Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-zcgq2 Total loading time: 0.412 Render date: 2022-10-07T20:20:41.827Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The Politics of Minimum Income Protection in OECD Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2018

ALAIN NOËL*
Affiliation:
Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C. P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3J7 email : alain.noel@umontreal.ca

Abstract

Minimum income protection (MIP) determines the disposable income a person obtains when she has no market or social insurance income, few assets and no family support. This last-recourse income, usually social assistance benefits plus associated transfers, constitutes a significant indicator of a country's commitment to social justice. Yet, we know little about the politics of MIP, in part because welfare state scholars have focused on more encompassing social insurance programmes, and in part because of a lack of good comparative data. This article takes the measure of MIP adequacy in 18 OECD countries for the 1990–2010 period, for single, able-to-work individuals, tracks its comparative evolution, and proposes an explanation of its determinants, with a times-series cross-sectional model. The main positive determinant of adequacy is a generous welfare state; the main negative force is the importance of the public debt. Overall, the politics of MIP appears consistent with that of the welfare state.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bahle, T., Hubl, V. and Pfeifer, M. (2011), The Last Safety Net: A Handbook of Minimum Income Protection in Europe, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, B. (2015), ‘Beyond Fixed versus Random Effects: A Framework for Improving Substantive and Statistical Analysis in Panel, Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Multilevel Data’, in Franzese, R. J. (ed), Quantitative Research in Political Science, Volume 4, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 93121.Google Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J. (1995), ‘What To Do (And Not To Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data’, American Political Science Review 89 (3): 634–47.10.2307/2082979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, N. and Katz, J. (2001), ‘Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water: A Comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon’, International Organization 55 (2): 487–95.10.1162/00208180151140658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. and Jones, K. (2015), ‘Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data’, Political Science Research and Methods 3 (1): 133–53.10.1017/psrm.2014.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, S., Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K. and Palme, J. (2017). The Generational Welfare Contract: Justice, Institutions and Outcomes, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. and Bennett, F. (2009), Minimum Income Schemes in the United Kingdom: A Study of National Policies, Peer Review in Social Protection and Social Inclusion and Assessment in Social Inclusion, Brussels: European Commission, April.Google Scholar
Brady, D. (2009), Rich Democracies, Poor People: How Politics Explain Poverty, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195385878.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, D. and Bostic, A. (2015), ‘Paradoxes of Social Policy: Welfare Transfers, Relative Poverty, and Redistribution Preferences’, American Sociological Review, 80 (2): 268–98.10.1177/0003122415573049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, D., Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. (2014), Comparative Welfare States Data Set, University of North Carolina and WZB Berlin Social Science Center (http://www.lisdatacenter.org/resources/other-databases).Google Scholar
Cantillon, B. (2014), ‘Beyond Social Investment. Which Concepts and Values for Social Policy-Making in Europe?’, in Cantillon, B. and Vandenbroucke, F. (eds), Reconciling Work and Poverty Reduction: How Successful are European Welfare States?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 286318.Google Scholar
Duvoux, N. (2009), L'autonomie des assistés: sociologie des politiques d'insertion, Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Eardley, T., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Gough, I. and Whiteford, P. (1996), Social Assistance in OECD Countries. Volume I: Synthesis Report, A study carried out on behalf of the Department of Social Security and the OECD by the Social Policy Research Unit, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gingrich, J. and Häusermann, S. (2015), ‘The Decline of the Working-Class Vote, the Reconfiguration of the Welfare Support Coalition and Consequences for the Welfare State’, Journal of European Social Policy 25 (1): 5075.10.1177/0958928714556970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. (2012), Democracy and the Left: Social Policy and Inequality in Latin America, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226356556.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huo, J. (2009), Third Way Reforms: Social Democracy after the Golden Age, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511581045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huo, J., Nelson, M. and Stephens, J. D. (2008), ‘Decommodification and Activation in Social Democratic Policy: Resolving the Paradox’, Journal of European Social Policy, 18 (1): 520.Google Scholar
Immervoll, H. (2009), ‘Minimum-Income Benefits in OECD Countries: Policy Design, Effectiveness and Challenges’, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 4627, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, December.Google Scholar
Jacques, O. and Noël, A. (2018), ‘The Case for Welfare State Universalism, or the Lasting Relevance of the Paradox of Redistribution’, Journal of European Social Policy, 28 (1): 7085.10.1177/0958928717700564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenworthy, L. (2011), Progress for the Poor, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591527.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (1998), ‘The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries’, American Sociological Review 63 (5): 661–87.10.2307/2657333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larocque, F. and Noël, A. (2014), ‘The Politics of Poverty in the European Union: How States Respond to the Open Method of Coordination on Social Inclusion’, Policy & Politics 42 (3): 333–50.10.1332/030557312X655882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lødemel, I. (1997), The Welfare Paradox: Income Maintenance and Personal Social Services in Norway and Britain, 1946–1966, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Marchal, S., Marx, I. and Van Mechelen, N. (2014), ‘The Great Wake-Up Call? Social Citizenship and Minimum Income Provisions in Europe in Times of Crisis’, Journal of Social Policy 43 (2): 247–67.10.1017/S0047279413000950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, I. and Nelson, K. (2013), ‘A New Dawn for Minimum Income Protection?’ in Marx, I. and Nelson, K. (eds), Minimum Income Protection in Flux, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 127.10.1057/9781137291844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, I., Nolan, B. and Olivera, J. (2014), ‘The Welfare State and Anti-Poverty Policy in Rich Countries’, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 8154, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor, April.Google Scholar
Marx, I., Salanauskaite, L. and Verbist, G. (2016), ‘For the Poor, but Not Only the Poor: On Optimal Pro-Poorness in Redistributive Policies,’ Social Forces, 95 (1): 124.10.1093/sf/sow058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanari, I., Nelson, K. and Palme, J. (2008), ‘Towards a European Social Model? Trends in Social Insurance Among EU countries, 1980–2000’, European Societies 10 (5): 787810.10.1080/13668800801912543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (2003), Fighting Poverty: Comparative Studies on Social Insurance, Means-Tested Benefits and Income Redistribution, Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (2008), ‘Minimum Income Protection and European Integration: Trends and Levels of Minimum Benefits in Comparative Perspective, 1990–2005’, International Journal of Health Services 38 (1): 103–24.10.2190/HS.38.1.fCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, K. (2013), ‘Social Assistance and EU Poverty Thresholds 1990–2008. Are European Welfare Systems Providing Just and Fair Protection Against Low Income?’, European Sociological Review 29 (2): 386401.10.1093/esr/jcr080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2011), Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
OECD (2016), Income Distribution and Poverty Database, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Plümper, T., Troeger, V. E. and Manow, P. (2005), ‘Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics: Linking Method to Theory’, European Journal of Political Research 44 (2): 327–54.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2005.00230.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, D. (2007), Social Democracy Inside Out: Partisanship and Labor Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216352.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, L., Jahn, D. and Kuitto, K. (2014), Comparative Welfare Entitlements Dataset 2. Version 2014-03, University of Connecticut and University of Greifswald.Google Scholar
Swank, D. (2013), Comparative Political Parties Dataset: Electoral, Legislative, and Government Strength of Political Parties by Ideological Group in 21 Capitalist Democracies, 1950–2011, Department of Political Science, Marquette University.Google Scholar
Van Kersbergen, K. and Vis, B. (2014), Comparative Welfare State Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Mechelen, N. (2009), Barriers to Adequate Social Safety Nets, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Van Mechelen, N. and Marchal, S. (2013), ‘Struggle for Life: Social Assistance Benefits, 1992–2009’, in Marx, I. and Nelson, K. (eds), Minimum Income Protection in Flux, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 2853.10.1057/9781137291844_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, C. (1993), Managing Poverty: The Limits of Social Assistance, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. E. and Butler, D. M. (2007), ‘A Lot More To Do: The Sensitivity of Time-Series Cross-Section Analyses to Simple Alternative Specifications’, Political Analysis 15 (2): 101123.10.1093/pan/mpl012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Noël supplementary material

Tables SM1-SM3 and Figures SM1-SM2

Download Noël supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 79 KB
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Politics of Minimum Income Protection in OECD Countries
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Politics of Minimum Income Protection in OECD Countries
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Politics of Minimum Income Protection in OECD Countries
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *