Comparing Government Redistribution Across Countries: The Problem of Second‐Order Effects<sup>*</sup>

Jesuit, David K.; Mahler, Vincent A.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00737.x

Cited by 40 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kim (2000b) showed that both the generosity and efficiency of the tax/transfer system could influence the level of pre‐tax‐transfer income inequality. There is also empirical work addressing these problems, using various measurement strategies (see e.g., Jesuit & Mahler, ). Budget incidence calculations can therefore be seen only as an approximation of the redistributive effects because of the assumption that agents behave similarly in situations with and without social transfers and social security.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income redistribution in 20 countries over time

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most OECD countries, the gap between rich and poor has widened over the past decades. The present study analysed whether and to what extent direct taxes and social transfers contribute to this trend. The study contributes to the literature by disentangling several parts of fiscal redistribution in a comparative setting. We used micro‐data from the Luxembourg Income Study to examine household market inequality and redistribution from transfers and taxes for 20 countries from the mid‐1980s to the mid‐2000s. The contribution of each programme was estimated using a sequential accounting budget incidence decomposition technique. We observed a sizeable increase in primary household inequality, but tax‐benefit systems have offset two thirds of the average increase in primary income inequality. The public old‐age pensions attributed 60 per cent to the increase in redistribution, while social assistance accounted for 20 per cent. Direct taxes slowed down redistribution by 16 per cent.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Income redistribution in 20 countries over time

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach has been criticised on theoretical as well as methodological grounds (Bergh, ; Jesuit & Mahler, ). Two shortcomings were of particular concern for our study.…”

Section: The Universalism–targeting Debate and Child Benefit Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of child benefits on single mother poverty: Exploring the role of targeting in 15 European countries

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single mothers are vulnerable to living in poverty. The question of how to safeguard the economic status of single mothers in a context of increasing dual earnership is a crucial one. In the present study we addressed this issue by investigating the impact of child benefits on the poverty risk of single mothers in 15 European countries. We focused in particular on the design of child benefits and investigated whether targeting towards single mothers was associated with better poverty reduction. In doing so, we combined information on statutory child benefit entitlement with an empirical analysis of poverty reduction using survey data. We found that: (i) both spending effort and targeting are important to explain the effectiveness of child benefits in reducing single mother poverty; (ii) targeting is related to higher levels of poverty reduction independent of spending effort; yet (iii) it matters how targeting is done.

show abstract

“…Empirische Studien zur Umverteilungswirkung von Sozialstaaten leiden oft an einem Mangel an verfügbaren Daten. Dies hat sich kürzlich geändert durch die Arbeit von Mahler und Jesuit () und von Jesuit und Mahler (), welche LIS‐Daten verwendeten. Die Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) bietet Mikrodaten zu öffentlichen und privaten Einkommensquellen, die vergleichbar, detailliert und genau sind.…”

Section: Einführungunclassified

Die Umverteilungswirkung von Sozialtransferprogrammen und Steuern: Verschiedene Länder im Vergleich

Wang

Caminada

Goudswaard

2012

Int Rev Soziale Sicherheit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auszug Ziel dieses Artikels ist eine genaue Analyse der Umverteilungswirkung von sozialen Transferprogrammen und Steuern in 28 Mitgliedsstaaten der Organisation für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung durch eine Berechnung mit Daten, die aus der Datenbank der Mikrodaten der Luxembourg Income Study stammen. Wir kommen zum Ergebnis, dass in Sozialstaaten die Ungleichheit um durchschnittlich 35 Prozent reduziert wird. Sozialleistungen haben dabei eine viel größere Umverteilungswirkung als Steuern. Bei den Sozialprogrammen tragen die öffentlichen Renten am stärksten zur Verringerung der Einkommensungleichheit bei, wenn auch mit beträchtlichen Unterschieden von Land zu Land. Sozialhilfe, Invaliden‐ und Familienleistungen tragen in geringerem Ausmaß ebenfalls dazu bei, dass die Einkommensunterschiede kleiner werden.

show abstract

Comparing Government Redistribution Across Countries: The Problem of Second‐Order Effects^*

Cited by 40 publications

References 19 publications

Income redistribution in 20 countries over time

Income redistribution in 20 countries over time

The impact of child benefits on single mother poverty: Exploring the role of targeting in 15 European countries

Die Umverteilungswirkung von Sozialtransferprogrammen und Steuern: Verschiedene Länder im Vergleich

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparing Government Redistribution Across Countries: The Problem of Second‐Order Effects*

Cited by 40 publications

References 19 publications

Income redistribution in 20 countries over time

Income redistribution in 20 countries over time

The impact of child benefits on single mother poverty: Exploring the role of targeting in 15 European countries

Die Umverteilungswirkung von Sozialtransferprogrammen und Steuern: Verschiedene Länder im Vergleich

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparing Government Redistribution Across Countries: The Problem of Second‐Order Effects^*