*** -0574** 0072 -163*** -0118 0069 (0303) (0283) (0273) 0030 -0017* 00065 -0040** 000011 (00095) -0059** 0235 0034 -0434 -0740*** 0225 -0405 -0188 0224 (0295) (0265) (0298) (0251) -00027 -0013 0054 -00058 0053 00055 0248 00098 000018 (00091) compares afforded 44 6: maximally allowed (main) -0083*** -0025 -0031 -0088*** -0061** 0231 -0790** -0922*** -0537** -0630*** -0310 -1718*** -1010*** 0324 (0333) (0272) (0228) (0232) (0249) (0271) -0053*** 0047 0013 -0103*** 0237 -0067** -0085*** -0060*** -0226*** -0039* 0229 -0416 -0826*** 0507** -0433* -0303 -1674*** -0615** 0321 (0313) (0229) (0233) (0239) (0262) (0250) -0012 0028*** -0036*** 0008 0011 0236 -0038 -0181*** 0226 -0771** -0648** 0120 -0399* -0762*** -1178*** -0257 0319 (0319) (0269) (0237) (0231) (0260) (0256) -0016* -0031*** 0045 0005 -0099*** 0232 top 45 A1: variance: (reversed) 46 Items • Possessions: (does own:) refrigerator washing machine dryer car phone video recorder camera stereo radio PC sewing vacuum cleaner microwave 16); freezer holiday 10); 5); child: cassette player bicycle Health: eats meat fish times breakfast lunch iron vitamins milk fibre carbons sugar intake 10) Neighbourhood: noisy graffiti youth loitering streets drunks rubbish street victim beak-in unsafe night (age 5) Housing: bathroom indoor toilet hot garden kitchen bed difficulties heating moisture untidy furniture (material): played books studying newspapers calculator constructional toys (immaterial): read Social: participate activity (excursions charities concerts) talk rarely participates misses money organization 47 A2: Control Birth controls: abnormalities hospital head circumference mother married father Household income: eligibility free class: employment: works (averaged hours worked work experience structure: people older siblings younger Parenting style: attitude toward independence authoritarian world smoking (ever) pregnancy heavy A3: Separate -0128*** -0169*** -0289*** – -0044** -0096*** -0193*** 0115 0000003 -0039*** -0017 0181 0000 -0020* -0167*** -0021* 0132 -0081*** -0170*** 0144 Parent empl -0041** -0029*** -0091*** -0198*** 0119 -0031* -0188*** 0141 -0090*** -0165*** 0133 Non-cog (NC) 0021* 0249 (WC) row regressed isolation) Rows Row See contained 49 A4: -0560*** -0449*** -0260*** -0451*** -0707*** -0433*** -0271*** -0140*** -0162*** -0486*** 0106 -0261*** -0130*** -0171*** -0456*** 0118 0198 -0074** -0056** -0057** -0135*** -0390*** -0101*** 0147 -0153*** -0055** -0126*** -0399*** -0129*** 0159 -0239*** -0147*** -0462*** -0104*** -0092*** -0148*** -0160*** -0425*** 0142 -0187*** -0071*** -0132*** -0394*** 0137 -0058*** -0192*** -0080*** 0243 -0047 -0073*** -0045* 0301 -0078*** -0141*** -0429*** 0128 -0018 -0194*** 0242 -0037* 0303 50 A5: -517*** -412*** -281*** -304*** -417*** -482*** -289*** (0299) (0282) (0254) (0266) (0278) (0268) -2630*** -1700*** -1540*** -2392*** -2158*** -2576*** -0454 0071 (0353) (0255) (0264) (0308) -2260*** -1583*** -0971*** -0956*** -0851*** -3238*** -1399*** 0276 (0321) (0284) (0281) -1651*** -1394*** -1140*** -2097*** -1611*** -1383*** -0153 (0354) (0309) (0261) -0901** -1055*** -1239*** -2231*** -1889*** -1798*** -0088 0099 (0371) (0314) (0276) -2148*** -1552*** -1300*** -2208*** -1929*** -2071*** -0462 0090 (0358) (0277) (0285) -2381*** -1592*** -1537*** -2394*** -2178*** -2552*** -0419 (0364) (0315) (0287) -2562*** -1570*** -1527*** -2374*** -2070*** -2527*** -0368 (0360) -2052*** -1469*** -1376*** -2255*** -2016*** -1964*** -0326 0084 (0357) -1684*** -1085*** -1314*** -1838*** -1425*** -0544* -0116 0129 (0348) (0304) -0639* -0726*** -0516** -0270 0077 -0600** -0976*** 0363 (0326) (0221) (0242) (0243) -2572*** -1612*** -1371*** -2182*** -2046*** -2402*** 0052 0083 (0352) (0292) -0792** -0857*** -0401* -0476** -0222 -1526*** -0549** 0332 (0332) (0270) -0650** -0710*** -0204 0113 -0563** -0699*** 0366 description A6: -0108*** -0125*** (00099) (00092) (00093) -0040*** 0031 0038 -0030** 0036 -0068*** 0037 -0069*** 0035 0044 0048 0059 0061 Subjective A7: Arrests34 0030*** (0007) (0006) health42 -0300** -0117 -0066 -0262*** -0105 -0709*** (0147) (0121) (0095) (0098) (0101) (0122) (0103) satis34 -0043** -0150*** (0120) Finances42 0024* 0033*** 0024** BMI42 -0276*** 0190*** 0345*** -0057 0057 (0091) (0073) (0059) (0063) (0064) (0078) (0065) -0278** -0034 0221*** 0239*** 0088 -0042 0240 (0115) (0099) (0060) (0076) (0071) BMI16 -0053 0197*** 0040 -0046 (0048) (0032) (0053) 0060* 0060 0067* 0275 (0047) BMI10 0020 0151*** 0046 BMI42) ‘BMI’ ‘Arrests34’ arrests 34‘Mental health42’ Warwick Edinburgh well-being ‘Finances42’ situation A8: Comparison (educational attainment) Factor PW -0332*** -0191*** -0357*** -0122*** 0093 Sum -0292*** -0158*** -0037 -0517*** -0118*** 0086 Binary -0633*** 0129** -0527*** -0982*** -0199*** (0057) (0056) (0058) -0095*** -0049** -0224*** -0099 -0138** -0476*** -0130** -0065 0228 (0061) (0055) (0054) (baseline) ‘Factor’ ‘PW’ ‘Sum’ sums applies ‘Binary’ 0/1 75th labeled deprived) A9: Excluding Exclude -0062*** -0166*** 0227 -1000*** -1028*** -0573** -0714*** -0286 -1166*** 0320 (0334) (0230) (0248) (0234) -0021 0023 partly member) exclusively Copyright © @ author(s) Discussion papers draft distributed purposes comment reproduced permission copyright holder Copies author