International audienceno abstrac

In this study we suggest that a more careful and systematic understanding of fuel poverty can be developed through a multidimensional approach to the relationship between monetary poverty, residential energy efficiency, and heating restriction. Our objective is to provide new ways to better identify those who suffer the most from fuel poverty to optimize policy. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to measure poverty in three steps following Sen (1979): (i) combining poverty characteristics into an aggregate measure involving a fuel poverty index (FPI), (ii) identification and comparison of poor people according to existing and new definitions and (iii) testing the robustness of the fuel poverty composite indicator. Our results show that the usual measures reveal a gap that does not consider all the dimensions of fuel poverty, excluding those who are at or above a certain threshold, but who are nevertheless vulnerable. The multidimensional approach enables us to consider all the components of fuel poverty.

Between 50 and 125 million Europeans are unable to afford the energy needed for adequate heating, cooking, light, and use of appliances in the home. Tackling fuel poverty has thus become a public policy challenge. In this paper, we assess the effectiveness of social energy subsidies and social housing to reduce fuel poverty. The literature reports that rising fuel prices, low incomes, and energy-inefficient housing are the main causes of fuel poverty. Existing public policies focus mainly on price-and income-based measures to reduce fuel poverty, such as social energy subsidies. This type of policy is palliative as it does not permit to sustainably eradicate fuel poverty. Other policies aim to encourage renovation in order to improve energy efficiency. Those policies are curative as they sustainably reduce one cause of fuel poverty : energy inefficiency. In this paper, we focus on another public policy to tackle fuel poverty : social housing. We believe that this policy could be preventive, as the literature reports the better energy efficiency of social housing. We use matching methods and find that living in social housing decreases fuel poverty by 5.4% to 9.1%. On the contrary, social energy subsidies have no effect on fuel poverty.

This paper analyzes retirement decisions from a household perspective, treating the retirement timing of spouses as potentially interdependent choices. To identify the determinants of retirement decisions by couples and the effects of spousal retirement, this research estimates bivariate probit models in a multi-country setting. The results show a significant joint retirement trend: Both men and women are more likely to retire if their spouse already has retired. Strong asymmetric behaviors arise by gender though, with high crosscountry heterogeneity, reflecting institutional differences in both pension and public health systems.

No abstract