The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism traces how individuals fare over time in each of the three principal types of welfare state. Through a unique analysis of panel data from Germany, the Netherlands and the US, tracking individuals' socio-economic fate over fully ten years, Goodin, Headey, Muffels and Dirven explore issues of economic growth and efficiency, of poverty and inequality, of social integration and social autonomy. It is common to talk of the inevitability of tradeoffs between these goals. However, in this book the authors contend that the social democratic welfare regime, represented here by the Netherlands, equals or exceeds the performance of the corporatist German regime and the liberal US regime across all these social and economic objectives. They thus argue that, whatever one's priorities, the social democratic welfare regime is uniquely well-suited to realizing them.

Psychologists and economists take contradictory approaches to research on what psychologists call happiness or subjective wellbeing, and economists call subjective utility. A direct test of the most widely accepted psychological theory, set-point theory, shows it to be flawed. Results are then given, using the economists' newer "choice approach"-an approach also favored by positive psychologists-which yields substantial payoffs in explaining long-term changes in happiness. Data come from the German Socio-Economic Panel , a unique 25-y prospective longitudinal survey. This dataset enables direct tests of theories explaining long-term happiness.German Socio-Economic Panel | set-point theory | subjective utility R esearch on life satisfaction or happiness used to be a minor branch of psychology, became a major branch, and then in the past decade has attracted huge interest among economists. Some of these economists now use satisfaction measures as proxies for the outcome which economic agents are assumed to maximize-namely, individual utility (1-4). But the assumptions and findings of psychologists and economists are contradictory. The dominant theory in psychology is probably still set-point theory, although authentic happiness theory, developed by positive psychologists, is increasingly influential (5-7). Set-point theory holds that long-term adult happiness is stable-it has a setpoint-because it depends mainly on genetic factors, including personality traits molded and expressed early in life (8-10). It has been shown that major life events can temporarily change happiness levels, but that most people revert to their previous setpoint within a year or two (8, 11). The theory can be summarized by saying that, "We are all on a hedonic treadmill" (8). An obvious implication is that neither individual choices nor public policy can make a substantial long-term difference to happiness.Economists who, following the recent advice of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (12), now intend to use direct satisfaction-based measures of utility must necessarily assume the opposite. There is no point in deploying such measures if individual preferences, behavioral choices, and public policy could not increase long-term satisfaction. If satisfaction levels are unresponsive to changes in behavior or policy interventions, then economists would do better to stick to their mainstream revealed-preferences approach of measuring utility indirectly by observing consumption and leisure choices (13). A recent paper by Oswald and Wu (14) shows plausible cross-sectional associations between objective social and economic conditions and subjective reports of happiness, but, so far as we know, no previous paper has shown that preferences and behavioral choices can produce long-term change.This article reports a direct test of set-point theory, and also shows substantial effects of personal and economic preferences and choices on long-term life satisfaction. A direct test of setpoint theory requires long...

Happiness, Wealth, Income, Consumption, Panel data,

Despite very different macroeconomic conditions, demographic structures and degrees of income inequality, favorable income changes among low-income families with children were widespread and strikingly similar across the eight countries in our study. In most European countries, the combination of modest inequality and extensive mobility among the poor enabled virtually all families to avoid relative income deprivation at least occasionally~ However, even substantial mobility among the poor in the Unites States could not elevate the living standards of one in seven white and two in five black families to a level that was half that enjoyed by a typical American family.

Objectives Examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and loneliness in the general population. More specifically, the study focused on prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, the extent to which individuals with existing symptoms recovered or not, the prevalence of subtypes of loneliness, and the extent to which loneliness before and during this pandemic was associated with anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods Data was extracted from the longitudinal LISS panel, based on a probability sample of the Dutch population, with assessments on loneliness in October 2019 (T1) and June 2020 (T4), and anxiety and depression symptoms in November 2019 (T2), March 2020 (T3) and June 2020 (T4; Ntotal = 4,084). Loneliness was examined with the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale and anxiety and depression symptoms with the Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5). Results Repeated measures multivariate logistic regression analyses (RMMLRA) showed a statistical significant lower prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms after the outbreak (T4 = 15.3%) than before (T2 = 16.8%) and during the COVID-19 outbreak (T3 = 17.2%). According to the Reliable Change Index, the distribution of recovery categories (remission, improvement, unchanged and worsening symptoms) after the outbreak did not differ significantly from the distribution of these categories before the outbreak. RMMLRA revealed that the prevalence of emotional loneliness increased significantly after the outbreak (T1 = 18.4%, T4 = 24.8%). Among individuals who were not lonely before and after the outbreak the prevalence of symptoms decreased significantly (T2 = 7.0%, T4 = 4.4%) and, likewise, among those who were not lonely anymore after the outbreak (T2 = 21.5%, T4 = 14.5%). However, the prevalence of symptoms increased significantly among those who became lonely during the pandemic (T2 = 17.9%, T4 = 26.3%). Conclusions Findings suggest that this pandemic did not negatively affect the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms nor the normal recovery of symptoms among the general population during the first four months, but that emotional loneliness increased.