Social Indicators Research

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 701–726

Operationalizing De-commodification and De-familization Outcomes via the Relative Poverty Approach: An Application to Western European Countries

Article
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

This article develops an approach with which to operationalise the outcomes of de-commodification and de-familisation processes. Since the de-commodification and de-familisation concepts share an emphasis on ‘a socially acceptable standard of living for individuals’ with the notion of relative poverty, the income-poverty indicator has been adopted to develop pertinent national rates. In particular, since de-commodification outcomes concern people with a socially acceptable standard of living independently of sale of their labour power, the national proportions of individuals with an equivalised disposable income above the poverty threshold who have stopped working have been accounted for. On the other hand, given that de-familisation outcomes regard individuals with a socially acceptable standard of living aside from family relationships, the national percentages of persons who actually live alone, or simulated as living alone, with an equivalised disposable income above the poverty threshold have been considered. Moreover, exploiting the equivalised disposable income computation, pertinent micro-simulations are developed to capture the role of the state and the family in de-commodification outcomes, and the contribution of the market and the state to de-familisation outcomes. On the basis of the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions, an empirical application of this approach is then provided. Specifically, data for 16 European countries were used to compute the above-mentioned national rates. Furthermore, we checked whether our outcome figures exhibited any correspondence with the country-groups deriving from the classic welfare regime typologies or more in general with the measures resulting from the social policy structure.

Keywords

De-commodification De-familisation Outcome operationalisation Relative poverty Equivalised disposable income 

References

  1. Aassve, A., Iacovou, M., & Mencarini, L. (2006). Youth poverty and transition to adulthood in Europe. Demographic Research, 15(2), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bambra, C. (2004). The worlds of welfare: Illusory and gender blind? Social Policy & Society, 3(3), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, M., Heady, C., Middleton, S., Millar, J., Papadopoulos, F., & Tsakloglou, P. (2002). Poverty and social exclusion in Europe. Cheltenham/Northampton: Mass, Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourguignon, F., & Spadaro, A. (2006). Microsimulation as a tool for evaluating redistribution policies. Journal of Economic Inequality, 4, 77–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, D., Huber, E., Moller, S., Nielsen, F., & Stephens, J. D. (2003). Distribution and redistribution in postindustrial democracies. World Politics, 55(2), 193–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady, D. (2005). The welfare state and relative poverty in rich western democracies, 1967–1997. Social Forces, 83(4), 1329–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2006). Gender inequalities in the risks of poverty and social exclusion for disadvantaged groups in thirty European countries. Brussels: European Commission. http://www.libertysecurity.org/article1977.html.
  10. European Commission. (2008). Portfolio of overarching indicators and streamlined social inclusion, pensions, and health portfolios. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=756.
  11. Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘Southern’ model of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goedemé, T. (2013). How much confidence can we have in EU-SILC? Complex sample designs and the standard error of the Europe 2020 poverty indicators. Social Indicators Research, 110(1), 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hobson, B. (1990). No exit, no voice: Women’s economic dependency and the welfare State. Acta Sociologica, 33(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kammer, A., Niehues, J., & Peichl, A. (2012). Welfare regimes and welfare state outcomes in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(5), 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenworthy, L. (1999). Do social-welfare policies reduce poverty? A cross-national assessment. Social Forces, 77(3), 1119–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Korpi, W., & 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), 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kröger, T. (2011). Defamilisation, dedomestication and care policy: Comparing childcare service provisions of welfare states. International Journal of Sociology and Social policy, 31(7), 424–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langan, M., & Ostner, I. (1991). Gender and welfare: Towards a comparative framework’. In G. Room (Ed.), Towards a European welfare state? SAUS: Bristol.Google Scholar
  19. Leitner, S. (2003). Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leitner, S., & Lessenich, S. (2007). (In-)dependence as dependent variable: Conceptualising and measuring ‘de-familisation. In J. Clasen & N. A. Siegel (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change: The ‘dependent variable problem’ in comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis, J. (1997). Gender and welfare regimes: Further thoughts. Social Politics, 4(2), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lister, R. (1994). She has other duties’—Women, citizenship and social security. In S. Baldwin & J. Faklingham (Eds.), Social security and social change. New Challenges to the Beveridge model. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  24. Lohmann, H. (2009). Welfare states, labour market institutions and the working poor: A comparative analysis of 20 European countries. European Sociological Review, 25(4), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lohmann, H. (2011). Comparability of EU-SILC survey and register data: The relationship among employment, earnings and poverty. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahler, V. A., & Jesuit, D. K. (2010). Comparing government redistribution across countries: The problem of second-order effects. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1390–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McLaughlin, E., & Glendinning, C. (1994). Paying for care in Europe: Is there a feminist approach? In L. Hantrais & S. Mangen (Eds.), Family policy and the welfare of women (pp. 52–69). Leicestershire: Cross-National Research Papers, European Research Centre, Loughborough University of Technology.Google Scholar
  28. Moller, S., Bradley, D., Huber, E., Nielsen, F., & Stephens, J. (2003). Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review, 68, 22–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Connor, J. S. (1993). Gender, class and citizenship in the comparative analysis of welfare state regimes: Theoretical and methodological issues. British Journal of Sociology, 44, 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Connor, J. S., Orloff, A. S., & Shaver, S. (1999). States, markets, families: Gender, liberalism and social policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58, 03–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Orsini, K., & Spadaro, A. (2007). Strategic weight within couples: A microsimulation approach. Research on Economic Inequality, 15, 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Room, G. (2000). Commodification and de-commodification: A developmental critique. Policy & Politics, 28(3), 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saraceno, C. (Ed.). (2008). Families, ageing and social policy: Intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. Saraceno, S., & Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe?. European Societies, 12(5), 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. P. (2006). Welfare-state de-commodification in eighteen OECD countries: A replication and revision. European Journal of Social Policy, 60(4), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scruggs, L., Jahn, D., & Kuitto, K. (2014a). Comparative welfare entitlements dataset 2. Version 2014-03. University of Connecticut & University of Greifswald. http://cwed2.org/.
  38. Scruggs, L., Jahn, D., & Kuitto, K. (2014b). Comparative welfare entitlements dataset 2, codebook. Version 2014-03. University of Connecticut & University of Greifswald. http://cwed2.org/.
  39. Shorrocks, A. F. (1982). Inequality decomposition by factor components. Econometrica, 50, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom. A survey of household resources and standards of living. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  41. Trifiletti, R. (1999). Southern European welfare regimes and the worsening position of women. Journal of European Social Policy, 9(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whelan, C. T., Layte, R., & Maitre, B. (2003). Persistent income poverty and deprivation in the European Union. Journal of Social Policy, 32(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zaidi, A. (2010). Poverty risks for older people in EU countriesAn update. European Centre. Policy Brief. January 1I. http://www.euro.centre.org/detail.php?xml_id=1657.
  44. Zaidi, A. (2012). Poverty and income of older people in OECD countries. Paris: OECD Working paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1992492.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public PoliciesTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations