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

Download fulltext
257

1 / 6 TRIBUNE 22 SEPTEMBER 2016 AUTOMATIC STABILIZERS FOR THE EURO AREA AND EUROPEAN SOCIAL MODEL Frank Vandenbroucke | Adviser at the Jacques Delors Institute and Professor University of Amsterdam he debate on creation automatic stabilizers for Euro area is definitely agenda This tribune focuses relationship between proposals social dimension EU including recent Commission initiative to launch a ‘European Pillar Social Rights’ With Five Presidents’ Report completion European Economic Monetary Union Former Commissioner László Andor inspired by pioneering work German academic Sebastian Dullien advocated organization unemployment benefit scheme as best option stabilizer Meanwhile idea Unemployment Benefit Scheme has been subject various papers conferences 2 The funded thorough broadranging research project its added value feasibility led Centre Policy Studies (CEPS) which final results are be delivered soon 3 Parliament discussing report matter Therefore summary different stabilization in presented Paper Nathalie Julia Spath useful timely (Spath 2016) follows up Spath’s policy paper; it these On national level key feature welfare states; hence there an intrinsic link our conception Eurozone one hand EU’s role other hand: defining design implies respective member states systemic function insurance necessitates careful discussion – I hope show should avoid simplistic dichotomies undue ‘symbolism’ To make this case we first need slightly technical detour paper particularly helpful Three logic models organizes basis three ‘logic models’: Cyclical Shock Insurance (CSI); (EUI); Reinsurance mechanism (for will use ‘Reinsurance’ short-cut) CSI model not related either data or benefits; based relative output gap only caters asymmetric shocks means budgetary transfers does allow issue debt EUI variants scheme: they establish direct relation with In models’ can respond both symmetric building difference twofold First individual citizens who shortterm unemployed receive from fund whilst operates lump sum Second trigger (based deviation current short-term state past trajectory that same state); no specific start disbursing money (any participating receives independent T Automatic growth rate state) discard focus My main argument two sense less clear-cut than might suggest: require significant degree convergence regulation across yet extent required method achieve very imperative linked problem institutional moral hazard associated expression ‘institutional hazard’ refers collective actors Simultaneously introduction ‘trigger’ system game-changer regard Institutional essence occurs when person (or institution) takes more risks because someone else another bears costs those Moral insured manipulate liability insurer incurs influencing frequency and/or importance risk words influenced behavior choice deliberate policies rather being purely exogenous ‘beyond control’ reduced but never totally excluded: inevitable some any context traditional understanding what labels ‘ex ante Is relevant concern stabilizers? answer positive nuanced A intervention systems form would create multi-tiered Europe EU4 playing detailed survey eight countries architecture central levels government assuming ‘insurer’ shows emerges all degrees types solutions (Vandenbroucke Luigjes possibility (whether Reinsurance) become ‘lax’ activation (re)employment large generates obvious hazard; cannot dismissed out caveat about important thinking aware ‘a price pay’ obtain pooling stabilisation Hence objective mitigate trade-off capacity hazard: desirable minimised One conclusion examination experiences their extrapolation minimum requirements defined quality instrument reduce p 35) say order minimize financial must such permanent favour certain impossible: ‘experience rating’ prime example country average net beneficiary scheme5 ; trigger-based also respect explain below But Next (2016) mentions post risks’ she support provided used way effective terms stated aims If aim logical corollary schemes sufficient: maintaining (and reinforcing) political quid pro quo organising benefits depends generosity (notably short term) coverage; like Italy where coverage was traditionally low featured poor comparison see Dolls et al 2012) (short-term) part parcel ‘activation quality’ ‘stabilisation states’ (from now ‘minimum requirements’ short-cut concept) fight forms arising next mechanisms applies Minimum impose Pursuing well-known challenge certainly activation: Employment Strategy Open Method Coordination have testing grounds potential so-called ‘soft law’ domain Much literature exists showing mixed An soft process (the Youth Guarantee example) (not existing today mentioned generic future EMU) seen step towards establishment Rights launched March 7 includes principles perspective convergence: ways share challenge: common normative model; do agree ‘provide clear vision integration EU’ Such sharp dichotomy avoided Admittedly creating Europeans genuine transfer operated high symbolic per se prerequisite far merely ‘technocratic’ exercise: saliency underestimated differ flexibility pursued imposed directly fact becomes co-insurer cashing uniform parallel schemes; coordination hard law allows necessary accommodate diversity view ‘rigid’ solution leads ‘flexible’ administrative complexities underestimated8 easier implement; build processes closely initiatives preliminary outline published underscores economic fighting poverty security observes “[i]n cases due strict eligibility duration Member States well enforcement conditions job search participation active ” proposes following principle: “Action shall include requirement combined adequate sufficient time preserving incentives quick return employment Obviously statement general precise 4 However provides opportunity elaborate upon theme; well-formulated incisive benchmarking performance 9 Arguments presentation operation There indeed difference: if pays basic topped governments constitute rights made conditional exceeds higher percentage formulate precisely: character EU-funded right deemed politically disbursement macro-indicators 10 contrast interfere cashes systems; natural Importantly creates additional possibilities ex For instance deviations historical structural ‘benefit’ (by drawing support); obviously then counteracted experience rating broader set possible features 11 addition sheer complexity difficult protect against (compared pay symbolism Conclusion: Need Analytically compelling; doubt uphill battle today’s We therefore exploration scenarios how fit into developing union Various arguments militate idea: governance offers scope seems complicated Politically reinsurance may true ‘union 2015) Because presupposes definition established Rights; momentum 5 Completing Europe’s J -Cl Juncker close cooperation D Tusk Dijsselbloem M Draghi & Schultz June 2015 monetary equipped already long pedigree; account (2016); listed (2016 footnote 1) encompass econometric legal analyses; publications https://www ceps eu/topics/unemploymentinsurance apply Eurozone; here remainder text ‘EU’ ‘Experience ensures contribution differs record; ‘claw back’ deals long-term (negative) contributions increasing (decreasing) amount CEPS-led consortium EUBS examines detail preference her formulates ‘to increase business cycle convergence’ 17) suggests emphasis prefer define ‘increasing stability’ See http://ec europa eu/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/towards-european-pillar-social-rights_en 8 reason implementation insurmountable differences reinforces my distinction rigidity versus practice new announced Work Programme Communication 21 follow-up Two nuances principle conceive whereby entitled (i) macro-indicator threshold (ii) exceeded generate set-up quite discussed Spath: imposes ‘basic’ (which top up) without necessarily funding time; reduces ‘European’ nature triggers combined: United federal supplements paying American additionally discretionary decisions); however extend thus top-up ‘top-up’ US is) combination individual-level feasible topped-up thinks operate automatically semi-automatic assessment correct automaticity incompatible indicators relatively simple robust empirical ‘political deliberation’ (in supposes) Moreover since frequently many position kind ad-hoc politically-based decision-making surveillance References L “Towards shared Area” IZA Journal Labour 5:10 C Fuest Peichl “Automatic Stabilizers Crisis: vs Europe” Public Economics Vol 96 No 3-4 2012 pp 279-294 N euro area: table? Promises problems cyclical stabilization” 166 Institut – Berlin F “A Union: Unduly Idealistic Inevitable?” Debates Investment Bank September assistance studies Brussel: February 19 rue de Milan 75009 Paris Pariser Platz 10117 info@delorsinstitute eu www delorsinstitute Managing Editor: Yves Bertoncini document reproduced full dual condition meaning distorted source views expressed author(s) reflect publisher held responsible third party Original version © ISSN 2257-5731 IS THERE SUCH THING AS “SOCIAL EUROPE”? Sofia Fernandes David Rinaldi Tribune ACCESS TO BENEFITS MOBILE CITIZENS: “TOURISM” OR MYTH? 168 STABILISERS AREA: WHAT ON TABLE? CROSS-BORDER MOBILITY WHY EUROZONE CAN’T AGREE CONVERGENCE HOW STRUCTURAL REFORMS CAN HELP Anna auf dem Brinke Henrik Enderlein Jörg Haas 165 LABOUR IN CURE CURSE? Paul-Jasper Dittrich 159 -Berlin BLUEPRINT CYCLICAL SHOCK INSURANCE Lukas Guttenberg Jan Spiess Reports 100 2013 COMPLETING ROAD MAP TOWARDS FISCAL UNION EUROPE (REPORT OF ‘TOMMASO PADOA-SCHIOPPA GROUP’) Helmut Schmidt Peter Bofinger Laurence Boone Paul De Grauwe Jean-Claude Piris Jean Pisani-Ferry Maria João Rodrigues André Sapir António Vitorino 92 themes

Download fulltext
256

1 / 6 TRIBUNE 22 SEPTEMBRE 2016 DES STABILISATEURS AUTOMATIQUES POUR LA ZONE EURO ET LE MODÈLE SOCIAL EUROPÉEN Frank Vandenbroucke | conseiller à l’Institut Jacques Delors et professeur l’université d’Amsterdam lors que le débat sur la création de stabilisateurs automatiques pour zone euro est clairement l’ordre du jour cette Tribune se concentre relation entre les différentes propositions dimension sociale l’UE notamment l’initiative récente Commission lancer un « Socle européen des droits sociaux » Avec rapport cinq présidents l’achèvement l’Union économique monétaire européenne jour1 Inspiré par publications l’universitaire allemand Sebastian Dullien l’ancien commissaire László Andor a soutenu piste d’un système d’allocations chômage comme meilleure solution créer stabilisateur automatique Par ailleurs l’idée fait l’objet plusieurs articles conférences2 La financé projet recherche vaste approfondi sa valeur ajoutée faisabilité qui été mené Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) dont résultats finaux devraient être publiés prochainement3 Le Parlement envisage publier question conséquent synthèse dans présentée récent paper l’auteur Nathalie Julia Spath utile intervient point nommé (Spath 2016) Cette tribune suite au policy N ; elle ces Au niveau national sont élément clé États-providence il existe donc lien intrinsèque notre conception d’une part rôle politique l’autre : définir nature implique ainsi respectif États membres une fonction systémique essentielle l’assurance-chômage Ce nécessite discussion approfondie – j’espère démontrer devrait éviter certaines dichotomies simplistes symbolisme indu Pour étayer mes propos je me dois premier temps faire léger détour technique lequel particulièrement Trois modèles logiques organise base trois assurance contre chocs conjoncturels (Cyclical Shock Insurance CSI) assurance-chômage (European Unemployment EUI) mécanisme réassurance (pour nous utiliserons terme ») modèle CSI n’est pas lié données ou allocations fondé l’écart production (output gap) relatif sein ne répond qu’aux asymétriques sous forme virements budgétaires Il permet d’émettre dette Les EUI variantes ils établissent directe avec Dans l’organisation l’EUI peuvent gérer fois symé- triques étant donné qu’ils permettent d’accumuler différence double Premièrement cadre citoyens courte durée perçoivent prestation individuelle fonds tandis opère forfaitaires Deuxièmement A Des social 2 reçoivent en déclenchement (fondé actuel l’État membre trajectoire antérieure ce même État membre) aucun particulier prévu avant commence débloquer (toute personne participant perçoit quel soit rythme d’augmentation cet j’écarterai concentrerai Mon principal argument deux sens moins tranchée pourraient laisser entendre nécessitent élevé convergence «régulation»4 participants toutefois l’ampleur requise méthode y parvenir très L’impératif problème l’aléa moral institutionnel associé tant qu’à L’expression aléa référence qu’acteurs institutionnels collectifs mise place change donne concernant d’aléa Aléa produit quand (ou institution) prend plus risques car autre assume coûts L’aléa signifie assurée peut manipuler responsabilité l’assureur encourt influençant fréquence et/ou l’importance risque assuré En d’autres termes influencé comportement choix cas acteurs politiques délibérées lieu d’être purement exogène hors contrôle diminué minutieuse police d’assurance mais jamais totalement exclu certaine mesure inévitable tout contexte analyse traditionnelle appelle ex-ante S’agit-il importante ? réponse oui doit nuancée Une intervention systèmes nationaux d’assurance-chômage donnerait ’régulation niveaux’ (multi-tiered regulation) chô- mage Europe aussi bien l’UE5 étude détaillée huit pays lesquels régulation organisée niveaux centraux gouvernement jouant d’« assureur souligne apparaît tous intensités différents types solutions (Vandenbroucke Luigjes L’éventualité jouissant (que réassurance) deviennent laxistes l’activation chômeurs d’emploi général crée évident complètement éliminé garde réflexion faut savoir prix payer obtenir mutualisation stabilisation Ainsi l’objectif d’atténuer trade-off capacité souhaitables minimisé L’une conclusions examen expériences nationales leur extrapolation exigences minimales définies qualité d’activation seraient instrument important réduire p 35) Cela veut dire qu’il s’agirait seul Afin minimiser dernier plan financier conçu telle sorte permanents faveur certains soient impossibles tarification ajustable (experience rating) exemple visant limiter maximum possibilité moyenne bénéficiaire net système6 égard verrons Mais concentrons-nous d’abord qualitatives auxquelles doivent répondre (2016) évoque ex-post l’aide financière fournie 3 utilisée manière satisfaisante aux objectifs affichés système7 Si conséquence logique adéquate maintenir renforcer) contrepartie dépend générosité (notamment court terme) couverture l’Italie où effective traditionnellement faible présentent médiocre comparaison voir Dolls al 2012) (de durée) font partie intégrante résumer (nous désormais l’expression concept) essentielles lutter formes apparaissant mécanismes financiers nécessité d’exigences vaut tels définis imposeraient L’objectif sociales défi connu certainement concerne stratégie l’emploi ouverte coordination ont permis tester potentiel soft law (mesures non-contraignantes) domaine De nombreuses études publiées mitigés Un processus souple effectif (la garantie jeunesse pourrait exemple) (qui n’existe aujourd’hui évoqué géné- riques l’avenir l’UEM) considéré première étape vue d’établir Lancé mars 20168 socle comporte également principes perspective Convergence sociale: moyens L’EUI comportent enjeu davantage partir normative commune partage l’opinion vision claire l’intégration dichotomie Certes direct Européens véritable individuels géré aurait forte symbolique soi Toutefois pré- alable serait loin exercice technocrate sous-estimer force diffèrent flexibilité lesquelles réalisée imposée directement qu’un devient co-assureur verse uniforme parallèle existants législation admet tienne compte diversité nationale prestations plutôt rigide offre flexible complexité administrative sousestimée9 simple mettre œuvre s’appuyer étroitement liée récentes initiatives telles 4 ébauche préliminaire publiée pauvreté sécurité L’ébauche indique [d]ans nombre bénéficiaires raison critères stricts d’admissibilité l’application conditions participation soutien actif sujet préoccupation propose principe suivant mesures soutenir meurs associer l’obligation active adéquates suffisante permettre emploi incitations nécessaires retour rapide maintenues toute évidence s’agit déclaration générale stabilisatrice précise minimale l’occasion développer thème généraux formulés liés évaluation comparative pertinente performance domaine10 Arguments présentation fondée effectivement si complétées gouvernements européens constituent subordonnés dépasse certain seuil son supérieur pourcentage précis caractère droit individuel versement subordonné macroindicateurs11 revanche n’interfère individuelles effectue vers caractéristique naturelle Qui marges supplémentaires s’il l’écarts ayant structurel n’en profiteront (en obtenant d’aide l’UE) évidemment alors contrebalancé série réduisent institutionnel12 difficile protéger (par transfert destination Conclusion besoin minutieux l’analyse arguments rationnels forts sans doute rude combat l’Europe d’aujourd’hui examiner soin scénarios analyser quelle s’intégrer large union Divers militent idée gouvernance non seulement grande marge manœuvre atténuer semble compliquée Politiquement fidèle qu’une État-providence 2015) Sachant qu’elle présuppose établi donner nouvel élan 5 Bibliographie L «Towards shared unemployment insurance in the Euro Area» IZA Journal of Labour 5:10 M C Fuest Peichl Automatic Stabilizers and Economic Crisis: US vs Public Economics Vol 96 No 3-4 2012 pp 279-294 J Quels euro?» Paper 166 Institut – Berlin juin F Social Union: Unduly Idealistic or Inevitable? Debates 7 Investment Bank Institute septembre 2015 «Institutional hazard multi-tiered regulation assistance benefits activation summary eight country case studies» Brussel: février Compléter Rapport -Cl Juncker étroite coopération D Tusk Dijsselbloem Draghi & Schultz L’idée l’union doive dotée commun nouvelle rappel historique pertinents indiqués (2016 note bas page 1) comprennent analyses économétriques juridiques encore consulter premières https://www ceps eu/topics/unemployment-insurance L’auteur utilise «régulation» décrire règlements légaux administratifs s’appliqueraient euro;dans utilisons UE» abréviation «zone euro» «tarification ajustable» garantit contribution versée varie matière chômage;un possible récupération (claw back) porte contributions nettes positives négatives) long augmentant (diminuant) montant verser consortium dirigé CEPS examine détail privilégie final établit objectif d’«augmenter cycle économique» 17) laisse l’accent principalement Je préfère établir «renforcer stabilité» 8 Voir http://ec europa eu/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/towards-european-pillar-social-rights_en 9 nécessaire afin composer différences insurmontables renforce mon distinction rigidité pratique celle logiques» présentés 10 initiative benchmarking annoncée programme travail communication 21 suivi 11 Deux nuances importantes concevoir (i) financées macro-indicateur plafond (ii) dépassé créerait outil assez différent impose spécifique détaillé (qu’ils compléter) nécessairement financer réduit actuels combinés États-Unis fédéral complète versant américains (et décisions discrétionnaires) complément étatiques complété complémentaire (ce américain nature) combinaison option réalisable présenté «de base» 12 considère fonctionner automatiquement semi-automatique correcte cela poserait Cependant l’automaticité incompatibles indicateurs repose établis empirique relativement solide délibération politique» supplémentaire (contrairement suppose) pouvant fréquemment nombreux d’en bénéficier permettra type prises ad hoc observons surveillance budgétaire ISSN 2257-5731 L’EUROPE SOCIALE EXISTE-T-ELLE Sofia Fernandes David Rinaldi L’ACCÈS AUX PRESTATIONS SOCIALES LES CITOYENS MOBILES DE L’UE TOURISME OU FANTASME n° 168 QUELS MOBILITÉ TRANSFRONTALIÈRE COMMENT RÉFORMES STRUCTURELLES PEUVENT PERMETTRE À TROUVER UN ACCORD SUR CONVERGENCE Anna auf dem Brinke Henrik Enderlein Jörg Haas 165 DU TRAVAIL DANS REMÈDE FLÉAU Paul-Jasper Dittrich 159 UNE ASSURANCE CONTRE CHOCS CONJONCTURELS Lukas Guttenberg Jan Spiess Études Rapports 100 2013 PARACHEVER L’EURO FEUILLE ROUTE VERS UNION BUDGÉTAIRE EN EUROPE (RAPPORT GROUPE TOMMASO PADOA-SCHIOPPA) Helmut Schmidt Peter Bofinger Laurence Boone Paul Grauwe Jean-Claude Piris Jean Pisani-Ferry Maria João Rodrigues André Sapir António Vitorino 92 Sur mêmes thèmes… 19 rue Milan 75009 Paris Pariser Platz 10117 info@delorsinstitute eu www institutdelors Directeur publication Yves Bertoncini • reproduction totalité extraits autorisée condition dénaturer mentionner source opinions exprimées n’engagent leur(s) auteur(s) L’Institut saurait rendu responsable l’utilisation tiers Traduction l’anglais Charlotte Laigle

Download fulltext
56

European Social Democracy and the Third Way: Convergence Divisions Shared Questions Frank Vandenbroucke Taking a long-term view of social-democratic history Donald Sassoon argues convincingly that we witness “an unprecedented Europe-wide convergence parties Left” (1998 p 92) There seems short-term nature too Read sample literature on welfare state published over last five years by centre-left policy institutes scholars In chronological order you may start with report issued British Commission Justice (1994) end reading chapters German in few months ago “Zukunftskommission” Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (1998) Despite important national differences will be struck recurrence following fixed points which many social democrats seem to agree: 1) Welfare cannot reduced employment but is key issue reform Moreover objective has changed “Full employment” as it was conceived past most countries underlying traditional concepts full for men The challenge today women This linked transformation family structures our conception women’s role society It need rethink both certain aspects architecture distribution work households individuals spontaneously emerges labour market 2) should not only cover risks traditionally defined them (unemployment illness disability old age child benefits) also new (lack skills causing unemployment or poor single parenthood) needs (namely reconcile life education able negotiate changes within workplace one’s entire cycle) 3) “intelligent state” respond those an active preventive way engage “social spending” investment” (e g training education) 4) Active policies higher agenda upgraded quantity quality tailoring more effectively individual situations presuppose correct balance between incentives opportunities obligations people involved; 5) Taxes benefits must lead situation (or their families) face very high marginal tax rates when hours wages increase they take up job Benefit systems are selective beset “poverty traps” UK “Unemployment – discouraging mainly low-skilled workers from taking jobs characterize some other well differing degree 6) necessary subsidize topping workers’ pay selectively subsidizing employers combined decent minimum 7) People who part-time flexible adequately integrated protected security system 8) Such economic environment based upon competitive sector exposed international competition development private service find job-opportunities Continental Europe typically lags behind Wage subsidies can instrumental respect Delors (1997) written excellent short paper Party Socialists “new model development” foregoing concerning wage-subsidies etcetera fit One finds same core insight tackling reforming requires documents Stiftung’s Zukunftskommission proposes model” along lines stressing instance create services Elsewhere I have argued these “fixed points” reflects potential useful views among at least level general diagnosis guidelines (Vandenbroucke 1997) do suggest consensus such would close models Union practical measures Different political institutional cultural backgrounds explain why persist; imposing homogeneity certainly sensible Nevertheless indicating employment-centred theoretical exercise For without this kind process set motion 1997 Luxemburg Job Summit been difficult one reasons discussion National Action Plans elaboration Guidelines Employment Policies turned out substantive contrary what sceptics might feared (2) More fundamentally common vision future however diversified politics doomed stagnate finally fail (de Schoutheete Of course establishing entails much than said so far A comprehensive approach positions pensions health care much-debated universality versus selectivity possible specify issues similar terms generality deduced If formulated suitably foundational stand good chance representing socialdemocratic thought practice Consider statement universalism add my list points: 9) Neither nor dogmas: values methods judged basis efficiency stability These criteria interconnected: depends legitimation provisions eyes public large; together considerations supports sectors visible “waste” money undermine legitimacy But health) precondition sustain broad base support communal experiences Selectivity form “affluence test” rather condition However catches poverty traps reduces words appropriate “broadly based” value endeavour idea fair burdens majority accepted Again stressed thinking necessarily advocated somewhat parts Belgian during eighties against received wisdom quarters party because considered moment insufficiently hand understandable reformers stress prevailing means-testing To understand each other’s generalize parochial look principles underpinning (Ferrera 1998 explains arguments mean different things ) So Sassoon’s plausible present recent convergence; identify subjects account summarily sketched here leaves open basic normative questions overlooks conceals divisions emphasis first discuss division believe immediate difference (3) Then return left scheme Keynesians supply-siders? Confronted one-sided successful say concur targeted require sufficient overall pressure demand Hence macroeconomic precisely French Italian governments others argue: coordination fortiori context EMU They thereby appeal basically Keynesian insights appears Way continental democracy Now exaggerate differences; argue fiscal stance government next three classically counter-cyclical afraid internal centre-left: stuff Yet worries me presented inspiring unable grasp relevant demise Keynesianism essential Giddens’s construal he explained Beyond Left Right:”Keynesianism became ineffective result twin interconnected influences intensified globalization everyday ( worked tolerably world simple modernization; could survive reflexive modernization reflexivity Reflexive citizens responding universe global uncertainties become aware subvert supposed mobilize behaviour like forms helped structure presumes citizenry stable lifestyle habits characteristic globalized ” (Giddens 1994 42) Since given shred empirical link instability remains dogmatic main point want make real difficulties encountered makes hard intelligent productive dialogue Germans go through all let put follows identification “classical democracy” “effective Keynesianism” relies hidden assumptions easily taken granted Once assumed lived “golden age” confronted circumstances mixture monetary expansion organized second essentially unproblematic less economies true (4) his Crisis Choice Scharpf neatly expounds various problem constellations management offers no solution: stagflation fuelled cost-push inflation example Incomes were additional instrument needed tackle cooperation unions (Scharpf 1991 pp 25-37) Even usual swings business cycle depended voluntary instruments directly available suffice cope even closed economy external constraints enhanced integration exist; eliminate bizarre “in golden era” before speak always successfully rely track fight whatever constellation Returning contemporary discussions Successful mutual trust actors sets actors: budgetary authorities (governments) (central banks) trade wage increases requirement facing latter acceptance discipline growth average slack tight markets difficulty achieving exacerbated now where multitude layers union organisations authority longstanding pleas project designed overcome summarize “un gouvernement économique” replicated Lafontaine’s writing Lafontaine 105) Euro-zone pôle i e reference Central Bank ideally supplemented collective bargaining generates complex specific proposals Councils Ministers added Space forbids pursuing any detail alone strengths weaknesses involved Here structural: intends conditions sustainable mix supply flexibility à la Greenspan president American FED Although there question “dash growth” “Keynesian fine tuning” learned illusions Also likely effective policy; play lesser suggests Minister Finance Strauss-Kahn deputy Flassbeck recently emphasized (Strauss-Kahn 1998b; 1998) What institutionally creation ECB confidently relax economically indicated perception irreversible decline coherence cohesion corporatist institutions corporatism design incorporate variety optimism matters counterbalanced pessimism intellect all-out warranted: Netherlands provides well-known possibility neo-corporatism My concern this: defining longer-term source potentially disruptive destabilizing intellectual framework presentation purchase debate; sense declares itself uninterested claims dramatically textbook analysis steering irrelevant wrong hampers capacity debates Euro tout court fact Giddens lists defines “state dominates civil society” reinforces created implicit dismissal macroeconomics As Crouch pointed shows little understanding neo-corporatist industrial relations meant practised precludes renewal continent Problems language communication Clearly sounds priori ears realize government” exactly slogan porteur” Anglo-Saxons apart problems overcoming undogmatic theory nations foremost thorough Europeanization (which deny its own right) Economic reality dictates governance Nearly taxation gradually introducing sources funding taxing consumption energy diminish taxes extreme caution New Labour operates domain tactical disagreement turn longer term fundamental surmounted aversion ideologically entrenched positive seriously dented case if shape beyond Luxembourg Cardiff summits already achieved investment replacing spending? around 1 8 earlier conceal third holds (on Most emphasize relation spending “either-or” distinction highlights pragmatic trade-off two tracks redistribution avoid creating false dichotomies often suggested instantiates “redistribution” while something entirely An intuitive politically attractive argument dividing line everybody better off cost others; hence “redistributive” former convenient analytically maintain never embodies First does come cheap run permanently worse consequence reallocating resources invested raises sufficiently generate guarantee citizen net beneficiary Secondly classify using taxonomy: entail (in human capital get experience thanks subsidy) direct (because people’s wages) Phelps self-financing everyone deploys schemes doubt whether robust enough decisive discourse call appeals willingness redistribute well-identifiable high-skilled high-income low-income And setting priorities inevitable tradeoff increasing improve via (for retired) investing escape means replace unreal live ageing ever dependent connections force demographic transition maintaining benefit levels standard living inactive population participation Dutch debate (see references fn Investment raising about sustainability desirable pointing decrease Important necessitate states (cf claim allow significant aggregate pursued retrenchment breach recognizably existing sacrosanct impression strong assertions “inefficiency” made wrongly being defects Some increased Britain 15 intrinsically interacts affecting inequality Gottschalk notably 673) everywhere undergoing reforms assertion incorrect conflate meaningful modernizing On complexity distinctive character address calls careful Scrutiny facts reveals spectacular; sweeping generalizations Thiscaveat discussed previous section mentioned (The truth unexciting Balanced reasoning verification sadly best-sellers locating judgement mistaken Salvati Maybe primarily reconsidered prepared translate “equal people” into standards justice conceptions rights duties distributive (5) goes grain “values” then “our unchanged” revise implementation emotionally comfortable lift anchor yet tell whole story reassuring sound reflection going Between lie just reviewing consider revisit review settled ideas Therefore Blair’s insistence importance welcome stresses unchanged simultaneously quite clear “about ideas” (Blair mention briefly concealed centreleft’s century awareness “male” (my led shift objectives specified Nowadays figures makers thing Characteristically interested fiddling statistics growing number early retirement problematic drive towards supported and/or inclusion propose vaguely formulate cluster follows: how distribute really achieve inclusive participate? focus narrow definition (Other assign morality “supported self-reliance” selfreliance individual’s effort self-reliance partly moralistic paternalistic) flavour: paid central non-monetary rewards self-esteem beneficial effects lives integrate slight moralism “the knows you” disturb importantly dismiss participation: nothing paternalistic recognizing (6) surveys show willingly “price” having income obtain esteem provided Phelps’s massive programme boost low productivity explicitly refers valuable costly individuals: “The measure cash reward supplied disadvantaged earnings excess entitlement ineligible Our self-supporting kin hinges ourselves families largely due efforts actually negative large low-wage comparably wealth feel themselves afford pecuniary sacrifice ‘buy’ (Phelps 21-22) “affordable” option extensive net-income low-productivity Solow emphasises participate According crucial achievement concludes: “(W)e kidding reasonable know benign malign neglect strain sponsors willing admit normal economics (Solow 27) Solow’s another High equality opportunity comparative working (if yardstick exclusion) relative rate US almost twice Germany France four times Belgium although greater proportion Likewise widespread Australia Canada records (Marx Verbist 5; Fig 2 Table Note diminishes citizens’ attach overarching limited community activities outside think parents local schools implies done combine providing professional childcare longterm parental sabbaticals lucky minority Pursuing ambitious propositions proposed introduction “participation law” covering search socially (PvdA 29-30); coalition pursues promising “framework legislation leave” Atkinson’s radical proposal criticism (Atkinson 1995 301-303; see Oppenheim advantages drawbacks) meaning elderly contribute productively include notion Atkinson 24 “deeply unfashionable once again use excluded mechanism expression citizenship (Lister hope summary remarks goals inevitably ideals egalitarian convictions says egalitarian) huge distributed define build coalitions “winners” “losers” Melkert parliamentary leader social-democrats writes interesting contribution (Melkert church flourish recognizable unifying identity Standards motivated equal elements shared Related further query confronts concerns responsibility exhaustively By teaser confront scholarly interpretations Deal examine learn thinks blend neo-liberalism seen neo-liberal “stick” components withdrawing toughening enter strongly assist market-access provision subsidized uses explanatory sociologist’s concept today’s field Crouch’s contrasted Plant “not mid-century bureaucracy purposes justified Labour’s “genuine alternative” (neo-liberal) (social-democratic) according “supply side citizenship”: “(I)n rich status citizenship; bundle goods right Rather participating reaping accrue part Still Plant’s differs respect: “(T)he position poorest groups equipped marketable matter determine Either democrat wants aim (Plant 9-10) With actual slightly overplays since Family Credit Working Families Tax change results significantly nearly fifth expenditure entailed generosity closer scrutiny pure “deadweight” view: officially planned extra act incentive expected continue (Meadows 76) sell redistributive constitutive simply read classical Behind “reciprocity” “no responsibilities”; secondly implicitly exchange reciprocity sole interaction compulsive Compulsion introduces “commodification” Esping-Andersen’s terminology disentangle presents responsibility-sensitive narrowing down personal generated correction troublesome We develop Today moral hostage natural tendency conservatism “affluent majority” degenerate defence sectional interests coherent built ethic 1990) regularly surfaced theme sometimes played disingenuous prominent Blair says: “In decades duty preserve Right mistake powerful forces movement features distinguish responsibilitysensitive market-exchange playing equips helps direction differential Second accepts ensure emerge takes display caring remunerate Fourth easy rhetoric responsibilities powerless matched powerful” (Wright 1996 147) Earlier Distributive all” best concern”? abstract philosophy 20 highly provide reconciliation focal exchanges philosophical developed Rawls Sen Dworkin Cohen Arneson Roemer Kolm Barry Crucial relate “having talent” “deserving” compensation talent At sight appear “talents” removed Many object preoccupations talents overwhelmingly determining material production perspective reflections consequences crucially connected modern societies 1998a 68ff Le Grand captures “(O)ur judgements inequity inherent depend extent outcome choice receives owing her disparity inequitable; arises control inequitable (Le 87) Equality isnot uniformity independent choices reason constitute advantage) demanding “equality opportunity” conventionally used: “Individuals’ determined barriers initial endowments abilities acquire inheritance gifts background prior etc Equalization thus judicious manipulation advantage endowed Or compensating ability bring range naturally 91-92) perform poorly compensated financially mechanisms Personal Conceptions “fair burdens” yield (rather per se) your luck choice: (i) regard original genetic born did yourself; influenced preferences competing workers; (ii) regarding choose That away Political relevance responsible consequently ethical desert lying heart 1989; White 1997; 25-26) Poverty theory? Social-democratic action nourished 51) Having painted picture concludes pessimistic notes labels theory”: “A aspect guide inspire Marxism impasse fault lies politicians intelligentsia (Sassoon 96) Obviously illustrate True prevailed self-contained body scientific clearly separated “bourgeois” after embraced passe-partout effect nuance vis-à-vis came “neoliberal” Does belief separate socialist lack resources? Not required neat unified Connecting grasping conflicting evidence Building bridges painstaking served prevail “glib sophisticated engaging thinking” (Krugman ix) nowadays “globalization” it” coming crisis capitalism” critically constructively abundantly power Two hamper action: open-minded across borders reluctance had fewer excuses failure accounts Footnotes (1) Revised version conference “Labour Government: Future Democracy” Minda de Gunzburg Center Studies Harvard University 13-15 November 1998; book (eds S R Skidelsky) abridged T Wright MP Gamble Quarterly Fifth Issue 1999 am grateful Peter Robinson Jos Beus Alan Chipp Jerry Colin David Miliband Anthony Bernard Tuyttens Wolfgang Merkel generous comments (some maintain) Cf assessment Martine Aubry 48-49); remarkably non-complacent omit regulation reflect realities diverging ideologies bold elaborate (and Gidden’s account) “rights justice” ecological durability though construe differently typical parity down-to-earth focussing viability (See Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid van der Veen critical account; WRR combination supporting “participatieparadigma” (7) formal examination nexus “responsibility incentives” (1999) Bibliography ATKINSON B (1995) State Cambridge Press Blackwell Oxford AUBRY ACTION POUR LE RENOUVEAU SOCIALISTE Quelle gauche pour le XXIe siècle ? October Paris BLAIR Tony Politics Century Fabian Pamphlet 588 Society COHEN Gerald (1989) “On Currency Egalitarian Justice” Ethics 99 912-944 COMMISSION EUROPEENNE Direction générale “Emploi industrielles et affaires sociales” V/A Des lignes directrices l’action concrète: les plans d’action nationaux l’emploi May ON SOCIAL JUSTICE Strategies Renewal Vintage London CROUCH Industrial Relations? Paper DELORS Jacques Réflexions un nouveau modèle développement mimeo SCHOUTHEETE Philippe Une tous Editions Odile Jaob FERRERA Maurizio Four ‘Social Europes’: Universalism Selectivity” RHODES Martin MENY Yves Contract? Macmillan FLASSBECK Heiner “Tight relaxed urged” Interview Financial Times 3 December GIDDENS Radical Polity “After left’s paralysis” Statesman 18-21 GOTTSCHALK “Inequality Income Growth Mobility: Basic Facts” Journal Perspectives Vol 11 No Spring 21-40 KRUGMAN Paul (1996) Pop Internationalism MIT Mass LAFONTAINE Oskar MÜLLER Christa Keine Angst vor Globalisierung Wohlstand und Arbeit für alle Dietz Bonn GRAND Julian (1991) Equity Essay Economics Applied Philosophy Harper Collins Academic LISTER Ruth “Social Inclusion Exclusion” KELLY Gavin Dominic GAMBLE Andrew (eds) Stakeholder Capitalism MARX Ive VERBIST Gerre Low-paid household package LOWER Conference 12-13 MEADOWS Pamela “Recent shifts returns Britain” Institute Review 166 74-77 MELKERT Ad “Over sociaal-democratie Europa” Socialisme & Democratie 55 10 419-425 OPPENHEIM Carey Reform Market: ’third way’? PHELPS Edmund Rewarding Work How Restore Participation Self-Support Free Enterprise PLANT Raymond Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Papers 5/ 98 September PvdA Sociale Zekerheid bij Tijd Op weg naar Congres 14 en februari SALVATI Michele Prolegomena workshops Reset Abano Terme 16-17 SASSOON “Fin-de-Siècle Socialism: United Modest 227 January/February 88-96 SCHARPF Fritz W Cornell Ithaca (translated edition 1987) SOLOW Robert M “Guess Who Pays Workfare?” York Books 5 27-37 STRAUSS-KAHN Dominique (1998a) siècle? (1998b) speech CEPR VAN DER VEEN J Participate Sink Threshold Dykes ECPR Workshop Uncertain Europe: Normative Foundations Sustainability Warwick Joint Sessions 23-28 March VANDENBROUCKE (1990) Over Dromen Mensen Davidsfonds Leuven “De nieuwe centrum-linkse tijdgeest zijn beperkingen” volume 54 6 257-265 Globalisation Inequality IPPR Individual Open Responsibility Incentives manuscript submitted D Phil thesis WETENSCHAPPELIJKE RAAD VOOR HET REGERINGSBELEID Van verdelen verdienen Afwegingen sociale zekerheid 21ste eeuw Sdu Uitgevers Den Haag Tweedeling perspectief WHITE Stuart “What Egalitarians Want?” Jane FRANKLIN (ed 59-82 “Interpreting way’ road many” 17-30 WRIGHT Socialisms Old Routledge ZUKUNFTSKOMMISSION FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG Wirtschaftliche Leistungsfähigkeit sozialer Zusammenhalt ökologische Nachhaltigkeit Drei Ziele ein Weg

Download fulltext
72

econstor www eu Der Open-Access-Publikationsserver der ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft The Open Access Publication Server of the Leibniz Information Centre for Economics Nutzungsbedingungen: Die räumt Ihnen als Nutzerin/Nutzer das unentgeltliche räumlich unbeschränkte und zeitlich auf die Dauer des Schutzrechts beschränkte einfache Recht ein ausgewählte Werk im Rahmen unter → http://www eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen nachzulesenden vollständigen Nutzungsbedingungen zu vervielfältigen mit denen Nutzerin/der Nutzer sich durch erste Nutzung einverstanden erklärt Terms use: grants you user non-exclusive right to use selected work free charge territorially unrestricted and within time limit term property rights according terms specified at By first agrees declares comply with these zbw Vandenbroucke Frank Working Paper EU social protection: What should European Convention propose? MPIfG working paper No 02/6 Provided in Cooperation with: Max Planck Institute Study Societies Suggested Citation: (2002) : This Version is available at: http://hdl handle net/10419/44291 June 2002 Social Protection: Should Propose? Minister Affairs Pensions Belgian Federal Government[1] based on a public lecture held 17 Contents Introduction 1 Role Play Development Protection Policy? Diminished Legal Authority Through Market Compatibility Requirements 2 Autonomy Due de facto Pressures Welfare States 3 Common Objectives Legitimate Diversity Post-Lisbon Challenge: Turning Principles Co-operation Into Operational Practice Method Co-ordination as Creative Instrument Combating Poverty Promoting Inclusion Pensions: A Challenge With Financial Constraints 4 Mobile Citizens: Simplifying Improving Coordination Security Systems 5 Health Care Elderly 6 Legislative Agenda: Focus Delivery 7 Dialogue Anchoring Policy IGC: Six Proposals Including Charter Fundamental Rights Constitutional Treaty Statement EU’s Architecture Strengthening Provisions Facilitating Respecting Agreements Between Partners National Level Services General Interest Summary & Conclusion In this I will discuss two interrelated questions: (1) role if any Union (EU) play development policy? (2) Does proper we would define it when answering question require changes be made Treaty? If answer second positive forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) offer unique opportunity include desired new My discussion policy not exhaustive concentrate mainly protection thus going into employment related issues Nor relate how Member can maintain necessary funding programmes context “tax competition” nor debate future structural funds say that discussions are important quite contrary However my aim here examine impact typical national minister who responsible (including health care) what kind such like see develop now after part provide succinct concerning present brief survey agenda “social protection” ministers stands today suggest short-term proposals further which do presuppose show has gained some momentum since Lisbon Summit March 2000 but also remains politically institutionally fragile third elaborate six These questions raised post-Lisbon experience discussed order give coherent response assess facts: does protection? an excellent textbook policy-making Stephan Leibfried Paul Pierson summarize facts follows: “The process integration eroded both sovereignty (by mean legal authority) autonomy regulatory capacity) member states realm welfare remain primary institutions they so increasingly constraining multi-tiered polity “[2] addition direct pressures resulting from initiatives undertaken by dynamics market have created indirect jure through imposition compatibility requirements Court Justice (ECJ) forces economic competition integrated Direct or “negative reform” call occurs application fundamental freedoms provided Treaty: movement workers freedom services principle implies firstly State may no longer most benefits its citizens; secondly insist only apply territory enjoyed there; thirdly although still largely prevent other systems directly competing own regime built entirely able so; fourthly exclusive administer migrants’ claims closely linked fact treaties well secondary law focus activity entrepreneurial obviously: Do state constitute activity? financial general implying example governments exclusively decide Fortunately acknowledge non-economic true there exemption treaty’s distinction between “economic” “welfare” (or “solidarity”) always clear-cut Hence drawing – continually redrawing fine line “solidarity” much conflict judgements ECJ about outstanding report last year’s Presidency Professor Elias Mossialos[3] his team shown particular field care significant prospects substantial remoulding policies “market filter” As stress due insurance more characteristics” fragmented provider groups already operate markets (medical instruments pharmaceuticals) quasi-markets (doctors private practice sickness funds) countries been traditionally exposed provision Moreover reforms geared cures” de-regulation recent decades To extent move away redistribution solidarity clear beyond yet unidentified threshold become just another enterprise must compete competitors level playing [4] shows certainly simplistic blame “Europe” problems makers confronted enforced solutions upon reluctant matter instead asking “Do activity?” one could put forward slightly different question: “To believe organise their domestic actual consequences internal rules repeatedly illustrated rulings issued Let me Kohll[5] Decker[6] considered demanding prior authorization reimbursement orthodontic treatment purchase spectacles outside Luxembourg had unjustified impediment goods Consequently security system was forced reimburse unauthorised Even though explain later were nuanced than thought (Section 2) did make again even competence exempt Kohll Decker create dual cover care: On hand procedure governed EC regulation coordination (Regulation 1408/71 refer Section 4) Regulation integrates patient received her institution where he receives medical “as insured it” subject same cost sharing regulations (e g referral specialist costs settled tariffs delivered persons temporarily “members” host country’s patients using returning country residence claim coverage home there” conditions applicable [7] duality creates complexity scope confusion poses problem traditional allows (conditioned) mobility preserves cohesion introduces degree unlimited disrupt Thus might lead increasing inequalities access comes guaranteeing quality essential objectives generally want achieve increased intrinsically problematic number reasons very developed framework For instance allow centres excellence especially highly specialised treatments experimental therapies; reap full cross-border cooperation projects; tangible difficulties nature crucial practical illustrate Suppose UK citizens entitled anywhere Europe Belgium without NHS having Mobility opportunities government citizens: immediate solution waiting lists whilst extra investment currently undertaking takes produce results; far consider contracting-out sector transparent well-organised price British providers rest beneficial (since supply increased) entails risks risk uncontrollable bill (as cannot monitor cost-efficiency abroad) potential regard given asymmetry information characterizes From point view revenue But simultaneously “Kohll Decker” type fuel “two-speed” treated “free” (that conforming convention tariffs) Indeed growing influx abroad nourish “non-convention” One imagine interactions X decided semi-privatise approach favour privatisation neighbouring words is: Will offering respect built-in our simply export each other? De result enhanced single budgetary promoted avoid cheap talk dumping EU” Intensifying many challenges facing Today under strain primarily because (a) fields pensions greater resources (b) needs emerged Furthermore know necessarily retrenchment led renewed agreements partners consequently rethinking rather Nevertheless naïve extrapolate [8] Economic monetary importance capital labour leave bigger mark architecture long run short eve enlargement history written When jury out theory issue economists recognised dangers leading loss tax base (perhaps competition”) consequential effects capacity finance Pressure follow-up States’ Broad Guidelines multilateral surveillance assessment situation annual stability plans sure recognizing political processes pressure means considerable attention sound finances swept carpet sustainable conditio sine qua non evidently major ageing societies prudence carries danger myopically economises investments exception observation Intelligent needed reasons: expectations today’s (a concern sensitive elections); prepare reality It case “straightforward” shift lightens burdens few substantive tricky equity justice less [9] accompanied Whilst (and rightly so) comparatively little intelligent sober together uncontroversial points conclusions Firstly seems fair lost control over face transferred authority latter gap steering combination diminished continued weakness developing responses restrict innovative everywhere common elderly pension demographic exacerbated requirement unanimity Council areas paralysis decision-making probably importantly bring dramatic increases politico-cultural politico-institutional heterogeneity among [10] Secondly service organisations constellation prioritise polarised trajectories fear: core components (redistribution pay-as-you-go etc ) “intervention-free” “pure” welfare; functions market-based (in whole parts) tilt towards sphere “economic action” becoming principles regimes Thereby gradually submerged “security” personal [11] There well-known (information adverse selection why easy twins neither argue below followed cautious path sufficient nuances prerequisites Yet unfair choose rely quasi-market mechanisms emphasized 1) provides robust guarantee against feared opinion institutional creating difficult exclude agenda: tidy separation belonging supranational spheres unsustainable “[12] additional transfer competencies uniformity let alone harmonisation sake Although concept “a model” makes sense “common ” think possibly agree detailed blueprint Fritz Scharpf argues attempt override legitimate diversity imposing uniform blow apart illegitimate; itself legitimating structure beliefs practices supporting multilevel [13] legislation domain decision making efficient section responsibility municipalities regions nation enable “active states” encourage indicating broad concerned And sustain operational synonymous competences inspired half 2001 Our leitmotiv agreed building done French Swedish Presidencies Portuguese “Lisbon principles” them hinged idea (economic performance mutually reinforcing equilibrium found) methodological proposal coined “open method coordination” moreover precise ambition “leadership” co-ordination: intended enhance coordinating attempted reduce virtually (ECOFIN) take concerns account drafting [14] “to implement Lisbon” implied three goals: co-operation fight poverty exclusion operational; launch open co-ordination pensions; ground reforming current governing schemes mobile 1408/71) [15] priority belongs “hard law”; belong “soft law” notion Next achieved inclusion sections indicate touch briefly address play: dialogue Together Part description sets scene [16] foundations Europewide formally laid down Before EU-level applied (multilateral 1992 Maastricht Treaty) (the Luxemburg formalised 1997 Amsterdam “co-ordinated strategy employment” fine-tuned year) follows distinguish “policy co-ordination” established before formal basis exists defined however “cookbook” soft-law methodologies often conflated heading [17] nutshell peer review action enables compare learn respects local diversity; flexible aims promote progress An learning requires comparable commonly indicators goals evaluation soft recommendations Commission exchange reliable least institutionalising mimicking” [18] Because pragmatic “open” effectively found way credible commitment sending messages explicit formulation seen “defensive shield” possible light unification added value goes being technical preventing Defining merely useful technique us translate abstract “European set rooted thanks interpreted definitions outcomes Echoing Anton Hemerijck [19] cognitive normative tool “cognitive” restricted extends underlying views opinions area “normative” embody paradigm fixed recipe methodology (see differs Employment Process Art 128 (In submitted every year individual States) differ turn inclusion: consists fairly four years yearly update integrate drawn up cookbook contains various recipes lighter heavier ones Elsewhere emphasised bear certain key mind [20] amongst others We fly wing need namely legislative Therefore replace confuse Confusing elements spirit subsidiarity lack clarity leads biased analysis [21] “comprehensiveness”: all tools [22] fourth choice benchmarks practice: standards realistic ambitious definitely best process: feasible “standards excellence” mediocrity fifth final located measure quantifiable reason finding agreement top litmus test readiness engage Anyone paid lip Related statistical “soft” character met scepticism consensus go solemn vague declarations Summits Admittedly results (mutatis mutandis) comprehensive whether actually meet high mid-term July Communication evaluate assessments “there doubt whatsoever modified guidelines […] brought innovations branches levels evolved introduction Action Plans 1998 conclude “convergence stress” real indicated highlight varied critical representative criticism produced gives rise increase sometimes irrelevant measures efficiency notably Parliament relation democratic gains “openness” too absence involvement deficit constitutes Europe’s prepared change balance undesirable detrimental Not proven usefulness; instrument either effective envisage therefore emphasising panacea magic formula intelligently managed defensive employ judiciously proactive creative Europe” specific anchor firmly collective good heart Eradicating promoting constituted ambitions December reached beginning called submit end able: adopt joint containing recommendations” policies; 18 quantitative [23] They accurately evolution multidimensional covers dimensions exclusion: education known “low income rate” percentage individuals living households total household 60 per cent median income; indicates “risk poverty” Other are: rate “persistent low income”; educational attainment; regional cohesion; people jobless households; proportion early school leavers training; self-perceived status level; longterm long-term unemployed; approve four-year programme launched January stimulating NGO’s scientists socially excluded “round” implemented fully During Danish Nice limited mainstreaming gender setting targets possibility target(s) appreciate engaged bilateral accession summer onwards start preparing reports “Joint Memoranda” (JIM’s) ready immediately members Committee soon place implementation adapt feasibility entrenchment Regarding Councils Laeken Barcelona 11 [24] adequacy sustainability modernisation changing societal explicitly wanted encompassing [25] perspective institutionalised including ECOFIN request speak balanced voice indeed reflected objective “ensure older placed enjoy decent standard living; share well-being accordingly participate actively cultural life According sixth “reform appropriate ways taking overall maintaining At fiscal reduction debt Strategies adopted dedicated reserve required frameworks management funded affordability portability draft Strategic Report September efforts Finally assessing monitoring 2003 Italian Still next those Greece Italy ensure truly negotiations aimed successfully striking formations unacceptable (provided hands deviate requests Heads Government regarding requested Göteborg asked incorporate Notwithstanding intentions sufficiently reflect that: central co-ordinated mix reflects articulation so-called triangle involve giving recognition safe effect “greater cohesion” “[26] happens “moment truth” Free cornerstones enshrined determining factors administrative barriers affect 1971 Ministers guarantees moving retain While affords ample numerous amendments That proceed simplification improvement basic options (so-called “parameters”) modernising Spanish (3 2002) provisions determine matters material (Who covered? apply?) aggregation periods equal determination competent “which applies”?) continue chapters things find mechanism extension (EEC) third-country nationals Such strong support purpose Until situation: daughter Moroccan employee France study London Her father thirty loses child benefit despite faithfully paying contributions Last apparently trivial nationals; United Kingdom Ireland join “opt in” Thirdly near Thanks opt exaggeration represents milestone equality non-EU diminish contribute establishment quickly deliver obligatory non-binding dossier identified eligible applying Since challenge compounded adequate spring launching careful “doing something” referred justify preparation form Ideally trilateral (yet created) interesting input Committees involved accessibility main advisory get started IGC forget round Agenda (December 2000) then encompassed amount policy) Having said engaging crystal ball gazing unlikely significantly unsuccessful Just examples: Directives consultation companies[27] acquis differences transposing prospect solid imply enormous sustained delivery Clearly carried existing acts saw revision updating insolvency[28] exposure asbestos[29] men women employment[30] Within remit falls ever regulated earlier Directive temporary work[31] recently presented Negotiations vibrations[32] noise[33] activities occupational retirement close rounded successfully[34] (bipartite) interprofessional sectoral (tripartite) wide range Those success bipartite bargaining employers trade unions 27 sectors binding Others referring negotiation infancy “Val Duchesse dialogue” 1985 progressed stage mere furthermore primacy channels Despite removed handling industrial relations: declaration expressed willingness jointly multi-annual improve tripartite aspects urged strategies Strategy summit several occasions grant triggered themselves prove willing players arguments amending facilitate starting plays concluded active underscores depends answers (such organisation mobility) lacks pursued improved window propositions text argument concrete First constitutional (basic) essence constitution widespread content legally entitlements horizontal thereby indication production More insertion taken emphasizing particularly famous cases caused stir throughout stated special remove ambit [35] Now course defines limits took consideration tipped sought pair financing [36] Rulings Smits-Peerbooms clarified confirmed Community exercising power hospital fall Article 50 Community) maintenance restriction scheme justified derogates event non-discriminatory criteria advance circumscribe exercise authorities’ discretion used arbitrarily [37] undoubtedly tries weigh deciding applicability decisions clearer guidance direction Court’s Mossialos highest statement enshrines values diminishing shaping [38] incorporated balancing confine re-balancing act broaden clearly express dimension parcel strive reformulation Articles amend complete § deals promotion usefully jurisprudentiel formulated “In shall eliminate accessible financially organised Text Proposal reference completed consistency environmental All actions preserve via includes interpretation Agreement build mutual understanding specify details intergovernmental collaboration tends dependent coincidental moment ensuring valid hurdle overcome outcome formation Without glad hear sounds voices international bodies accustomed IMF World Bank 25 “peer review” complicated Practical maybe frequency) Given establish logical planned article describe Union’s features “generic” encompass (art 128) detail chapter [39] “generic definition” precaution involved: proposing “bottom line” types damage Whether generic definition venture myself specifically experiencing following requirements: applies field: (to signal domains indicated); unambiguously depend obligation (hence expression “shall”); prominent played ministers’ identity past years; (called “management labour” Treaty’s jargon); (it easier pensions); incorporation (for convenience “Broad Guidelines” today; broader Guidelines”) introduced 144 label “144bis”; reshape obviously presentation (article “144bis”) Regard 137 paragraph (j) (k) (*) pursuant consulting draw Reference establishing amended note proposed effect) suffices demands 136 formulations accepted independent holds meaning articles large subjects rule calls generalisation qualified majority voting (QMV) area; minimum minimorum QMV 1408/71; 42 am aware (current new) oblige competitive advantages compensation geographical stock disadvantages fear mentioning substantive: cumulative scientific evidence corroborated Dutch productive factor competitiveness institutional: finally abandon coalition supported easily block Rightly bad twist arms attach impose unacceptably unnecessary constraints serve source inspiration [40] argued simplify Treaty-based surrounding “declare binding/implement” whereas Most procedures relevant decisional initiated excludes pay Here great deal uncertainty arises parts allowed relating negotiate words: negotiations) Also helped declared 139 TEC “1 desire contractual relations accordance (sic) covered association strike lock-outs signatory parties except 137(3) unanimously Genreal refers affected 81 prohibits “all undertakings associations concerted object prevention distortion lot clarifications Albany compulsory affiliation “the seriously undermined [81](1) seeking similar reasoning 86 entrusted operation interest Recent “service purely considers “undertakings” function task system) regarded “undertakings 86(2) derogation case-law insert 81(1) pursuit equally seem Rules Applying Undertakings Insert provision: “Agreements Modify way: “Undertakings alternative delete read inquiry empirical decisionmaking politicoinstitutional illegitimate hope conceived table proposals: reformulate “horizontal” spell Fourthly Fifthly Notes thank (London School Economics) Anthony Atkinson (Nuffield College Oxford) Mario Telò (Institut d’Etudes Européennes Université Libre Bruxelles) Philippe Van Parijs (Chaire Hoover Catholic University Louvain) ideas contained during meetings seminars Brussels Oxford Anne Lancker Bart Vanhercke friends comments drafts Tom Puyenbroeck Christina Thomas editorial information: vandenbroucke com welcome addressed frank vandenbroucke@minsoc fed S P Left Courts Markets? In: Wallace H W Policy-Making Fourth Edition New Series Press p 268 E M McKee Palm B Karl F Marhold (forthcoming Law Character Peter Lang preceding paragraphs Pierson’s C-158/96 (1998) ECR I-1931 C-120/95 I-1831 J Nickless (2001) “Access healthcare Union: judgements” Eurohealth vol 7(1) pp 13-22 8 superficial developments time: witness ‘retrenchment’ ‘underprovision insurance’ contemporary states; Drèze synthesis “Economic Security: Economist 150(1) 1-18 9 Myles offers Esping-Andersen et al published Chapter G D Gallie Why state? 10 simulations gaps double poorest accounting 16% population average capita around 40% o c 283 12 13 Diversity: Integration Cahiers européens sciences po obstacles centred ‘legitimate diversity’ proposes Scharpf’s revised version of) ‘closer co-operation’ Title VII His ‘open co-ordination’ ‘framework directives’ sophisticated divisive thinks combining directives counterproductive 14 remarked Ferrera Matsaganis Sacchi “Open poverty: ‘Social process” Journal ‘leadership’ “Governance Rodrigues (ed Knowledge Economy Edward Elgar Cheltenham 15 goal Conclusions logically workforce 16 e La Porte C Ph Pochet (eds Building -Peter conflation ‘policy coordination’ confusing wrong sharply ‘generic’ mimicking Jelle Visser “contextualized” See Learning Mimicking: How Reform manuscript 19 model ‘cognitive’ ‘normative’ ‘The Self-transformation Model’ 20 “Sustainable ‘Open Co-ordination’ “Social Reflections Drèze’s Tinbergen Lecture 83-93 21 dominated comparative versus analyses tackle relative macroeconomic hypotheses bogged debates 22 mentioned lighten government’s burden intergenerational intragenerational ‘solved’ hence revisit pillars 23 (13509/01) thorough T Cantillon Marlier Nolan Indicators 24 Quality viability pensions: Joint methods (14098/01) endorsed Dec uneasy sworn enemies worst mistake “external” constraint affecting independently logic contrary: intragenerational) fairness precondition debate: jeopardised spending crowded taxes 26 “Opinion Committee” Recommendation Policies May Company PBEG 28 modification adapting transnational enterprises: employees employer fund wages 29 “Directive asbestos work” introducing maximum (eg demolition) 30 modifications (dating 1976) 31 agency (travail intérimaire) failure 32 safety arising physical agents (vibrations) 33 (noise) 34 “Vibrations” conciliation “Noise” Adoption likely (2nd 35 para 24; 36 40; 37 Mrs Smits-Geraets Parkinson’s disease she Germany Reimbursement refused grounds contracted claimant clinical offered German clinic superior Netherlands separate Mr Peerbooms neuro-stimulation therapy Innsbruck Austria reserves age recovered consciousness obtained consistent EU-law ‘normal’ construed appears tried tested science necessity undue delay arrangement person’s ‘undue delay’ completely noted lengthy times refusing 38 39 Ex 117 118 40 mentions “excluding laws States” “directives gradual hold back creation small medium-sized Copyright © publication reproduced transmitted permission writing author Jegliche Vervielfältigung Verbreitung auch auszugsweise bedarf Zustimmung Autors MPI für Gesellschaftsforschung Paulstr 50676 Köln MPIfG: mpifg de/pu/workpap/wp02-6/wp02-6 html [Zuletzt geändert 03 2007 11:00]

Download fulltext
86

Responsibility sensitive egalitarianism and optimal linear income taxation Erik Schokkaert a Dirk Van de gaerb * Frank Vandenbrouckec Roland Iwan Luttensb Centre for Economic Studies KULeuven Naamsestraat 69 B-3000 Leuven Belgium b SHERPPA Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde Ghent University Hoveniersberg 24 B-9000 c Faculty of Social Sciences E Evenstraat 2C Received 1 June 2003; received in revised form January 2004; accepted 2004 Available online 17 April Abstract We compute taxes on labor with quasilinear preferences between Agents differ their productivity taste leisure A responsibility egalitarian wants to compensate the former differences but not latter This intuition is captured by social planner that equalize opportunities subjective utility along lines criteria proposed Roemer gaer evaluating states based an advantage function representing reference Our theoretical results are illustrated empirical data D Elsevier B V All rights reserved Keywords: Optimal taxation; Equality; Opportunity; Welfare JEL classification: D63; H0; H2 Introduction The problem when people have different raises difficult normative questions higher may be due either innate skill levels or degree effort Progressive can therefore imply redistribution from those low preference high ethical evaluation this result 0165-4896/$ – see front matter doi:10 1016/j mathsocsci 01 002 *Corresponding author Tel : +32-9-2643490; fax: +32-9-2648996 E-mail address: Vandegaer@UGent (D gaer) www elsevier com/locate/econbase Mathematical 48 (2004) 151 – 182 depend exact interpretation given parameter One objections against energetic lazy Things however if linked lower physical mental abilities work These intuitions notion In general many feel some legitimate because should compensated factors which beyond control Because skills productive endowments prominent example leads us directly into traditional literature At same time they also held responsible under consideration largely absent tax setting tradeoff equity efficiency becomes trilemma involving compensation paper we formulate model analyze aspects It obvious how reconcile concerns Problems arise want hold individuals fully accountable outcomes (pure) (e g effort) while them (or ability) Fleurbaey (1995a b) Bossert (1995) proven these two principles (‘‘equal transfers equal skills’’ ‘‘equal preferences’’ respectively) compatible (1996) shown similar incompatibilities within specific (first best) Thus several suggestions been made involve idea choice so-called objective keeps one intact ensures other holds true level (see e 1996) Maniquet (2004a) develop orderings incorporate inequalities derive framework—see (2002) introduce use information indifference curves remain completely ordinal axiomatic approaches somewhat spirit Recently authors analyzed more way design agents Sandmo (1993) shows case redistributive rich towards poor weakened utilitarian efficient at margin generating Boadway et al (2001) nonlinear government observe its citizens To simplify analysis assume specifically They consider where weights attached used An alternative approach followed (2003) implement concept equality opportunity (Roemer 1998) ‘‘Equal means ideally individual’s particular specify as u(c)-aL a>0 consumption L supply 152 / 151–182 his has all society it will generally possible achieve Therefore suggests maximize weighted average minimal utilities across having tastes application 2 Moreover defined terms interpreted special compare explicitly Each embodies variant maximin criterion obtain explicit solutions rates concentrate follow Atkinson assuming (linear income) yield isoelastic curve structure our described Section From 3 onwards welfare functions dimensions; look As pointed out Sen (1991) well-being reflect propose purposes meant represent living standard (the ‘‘good’’) individual Basically boils down ordering differs Opportunity variants ‘‘equality opportunity’’ addition Roemer’s present related proposal maximizes group lowest (Van 1993) analyzes outcome amounts classical welfarist Next nonwelfarist follows 4 5 looks 6 discusses 7 contains illustration 8 concludes vs simply only dimensions first dimension w assumed genetic endowment second variable capture pure certain sense represents diligence deliberately interpret variables such desirable suppose both finite support; Preferences specified c-av(L) Diamond 1998 exercise preferences) Differences subsumed 153 measured 0 < eL wL respectively assumption support allow identify worst-off later distributed independently density fwðwÞ ½wL; 1 !Rþ feðeÞ ½eL; independence simplifies technical rather tricky correlated second-best context does knows While she cannot determine whether focus sensitivity limit ourselves constant marginal rate t lump sum grant could basic usual crux comparison interpretations starting point Individual behavior Y L: uðY; LÞ ¼  þ ðL0Þ 1 1þe ð1Þ L0>0 z L0 maximal amount someone perform elasticity measure cost identical substitution (1/e)(L/L0) (1/e) dependent idiosyncratic zero L= 1/e specification (Eq (1)) implies always multiple each satisfy single crossing property after consists (1t)wL: ð1 tÞwL: ð2Þ irrelevant People would variety through ratio depends (L/L0) Indifference still do identification become much 154 Substituting budget constraint (2)) yields UðL; B; tÞ tÞwL ð3Þ Maximization Eq (3) supply: ðeð1 tÞwÞ ð4Þ Note positive smaller than (4) clear increasing Those smallest disutility largest e) highest biggest Preference satisfaction indirect Vðe; w; L0ð1 w1þe ee ð5Þ expression immediately less resulting increase get innocuous cardinalization fact interpersonal comparisons extremely situation If aware (5) why opt larger value level? return question revenue Using faced by7 BðtÞ L0tð1 Z feðeÞde fwðwÞdw ð6Þ written moments distributions define ath moment x [x¯ x¯] laðxÞ mx¯ xxaf ðxÞdx definition rewrite (6) as: leðeÞl1þeðwÞ ð7Þ turn socially Adding requirement financing public goods change anything enter additively separable 155 For useful revenue-maximizing tBI Differentiation (7) subscript BI indicate 1995 interpretation) Subjective egalitarianism: benchmark concerned least well off Formally tries min e;w ð8Þ subject characteristics (eL wL) thus V(eL t) 9 awkward question: ethically acceptable everybody (even hard working low-skilled persons) raise laziest persons society? gets concrete easily introduced Proposition tE(V) tEðVÞ imposes him balance effect B(t) More importantly common practice label Rawlsian Rawls (1971) never advocated primary His ideas closer ‘‘advantage’’ developed again 156 le(e) values goes lazier others increases seem undesirable now explore consequences try egalitarianism10 Let keep individuals’ (5)) matters However ‘‘opportunity’’ (8) take position following i (1998) proposes partition set subsets nonresponsibility factor called ‘‘types’’ type (and hence L) lead According viewpoint avoided He function: gIðVÞ tÞde ð9Þ (maximin) applied e-level separately afterwards simple taken over e-levels 11 known was gSðVÞ feðeÞVðe; ð10Þ understood once suggestion (1999) distribution 10Roemer emphasizes ‘‘welfarist’’ welfarism requires knowledge possibilities policy 11This formulation deviates slightly original incorporates framework axiom says exercised percentile ‘effort’ types formulations equivalent 157 Sw Focusing relevant fðO; eÞaR 1AO Vðe;w; tÞg ð11Þ Fig depicts sets (10)) evaluates area computing ‘‘average utility’’ obtained then considers (compare Eqs (9)) intersection areas explains subscripts ‘‘S’’ (for smallest) ‘‘I’’ intersection) Both intersect monotonically little misleading; section = lie below 12 go deeply 13 reduce utilitarianism there no variation thought gI(V) flavor gS(V) 1999) straightforward calculate maximization (9) (10) using tIðVÞ tSðVÞ l1þeðwÞ corollary Corollary line introducing considerations longer play any role 12This 13But discussion (2004b) Ooghe 158 tI(V) [ tS(V)] 14 Objective Introducing dilemmas raised drop subjectivism limitations Dworkin 1981a) Important points criticism treatment expensive overly nature sketched previous sections good weakness ambitious proposals: ‘‘primary goods’’ (1981b) advocates resources’’ (1980) ‘‘basic capabilities’’ Cohen (1990) ‘‘midfare’’ most crucial aspect taxation: ‘‘objective’’ remains close about what ‘‘reasonable’’ denoted gives potential conflict Pareto 14We discuss ‘‘Opportunity’’ 159 Following Vandenbroucke aðY; ð12Þ government’s stance r burden market perceived decreases infinite Although very (both maximizing aggregate minimizing inequality) traditionally played dominant real world debates growing trend countries hand material economic growth nonmaterial quality life captures decrease corresponding weight relative (income) (4)) write parameters: Aðe;   ð13Þ (13) tÞzðVÞAðe; tÞZezðVÞg stands reason since ( )g too (not enough) according necessary understand better properties differentiate partially Lemma Properties (1) BAðe; Bw z0ZeVg (2) Be 160 findings lemma reaches maximum whose coincides ‘‘social’’ Society ascribes p (i w) note cross reduces independent left reach level; right opposite combined large (to point) ‘‘too much’’ so compensates increased (in eyes planner) 15 corollaries:16 Consider e¯ ascribed three cases: Case 1: ZwL argmin Aðe¯; tÞðbB; 2: ZAðe¯; wL; 1; tÞbwa½wL; 1;ðbB; 3: > Z1 15In treated l observed range care 16The proofs propositions Appendix 161 w¯ e1þe ; ZAðeL; ¼Að1; tÞVAðe; tÞbea½eL; ZeL uEðAÞ ð14Þ Indeed show necessarily person respect leisure) proposition upper panel objective: ZuEðAÞ AðeL; Að1; 4: 5: Depending considered enough low-wage attaches disadvantage e/(1 + u wages intermediate intelligent expected 162 ‘‘objective egalitarian’’ seen index Traditionally justice measures including wealth neglect well-known highlighted Musgrave (1974) admittedly primitive come tradition picking immediate reflects conception broader perspective kind norm Scanlon’s (1982) moral justification claim defend performed leave open comes distinction ‘‘subjective well-being’’ paternalist principle absolute consumer sovereignty On impose decisions own leading uses instruments; instruments environment free choices (14) Pareto-efficient Determination 163 substitute (7)) (14)) tEðAÞ Lw1þe eÞw1þe ” ## pattern summarized 164 move gradually implying shift who advantaged 3) cases increases) slope [tE(A)/(1-tE(A))] negative negatively sloped kinks g=q/(1 q) L1 kink understood; discourage Additional insights comparing counterpart subjective: except term e[1-(eL/g)] disappears eL= (advantage) correction g>eL experienced brings thereby inducing similarly There reasons differ: worthwhile until unambiguously compared 1) view ranking magnitude attitude solution Many economists sympathetic egalitarianism’’ reluctant give up domination Gaspart issue 165 Starting (wi ei) prefer ti ð15Þ generalization (15) direct relationship wi ei desired rate; q easy BVi/Bta0 tbti; single-peaked t-dimension preferred (wL eL) (1 tMIN tE(A) fortiori ! (analyzed 2003) Whether happen interesting possibility tE(A)>tE(V) Pareto-inefficient g-values doubt pick outside e-values 18 complications certainly inefficient [with e- ) arises finding place political feasibility seems unrealistic expect going takes whole After tdimension median voter gross wage decisive neglects issues tradeoffs Turning 17It occur 18Moreover condition eL>g reasonable restricted 166 positions accepting primacy unacceptability Paretoinefficient side restrict [tMIN tE(V)] Or e/ ambiguous accepts introduction desirable) rejects subjectivism—and 19 Until tackle First Second turned (reference) combine makes description argue themselves objectives uI uS redefined uIðAÞ ð16Þ uSðAÞ feðeÞAðe; ð17Þ determined ð18Þ before uI(A) uS(A) 19Note argues must laundered 167 expressions skilled (17): A¯ 1ðt; gÞ leðeÞ l1þeðeÞ ð19Þ Lðt; ð20Þ intersections did Not surprisingly occurrence objectives: gV eLZuIðAÞ ZuIðAÞ C½wL; eL; g;e; feðeÞ Cð Þ g1þe (a) ZuSðAÞ (b) (c) gz With 4) adopt remembering noticed g[(1 e)/e] [eL 1] small) highly eye observer Their coincide; offered workers (case 2) different; S1\SwL worker long [e/(1 e)]{[l1 e(e)]/[le(e)]} thereafter g=[e/(1 coincide 168 decreasing 3; Swl methodology eLZ tIðAÞ tSðAÞ eÞ monotonic g; (social) inclined (focusing set) characterized regimes (cases 2a) 2c reverse inequality 2b tS(A) schedule sets) transition smooth tI(A) induce e>g 169 (13)) g(1 e)/e 2a frontiers skilled; B2L BtBw tI(A)>tS(A) happens rules rule reasoning e\g(1 dominates soon Now concentrates e>g(1 region (positive) summarize corollary: 1þeZtIðAÞztSðAÞ tI(A)= Further gained next compares find analogous tE(A)>tI(A) Propositions 6) already emphasized 6; gle(e) l1+e(e) h Its akin harder indicates refer 170 restored additional situated interval Some further Finally investigate changes say new old sequence mean preserving spreads describes Inequality taxes: >1 react found net earnings plays extent responds BBðtÞ Bt L0leðeÞl1þeðwÞð1 Increases l1+e(w) 1t Empirical illustrate concepts earlier avoid 171 household size sample males coming 1992 1997 waves Belgian socioeconomic 20 hourly (1-ti)wi contractual hours per week Li 21 descriptive statistics Table Within logical her Remember by: ðeið1 tiÞwiÞ ð21Þ Given arbitrary calculated wi’s divided wmax generate normalized w*-series [wL Then generated (21) 06 ei’s ei-value emax e*-series sight procedure important however; fulfill column 222) Without (Section Implementing method alleviate unwanted correlation regress w*’s calibrated e*’s OLS: wi* bei* gi ð22Þ 20Because formulas derived depart optimising behaviour presumably fit descriptions male heads 21The account details system microsimulation 22Table coefficients Absence although sufficient statistical Description No observations: 184 Mean Standard deviation Min Max Age 37 73 07 25 08 54 83 euro) 79 38 82 32 05 47 66 50 57 45 172 estimated residuals OLS regression gˆi uncorrelated construction construct w-series wresid: wresid;i aˆ ˆ be¯* ð23Þ (22) e¯*stands series wresid- Of course make sure equations valid employing wresid i’s e-series eresid normalizing substantially repeat number times order even That w* resid e* performing twice almost computation just reversed Regress Use normalization methods implications; defines precise assigns residually Results Once identified accordingly Approximating natural estimator N Px¯ xa Correlation -series corr(w* corr(wresid )two rounds 251 121 028 814 283 038 912 657 095 Values tS(V) tmed 65e 943 927 899 600 102 769 763 758 146 500 460 433 016 173 Panel a: 06; b: c: 174 computed every presents (here tI(V)) wresid(two rounds) eresid(two above last (15)) surprising especially small consequence aversion 23 relatively minor influence chosen planner’s depicted turns (first) breakpoint hardly anymore So room (small g) Such part force Furthermore remember violated striking importance determines scales panels 5) (this reasonably elasticities (perhaps zero) realistic advocate Conclusion Much concentrated allows sidestep ‘‘equity’’ ‘‘efficiency’’ deeper welfare) theories accept (innate) recent 23Our comparable Stern (1976) without 24To pictures know 175 typical legitimately earn Survey research (Miller 1992) among population Simple rewards laziness ways gaer’s focuses contour version replace ‘‘reference preferences’’) extreme closed interpretable problems versions arguments describe ad hoc focusing Where from? responsible? Is native endowment? And violation preferences? generalize settings? firmly believe modelling actual debate pros cons progressive Acknowledgements forms programme TMR Network Living Standards Taxation [Contract ERBFMRXCT 980248] European Communities acknowledge financial Interuniversity Attraction 176 Poles Programme—Belgian Science Policy P5/21] thank Editor charge anonymous Referee Ramses Abul Naga Bart Cape´au Erwin valuable comments Proof continuity A(e minima corner domain associated minimum Að1;w¯ 0Zee   Which Zg A(eL t)-A(1 t)>0 established reversing 1– z1ze reached simplified calculations (using (13)): A˜ðe; order) eÞee 177 plugging poorest characteristic’s verify keeping mind Cases start   ez0 eVg =1 ezg Hence establish square brackets smallest: trivial optimization (19) (20) rearranging first-order conditions C( difference ðw1þe 1Þ leþ1ðeÞ ½1 1>wL integral 178 leðeÞ 1þ leþ1ðeÞw1þe ½w1þe V0 statement distinguish four eL: l1þeðeÞ: 1V 1le(e) 1-l1 e(e) le(e)>l1 indeed eLVg hðeÞfeðeÞde ð24Þ hðeÞ ð25Þ verified BhðeÞ zðVÞ0ZeVðzÞg: ð26Þ 179 (24) zg Over h(1) h(e) integrate hð1Þ ð27Þ Combination (27) VgV Analogously l1þeðeÞÞ non iV0 l1þeðeÞz1 ðAÞ Due (26) Consequently MinfhðeL; hð1ÞÞg ðBÞ MinfhðeLÞ; hð1Þg nonnegative trivially Min{h(eL) h(1)} h(eL) (B) (A) met g: 1tEðAÞ 1tIðAÞ ð1þeÞw1þe ee ðeL l1þeðeÞÞ: ð1þeÞ 180 ðCÞ here hðeLÞ Min{hðeL) (C) hðeL) l1 e(w) convex e>0 Similarly e>1 concave Rothschild Stiglitz 1970) References Public Economics Action: Basic Income/Flat Tax Proposal Oxford Univ Press R Marchand M Pestieau P Del Mar Racionero 2001 heterogeneous CORE Discussion Paper 2001/25 Louvain la Neuve W Redistribution mechanisms 29 1996 Choice 343 355 1999 talent compensation: Review Design 35 55 G 1990 Equality what? capabilities Recherches Economiques 56 357 382 U-shaped American 88 95 1981a What equality? Part Philosophy Affairs 10 185 246 1981b resources 345 1995a requisites In: Barnett Moulin H Salles Schofield J (Eds Ethics Cambridge pp 53 1995b Three Journal Theory 65 505 521 F 2002 Fair Working Universite´ Pau France 2004a unequal production press) 2004b Compensation Arrow K Suzumura Handbook vol North Holland Amsterdam press cooperative 112 Miller Distributive justice: think 555 593 1974 Maximin uncertainty trade-off Quarterly 625 632 181 2003 versus 1971 Justice Harvard opportunity: progress report 455 471 Aaberge Colombino U Fritzell Jenkins S Lefranc Marx I Page Pommer Ruiz-Castillo San Segundo Tranaes T Trannoy Wagner Zubiri fiscal acquisition citizens? 87 539 565 1970 Increasing risk: 225 243 1993 Finanzarchiv 149 Scanlon 1982 Contractualism Williams Utilitarianism Beyond 103 128 1980 (Ed Measurement Blackwell 353 369 1991 freedom Econometrics 1976 models optimum 123 investment human capital PhD Thesis Open Springer Berlin