Non‐take‐up of means tested benefits is a widespread phenomenon in European welfare states. The paper assesses whether the reform that replaced the monetary social assistance benefit by the minimum income benefit in Austria in 2010/11 has succeeded in increasing take up rates. We use EU‐SILC register data together with the tax‐benefit microsimulation model EUROMOD/SORESI. The results show that the reform led to a significant decrease of non‐take‐up from 53 to 30% in terms of the number of households and from 51 to 30% in terms of expenditure. Following the three‐t's (threshold, trigger, and trade‐off) introduced by Van Oorschot, estimates of a two‐stage Heckman selection model as well as expert interviews indicate that the taken measures include both threshold and trade‐off characteristics. Elements such as the higher degree of anonymity within the claiming process, the provision of health insurance, binding minimum standards, the limitation of the maintenance obligations, new regulations related to the liquidation of wealth, as well as the general coverage of the benefit reform in the media and in public discussions led to an improved access to the benefit.

The Austrian capital of Vienna is widely acknowledged as one of the most livable cities, featuring a unique model of council housing that accounts for roughly 25% of all residential dwellings. This paper studies whether the broad provision of council housing is linked with a higher social mix in the neighbourhood. The analysis is based on administrative wage tax data at a small-scale raster grid of 500 × 500 meter with neighbourhood income inequality as an indicator for the social mix. While council housing is widely spread across the city, we find distinct spatial clusters of high and low income and inequality. Spatial econometric models show that council housing in Vienna is associated with lower income areas but slightly correlates with higher neighbourhood income inequality. These findings suggest that well-designed public housing policies may contribute to a higher social mix in a city.

Das vorliegende Papier untersucht die Determinanten des Spendenverhaltens von US-amerikanischen Haushalten in Hinblick auf die Spendenbeteiligung und Spendenhöhe. Die Analyse basiert auf amerikanischen Umfragedaten des Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) des Jahres 2016. Die Ergebnisse bestätigen, dass Haushalte am unteren Ende der Verteilung einen größeren Teil ihres Einkommens und Vermögens als reiche Haushalte spenden. Dennoch sind die absoluten Spendenbeträge von wohlhabenden Haushalten und Haushalten mit hohen Einkommen am höchsten, wodurch sich der Umstand ergibt, dass deren relative Belastung zwar geringer ist, sie allerdings größeren Einfluss auf das Angebot von sozialen, kulturellen und bildungspolitischen Leistungen haben. Erstmalig betrachten wir das Spendenverhalten entlang von ökonomischen Klassen. Obwohl kapitalbesitzende Haushalte nur 11 % aller Haushalte ausmachen, erbringen sie 67 % des Spendenvolumens. Darüber hinaus wird auch hier deutlich, dass lohnabhängige Haushalte einen niedrigeren Anteil ihres Einkommens für karitative Zwecke aufwenden, jedoch einen höheren Anteil ihres Vermögens.

Background Most countries in Europe require out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) for nursing homes based on users’ income and often assets. This was also the case in Austria until 2018 when asset-based contributions to residential care —denoted the ‘Pflegeregress’ – were abolished, leaving a shortfall in revenue. We aim to determine how the Pflegeregress was distributed across different groups in Austria prior to 2018, what the distributional consequences of its abolishment were, and what the distributional impact of different financing alternatives would be. Methods Circumventing data availability issues, we construct a micro-simulation model using a matched administrative dataset on residential care users receiving the Austrian care allowance (Pflegegeldinformation, PFIF, HVB, and Pflegedienstleistungsstatistik, Statistik Austria) and survey data (SHARE, wave 6). Using this model, we estimate the expected duration of residential care and OPPs under the Pflegeregress of a representative sample of older people aged 65 + in Austria, as well as OPPs under budgetary neutral financing alternatives to the abolished asset-based contribution, namely an inheritance tax and a social insurance scheme. The distributional impact of abolishing the Pflegeregress and these alternative scenarios is assessed through a number of measures, such as ability to pay, Concentration Indices (CI) and a needs-standardized measure. Results We find that lower income individuals and homeowners disproportionately contributed to asset-based OPPs for residential care prior to 2018, due in large part to their higher use of residential care and the low asset-exemption thresholds. These groups were therefore the largest beneficiaries of its abolishment. The alternative financing scenarios tested would result in a more progressive distribution of payments (i.e. concentrated on more affluent individuals). Conclusion Our findings indicate the limited ability of asset-based OPPs to target those with higher assets, thus questioning the fairness of these instruments for financing residential care facilities for older people in Austria. Findings also suggest that the parameterization of such OPPs (such as asset exemption thresholds) and patterns of residential care use are key variables for assessing the distribution of asset-based OPPs for residential care use. Policy alternatives that decouple payments from use would entail greater transfers from healthy to less healthier individuals.

BackgroundMost countries in Europe require out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) for nursing homes based on users’ income and often assets. This was also the case in Austria until 2018 when asset-based contributions to residential care —denoted the ‘Pflegeregress’ – were abolished, leaving a shortfall in revenue. We aim to determine how the Pflegeregress was distributed across different groups in Austria prior to 2018, what the distributional consequences of its abolishment were, and what the distributional impact of different financing alternatives would be.MethodsCircumventing data availability issues, we construct a micro-simulation model using a matched administrative dataset on residential care users receiving the Austrian care allowance (Pflegegeldinformation, PFIF, HVB, and Pflegedienstleistungsstatistik, Statistik Austria) and survey data (SHARE, wave 6). Using this model, we estimate the expected duration of residential care and OPPs under the Pflegeregress of a representative sample of older people aged 65+ in Austria, as well as OPPs under budgetary neutral financing alternatives to the abolished asset-based contribution, namely an inheritance tax and a social insurance scheme. The distributional impact of abolishing the Pflegeregress and these alternative scenarios is assessed through a number of measures, such as ability to pay, Concentration Indices (CI) and a needs-standardized measure.ResultsWe find that lower income individuals and homeowners disproportionately contributed to asset-based OPPs for residential care prior to 2018 due in large part to their higher use of residential care and the low asset-exemption thresholds. These groups were therefore the largest beneficiaries of its abolishment. The alternative financing scenarios tested would result in a more progressive distribution of payments (i.e. concentrated on more affluent individuals). ConclusionOur findings indicate the limited ability of asset-based OPPs to target those with higher assets, thus questioning the fairness of these instruments for financing residential care facilities for older people in Austria. Findings also suggest that the parameterization of such OPPs (such as asset exemption thresholds) and patterns of residential care use are key variables for assessing the distribution of asset-based OPPs for residential care use. Policy alternatives that decouple payments from use would entail greater transfers from healthy to less healthier individuals.