What Stops Dutch Households from Taking Up Much Needed Benefits?

Abstract

and Aenneli Houkes-Hommes Policy ProductionsIt is common for individuals not to take up welfare benefits. The most common explanation is that people make a rational choice between the utility they expect from the benefit and the effort required to take-up. Most studies utilize surveys, which are subject to misreporting and measurement errors, to determine eligibility and non-take-up rates. This study uses a novel dataset based on administrative data sources, which provides a more accurate identification of eligible households and take-up. Furthermore, this study documents non-take-up of a compensation to which nearly 5 million Dutch households are entitled. The richness of the data allowed us to conduct a detailed analysis of key drivers of non-take-up. The analysis largely confirms the transaction-costs hypotheses. However, we found an unexpected effect. Although, in general, the probability of take-up increases when income decreases, those with the lowest income or wealth do not have the highest probability of take-up.JEL Codes: D31, H53, I38

School and local authority characteristics associated with take-up of free school meals in Scottish secondary schools, 2014

“…After perceived need, basic knowledge and perceived eligibility (all of which have been established by the time a pupil is registered for FSM), the participant must perceive the utility of the benefit, and have a positive perception that the social outcomes will result in an overall benefit. The use of utility-maximisation theory, or a trade-off between barriers and facilitators, to explain non-take-up has been supported in a number of studies (Ritchie, 1988;Tempelman & Houkes-Hommes, 2015;Whelan, 2010). Interestingly, Tempelman and Houkes-Hommes (2015) found that it was not necessarily amongst those with the lowest incomes or greatest need that benefits take-up was highest.…”

“…The use of utility-maximisation theory, or a trade-off between barriers and facilitators, to explain non-take-up has been supported in a number of studies (Ritchie, 1988;Tempelman & Houkes-Hommes, 2015;Whelan, 2010). Interestingly, Tempelman and Houkes-Hommes (2015) found that it was not necessarily amongst those with the lowest incomes or greatest need that benefits take-up was highest. With reference to FSM, Macdiarmid et al (2015) found that the likelihood of children buying food outside school at lunchtime, rather than in the dining hall, was greatest in areas of highest deprivation.…”

School and local authority characteristics associated with take-up of free school meals in Scottish secondary schools, 2014

“…After perceived need, basic knowledge and perceived eligibility (all of which have been established by the time a pupil is registered for FSM), the participant must perceive the utility of the benefit, and have a positive perception that the social outcomes will result in an overall benefit. The use of utility-maximisation theory, or a trade-off between barriers and facilitators, to explain non-take-up has been supported in a number of studies (Ritchie, 1988; Tempelman & Houkes-Hommes, 2015; Whelan, 2010). Interestingly, Tempelman and Houkes-Hommes (2015) found that it was not necessarily amongst those with the lowest incomes or greatest need that benefits take-up was highest.…”

“…The use of utility-maximisation theory, or a trade-off between barriers and facilitators, to explain non-take-up has been supported in a number of studies (Ritchie, 1988; Tempelman & Houkes-Hommes, 2015; Whelan, 2010). Interestingly, Tempelman and Houkes-Hommes (2015) found that it was not necessarily amongst those with the lowest incomes or greatest need that benefits take-up was highest. With reference to FSM, Macdiarmid et al (2015) found that the likelihood of children buying food outside school at lunchtime, rather than in the dining hall, was greatest in areas of highest deprivation.…”

“…With reference to FSM, Macdiarmid et al (2015) found that the likelihood of children buying food outside school at lunchtime, rather than in the dining hall, was greatest in areas of highest deprivation. However, research suggests that take-up of benefits is more likely the higher the monetary benefit gained (Tempelman & Houkes-Hommes, 2015). FSM is unlike other benefit take-up research, as parents have already met the administrative cost associated with completing the appropriate forms, declaring their receipt of benefits, tax credits and/or their low income.…”