Welfare States, Labour Market Institutions and the Working Poor: A Comparative Analysis of 20 European Countries

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThis paper regards the incidence of in-work poverty and how it is reduced by the payment of social transfers in 20 European countries. It combines a micro-and a macrolevel perspective in two-level models. The basis for the analysis is micro-data from the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) 2005 and macro-data from sources such as the OECD and Eurostat. The broad comparative perspective allows for a separation of different institutional influences, namely the influence of the degree of decommodification, defamilisation and bargaining centralisation. In contrast to previous studies on the working poor which have mainly described country differences in inwork poverty, this paper focuses on the question of how such differences can be explained from a broader perspective of poverty research. In general, the results confirm the overall hypothesis that both welfare state measures and labour market institutions have an influence on in-work poverty. By analysing influences on pre-transfer poverty and poverty reduction separately, I show that such factors have varied effects on inwork poverty. While bargaining centralisation proves to be relevant for the distribution of pre-transfer incomes only, the set-up of the social security system in particular impacts the extent of poverty reduction.

Welfare states, flexible employment, and health: A critical review

“…Scandinavian welfare states rely on a tradition of efficient employment protection policies that ensure effective collective bargaining institutions, lifelong job training, and generous unemployment schemes [30]. For example, the 'flexicurity' model (first developed in Denmark) combines labour market flexibility with comprehensive social security [31]. Thus, Scandinavian part-time workers enjoy a perception of job security within a labour market that supports choosing flexible working hours.…”

“…Precarious employment, particularly full time precarious employment is likely to be associated with fatigue, backache, and musculoskeletal pains. Sole traders generally reported high percentage of all outcomes, except for absenteeism.Job dissatisfactionOverall, a slight increase in all health indicators was observed in the ES2000 compared to ES2000.In comparison with permanent employees, non-permanent employees (temporary full-time and part-time) reported higher percentages of job dissatisfaction but lower levels of stress in both genders.Precarious work was associated with back-pain in 1995, but this association decreased in 2000.Full-time employees also reported worse levels of health indicators than those in part-time employment.Perceived health Controlling for background characteristics, the health status of part-time workers with permanent contracts is not significantly different from those who are employed full-time.In contrast, fulltime employed people with fixed-term contacts in Germany are about 42 percent more likely to report poor health than those who have permanent work contracts.In Britain, only part-time work with no contract is associated with poor health.their Scandinavian counterparts[15,31].These distinctions manifest, among other symptoms, unequal rates of unionization (U.S. 12.4%, Canada 28.4% vs. Spain 16.3%, Italy 33.7%, vs. Germany 22.6%, Australia 22.9% vs. Sweden 78%, and Finland 74.1%) and low bargaining coverage (U.S. 13.8%, Canada 32.4% vs. Spain 81% vs. Germany 63%, Australia 50% vs. Sweden 92%, and Finland 95%)…”

Growing Income Inequalities

“…Finally, certain papers focus on explaining national differences in in-work poverty. More precisely, it is typically assumed that the influences of country-specific institutional contexts on in-work poverty are determinant (e.g., Andreß and Lohmann, eds., 2008;Lohmann, 2006Lohmann, and 2009. For this purpose, three different empirical strategies are possible.…”

“…The second is to include country dummy-variables that capture the country fixed effects. Finally, the last strategy, which is 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 used by Lohmann ( , 2009, is the multilevel approach. Multilevel models make it possible to include both microeconomic characteristics and macroeconomic indicators in the same regression.…”

“…It also could help to better understand whether the nature of in-work poverty is mainly permanent or a transitory phenomenon. The studies on working poverty using EU-SILC are also numerous (Allè-gre, 2008; Guillén et al, 2009;Lohmann, 2009;NOPSE, 2008;Marx and Verbist, 2008a;Peña-Casas, 2009;Ponthieux, 2010;Wolff, 2009Wolff, , 2010.…”