Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A Benefit Recipiency Approach to Analysing Differences and Similarities in European Welfare Provision

  • 296 Accesses

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

In comparative welfare state research, the question of how to measure and understand cross-country differences and similarities in extents of public welfare provision has led to a major discussion about the indicators that could be used for this purpose. Much scholarly attention approaching this so-called ‘dependent variable problem’ concentrates on social expenditure or on social rights data as indicators of ‘welfare stateness’ or ‘welfare generosity’. However, recently, micro-level data on benefit receipt as another promising but hitherto underused indicator was brought into this discussion. The article at hand extends existing knowledge about the conceptual, methodological and empirical potentials and challenges of this alternative indicator compared to the two prevailing indicators. For the empirical analysis, it uses cash benefit recipiency data from the EU-SILC to investigate differences and similarities in extents of public welfare provision between 29 European countries for the period 2003–2012. The study reveals parallels to findings from research in which indicators of social expenditure and social rights are applied, but it also adds new insights beyond their cost and paper reality. This is mainly the case where priority is given to household-related assistance benefits rather than individual insurance benefits. The main conclusion of the paper is that the benefit recipiency indicator—despite not being flawless and requiring further research—complements existing knowledge on differences and similarities in welfare provision by European welfare states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    See van Oorschot (2013) for a detailed overview of the advantages and short-comings in the use of administrative record data and survey data.

  2. 2.

    Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Cyprus (CY), Czech Republic (CZ), Denmark (DK), Estonia (EE), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE), Iceland (IS), Italy (IT), Latvia (LV), Lithuania (LT), Luxemburg (LU), Malta (MT), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovenia (SI), Slovakia (SK), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE), Switzerland (CH), and the United Kingdom (UK).

  3. 3.

    Except for the UK, for which the income reference period is the survey year itself.

  4. 4.

    Due to limitations in space, only the following critical points are mentioned: Data source: Despite being a survey-based dataset, some countries report income data from national registers to EU-SILC. Originally, this was limited to DK, FI, IS, NL, NO, SE, SI. Yet, due to an increasing inclusion of countries in the dataset that only provide income data from administrative records as well as due to countries that suddenly changed their data collection method, income data from surveys is losing ground. This can create some bias with regard to the comparability of the data across countries as well as within countries. Data collection: In some countries survey participants are interviewed individually, while in other countries one person delivers information for all household members. Also, some countries conduct face-to-face interviews to collect the data, while others use telephone interviews, computer-assisted web interviews or data provided by households in a self-administered way. Samplings design: Some countries sample dwellings or addresses, other households, or individuals. Fieldwork periods: Most countries carry the fieldwork out in the first half of the calendar year. Yet, Ireland and the United Kingdom conduct surveys throughout the year, and some countries concentrate their fieldwork in the second half of the calendar year.

    Reference period: As a rule, income data refers to the 12-month calendar year prior to the interview year. However, exceptions from this rule are the UK and Ireland. British income data refer to the year of the survey, while Irish income data refer to income in the 12 months prior to the interview. Standardised versus output harmonised surveys: In contrast to the previously existing ECHP survey, EU-SILC is output harmonised. Thus, countries deliver data to Eurostat according to common guidelines and procedures for data collection, concepts, classifications and target variables. However, apart from this countries decide how the data are collected and reported.

  5. 5.

    ‘Needs-balancing’ may be problematic, and is an issue for measuring differences in welfare provision on the basis of social expenditure data as much as on the basis of recipiency data. The various proxy variables used in current literature often come along with pitfalls, when studying benefits at an aggregated, rather than on a programmatic level. To make findings most comparable to existing research using benefit recipiency information, this study follows the suggestion made by van Oorschot and Reinstadler (2013) and employs inactivity rates as a proxy for social need. It can be considered a compromise indicator to get grip of the potential beneficiaries influencing receipt of OA, DIS, SV, and to a certain extent UE benefits.

  6. 6.

    Just like with the personal benefits, this indicator can only be a proxy. Since housing benefits, social assistance, and in some countries also child-allowances are means-tested benefits, using the share of the relatively very poor people before social transfers is assumed to capture a good share of the need-population.

References

  1. Abrahamson, P. (1999). The welfare modelling business. Social Policy & Administration, 33(4), 394–415.

  2. Anttonen, A., Häikiö, L., & Stefánsson, K. (Eds.). (2012). Welfare state, universalism and diversity. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar.

  3. Arents, M., Cluitmans, M., & van der Ende, M. (2002). Benefit dependency ratios: An analysis of nine European countries, Japan and the US. Final Report, The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs.

  4. Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137–158.

  5. Atkinson, A., & Marlier, E. (2010). Income and living conditions in Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission.

  6. Bonoli, G. (1997). Classifying welfare state: A two-dimension approach. Journal of Social Policy, 26(3), 351–372.

  7. Bonoli, G., & Natali, D. (Eds.). (2012). The politics of the new welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  8. Brady, D., & Bostic, A. (2014). Paradoxes of social policy: Welfare transfers, relative poverty and redistribution preferences. Presentation at the InGRID expert workshop on social indicators. 19 November 2014, Oslo.

  9. Castles, F. G. (2002). Developing new measures of welfare state change and reform. European Journal of Political Research, 41(5), 613–641.

  10. Castles, F. G. (2008). What welfare states do: A disaggregated expenditure approach. Journal of Social Policy, 38(1), 45–62.

  11. Cerami, A., & Vanhuysse, P. (2009). Post-communist welfare pathways. Theorizing social policy transformations in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.

  12. Clasen, J., & Clegg, D. (2007). Levels and levers of conditionality: Measuring change within welfare states. In J. Clasen & N. Siegel (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change. The ‘dependent variable problem’ in comparative analysis (pp. 166–197). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  13. Clasen, J., & Siegel, N. A. (2007). Comparative welfare state analysis and the ‘dependent variable’. In J. Clasen & N. Siegel (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change. The ‘dependent variable problem’ in comparative analysis (pp. 3–12). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  14. De Deken, J., & Clasen, J. (2011). Tracking caseloads: The changing composition of working-age benefit receipt in Europe. In J. Clasen & D. Clegg (Eds.), Regulating the risk of unemployment. National adaptations to post-industrial labour markets in Europe (pp. 297–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  15. De Deken, J., & Clasen, J. (2013). Benefit dependency: The pros and cons of using “caseload” data for national and international comparison. International Social Security Review, 66(2), 53–78.

  16. De Deken, J., & Kittel, B. (2007). Social expenditure under Scrutiny: The problems of using aggregate spending data for assessing welfare state dynamics. In J. Clasen & N. Siegel (Eds.), Investigating welfare state change. The ‘dependent variable problem’ in comparative analysis (pp. 72–105). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  17. Erlinghagen, M., & Knuth, M. (2010). Unemployment as an institutional construct? Structural differences in non-employment between selected european countries and the United States. Journal of Social Policy, 39(1), 71–94.

  18. Esping Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  19. Esser, I., Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Palme, J., & Sjöberg, O. (2013). Unemployment benefits in the EU member states. Report for European Commission. D-G Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion. Brussels: European Comission.

  20. Ferrarini, T., Nelson, K., Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (2013). Social citizenship rights and social insurance replacement rate validity: Pitfalls and possibilities. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), 1251–1266.

  21. Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘southern’ model of welfare state in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17–37.

  22. Flora, P. (1986). Growth to limits. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  23. Gal, J. (2010). Is there an extended family of Mediterranean welfare states? Journal of Social Policy, 20(4), 283–300.

  24. Gallie, D., & Paugam, S. (2000). Welfare regimes and the experience of unemployment in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  25. Goedemé, T. (2013a). 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.

  26. Goedemé, T. (2013b). The EU-SILC sample design variables: Critical review and recommendations. CSB Working Paper, 13/02. Antwerpen.

  27. Graf, M., Wenger, A., & Nedyalkova, D. (2011). Quality of EU-SILC data. AMELI deliverable 5.1.

  28. Green-Pedersen, C. (2004). The dependent variable problem within the study of welfare state retrenchment: Defining the problem and looking for solutions. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6(1), 3–14.

  29. Hernanz, V., Malherbet, F., & Pellizzari, M. (2004). Take-up of welfare benefits Esser. OECD social, employment and migration working papers, No. 17, OECD Publishing, Paris.

  30. Hrast, M. F., & Rakar, T. (2015). The future of the Slovenian welfare state and challenges to solidarity. Paper presented at the annual ESPAnet conference 2015, Oslo.

  31. Huber, E., & Stephens, J. D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state: Parties and politics in global markets. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  32. Iacovou, M., Kaminska, O., & Levy, H. (2012). Using EU-SILC data for cross-national analysis: Strengths, problems and recommendations. Essex: Institute for Social and Economic Research.

  33. ILO. (2011). Towards national social protection floors. A policy note the G20 meeting of labour and employment ministers, Paris, September 26–27, 2011.

  34. ILO (International Labour Organisation). (2015). Social protection floor initiative. Implementation. http://www.social-protection.org/gimi/gess/ShowTheme.action?id=2527#00. Retrieved on 02/06/2016.

  35. Immervoll, H., Jenkins, S. P., & Königs, S. (2015). Are recipients of social assistance ‘benefit dependent’? Concepts, measurement and results for selected countries. IZA discussion paper No. 8786, Bonn.

  36. Immervoll, H., Marianna, P., & Mira d’Ercole, M. (2004). Benefit coverage rates and household typologies: Scope and limitations of tax-benefit indicators. Paris: OECD.

  37. Kaim-Caudle, P. (1973). Comparative social policy and social security: A ten country study. London: Martin Robertson.

  38. Karamessini, M. (2007). The Southern European social model; changes and continuities in recent decades. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.

  39. Knotz, C. (2016). The politics of sanctioning the unemployed, paper presented at the Centre for Welfare State Research at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense. http://www.unil.ch/files/live/sites/idheap/files/unites/politiques_sociales/LMC/Knotz_SanctionReforms.pdf.

  40. Knotz, C., & Nelson, M. (2013). Quantifying ‘conditionality’: A new database on conditions and sanctions for unemployed benefit claimants. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2328253 or 10.2139/ssrn.2328253.

  41. Kolarič, Z., Kopač, A., & Rakar, T. (2009). The Slovene welfare system: Gradual reform instead of shock treatment. In K. Schubert, S. Hegelich, & U. Bazant (Eds.), The handbook of European welfare systems (pp. 444–461). London, New York: Routledge.

  42. Königs, S. (2015). Micro-level dynamics of social assistance benefit receipt. Evidence from 4 European countries. Statistics Norway discussion papers, p 797.

  43. Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63, 661–687.

  44. Kvist, J., Straubinger, S. G., & Freundt, A. (2013). Measurement validity in comparative welfare state research: The case of measuring welfare state generosity. European Journal of Social Security, 15(4), 321–340.

  45. Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159–173.

  46. 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.

  47. Naldini, M. (2003). The family in the Mediterranean welfare states. London: Cass.

  48. Nososco. (2015). Sickness absence in Nordic countries (Vol. 59). Copenhagen: Nordic Social Statistical Committee.

  49. OECD. (2010). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers. Sweden: Will the recent reforms make it? Paris: OECD Publishing.

  50. Pace, C. (2009). The Maltese welfare state: Hybrid wine in rightists bottles (with leftist labels)? In K. Schubert, S. Hegelich, & U. Bazant (Eds.), The Handbook of European Welfare Systems (pp. 344–362). London: Routledge.

  51. Pierson, P. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 48, 143–179.

  52. Pierson, P. (2001). Post-industrial pressures on mature welfare states. In P. Pierson (Ed.), The new politics of the welfare state (pp. 80–104). New York: Oxford University Press.

  53. Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  54. Saxonberg, S. (2014). Gendering family policies in post-communist Europe. A historical-institutional analysis. Basinstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  55. Scruggs, L. (2007). Welfare generosity across space and time. In J. Clasen & N. Siegel (Eds.), Investigating welfare change: The ‘dependent variable problem’ in comparative analysis (pp. 133–165). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  56. Scruggs, L. (2008). Social rights, welfare generosity and inequality. In C. Anderson & P. Baramendi (Eds.), Democracy, inequality, and representation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  57. Scruggs, L., & Allan, J. P. (2006). The material consequences of welfare states. Benefit generosity and absolute poverty in 16 OECD countries. Comparative Political Studies, 39(7), 881–904.

  58. Siegel, N. (2007). When (only) money matters: The pros and cons of expenditure analysis. In J. Clasen & N. Siegel (Eds.), Investigating welfare change: The ‘dependent variable problem’ in comparative analysis (pp. 43–71). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  59. Szelewa, D. (2006). The faces of familialism: Comparing family policies in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Paper presented at the RC19 Annual Conference, Florence.

  60. Urbé, R. (2012). The future of the welfare state. A comparative study in EU-countries. Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus-Verlag.

  61. Van Oorschot, W. (1991). Non take-up of social security benefits in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 1(1), 15–30.

  62. Van Oorschot, W. (1995). Take it or leave it: A study of non-take-up of social security benefits. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

  63. Van Oorschot, W. (2013). Comparative welfare state analysis with survey-based benefit recipiency data: The ‘dependent variable problem’ revisited. European Journal of Social Security, 15(3), 224–248.

  64. Van Oorschot, W., & Reinstadler, A. (2013). Comparative welfare state analysis with survey-based benefit recipiency data. Working paper, Esch-sur-Alzette, CEPS-INSTEAD.

  65. Van Rie, T., & Marx, I. (2012). Welfare with work? Comparative evidence on benefit and labour income in European countries. Paper presented at the ESPAnet-ReFlect-EDAC summer school 2012, Tilburg.

  66. Wenzelburger, G., Zühlnhöfer, R., & Wolf, F. (2013). Implications of dataset choice in comparative welfare state research. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(9), 1229–1250.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is based on data from Eurostat, EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions 2004–2013. The responsibility for all conclusions drawn from the data lies entirely with the author.

Funding was provided by KU Leuven (OT/13/029).

Author information

Correspondence to Adeline Otto.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Proxy variables used for the need-adjustment of the respective benefit access rates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Otto, A. A Benefit Recipiency Approach to Analysing Differences and Similarities in European Welfare Provision. Soc Indic Res 137, 765–788 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1621-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dependent variable problem
  • Welfare state comparison
  • Welfare state indicators
  • Benefit recipiency data