Income support policies for the working poor

Abstract

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

To what extent do welfare states compensate for the cost of children? The joint impact of taxes, benefits and public goods and services

“…Bradshaw, 2013; Chen and Corak, 2008; Immervoll et al, 2001; Van Mechelen and Bradshaw, 2013). Child support has also proved to be an important instrument to combat in-work poverty among families with children, which is especially prevalent among single-parent and single-earner couple families (Maldonado and Nieuwenhuis, 2015; Marchal et al, 2018). Therefore, in this article, we address the question to which extent cash and in-kind welfare state efforts compensate for the additional needs of families with children and facilitate access to essential goods and services, compared to childless families.…”

Nigeria’s Working Poor Households: Characterizing Factors and Proposals for Social Welfare Programs

“…Thus, the independent variables encompassed household demographic characteristics, characteristics of job types, and socioeconomic variables. In recognition of the multidimensional nature of poverty, there is empirical evidence to suggest that household characteristics like household size, marital status, age of head of house and primary income earner, dependency rates, and the decision maker on how household incomes are spent, are important determinants of household poverty [15,16,17]. Yurdakul and Atik [18] were able to show how religious beliefs of the poor help in their responses to shocks leading to poverty and respective coping strategies.…”

When means‐testing meets work‐testing: A multi‐level institutional analysis of claiming in‐work benefits in Hong Kong

“…IWB, as an income support for alleviating in-work poverty and boosting work incentives (OECD, 2011), has received increasing attention in different welfare regimes (Marchal et al, 2018). The entitlement of pro-poor and pro-work welfare is determined by welfare eligibility and work conditionality (Cousins, 2014), according to the government's defined poverty level and work intensity.…”

“…On the one hand, IWB, as an income support for in‐work poverty, targets the ‘deserving poor’ based on in‐work conditionality (Grover, 2016; Sykes et al, 2015). On the other hand, the provision of IWB could be morally justified but poorly managed (Au‐Yeung, 2023), in which the IWB's objective to help low‐paid workers might be hindered by the policy design, implementation, and broader social contexts (Marchal et al, 2018). Despite the assumed deservingness and work ethic, the provision of IWB in particular to the work‐first regimes is far from straightforward.…”