Advertisement

Comparative European Politics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 49–71 | Cite as

The political economy of social assistance and minimum income benefits: a comparative analysis across 26 OECD countries

  • Olaf van Vliet
  • Jinxian WangEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Social assistance benefit schemes are a peculiar type of welfare state program. As the electoral costs are relatively low, this program forms an obvious target for cost reduction in times of austerity. The aim of this study is to examine the determinants of the developments in social assistance benefits. We seek to make two contributions. First, this paper provides insight into the role of economic, political, and institutional determinants of the variation in social assistance benefits. Second, cross-national data on social expenditures and income replacement rates are available for several welfare state programs, but not for social assistance benefits. Presenting minimum income benefit replacement rates, this study analyzes the developments of social assistance benefits across 26 OECD countries over the past two decades. The analysis leads to the conclusion that budgetary pressure stemming from increased exposure to international trade and soaring levels of unemployment is associated with benefit cuts.

Keywords

Comparative political economy Welfare state Globalization Social assistance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 23rd International Conference of Europeanists (CES, 2016). We thank all participants and Koen Caminada, Kees Goudswaard, Carlo Knotz, Michal Polakowski, David Rueda, Duane Swank, Dorota Szelewa, Stefan Thewissen, Tim Vlandas and Chen Wang for useful comments and suggestions. The study has received support from the European Commission’s 7th Framework Program under Grant Agreement no. 312691, InGRID—Inclusive Growth Research Infrastructure Diffusion.

References

  1. Adema, W. 2006. Social assistance policy development and the provision of a decent level of income in selected OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers no. 38. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J.P., and L. Scruggs. 2004. Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansell, B., and J. Gingrich. 2013. A tale of two trilemmas: Varieties of higher education and the service economy. In The Political Economy of the Service Transition, ed. A. Wren, 195–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armingeon, K., D. Weisstanner, S. Engler, P. Potplidis, and M. Gerber. 2012. Comparative Political Data Set III. Berne: University of Berne.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, N., and J.N. Katz. 2011. Modeling dynamics in time-series-cross-section political economy data. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, T., G. Clarke, A. Groff, P. Keefer, and P. Walsh. 2001. New tools in comparative political economy: The Database of Political Institutions. The World Bank Economic Review 15(1): 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonoli, G. 2001. Political institutions, veto points, and the process of welfare adaptation. In The New Politics of the Welfare State, ed. P. Pierson, 238–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, D., J. Beckfield, and M. Seeleib-Kaiser. 2005. Economic globalization and the welfare state in affluent democracies, 1975–2001. American Sociological Review 70(6): 921–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgoon, B. 2001. Globalization and welfare compensation: Disentangling the ties that bind. International Organization 55(03): 509–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Busemeyer, M.R. 2009. From myth to reality: Globalisation and public spending in OECD countries revisited. European Journal of Political Research 48(4): 455–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantillon, B., and K. Van den Bosch. 2002. Back to basics: The case for an adequate minimum guaranteed income in the active welfare states. In Trade, Competitiveness and Social Protection, ed. J. Pacolet, and E. Claessens, 73–94. Canada: APF Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clegg, D. 2014. Convergence from below? The reform of minimum income protection in France and the UK. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy 30(2): 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danforth, B., and J.D. Stephens. 2013. Measuring social citizenship: Achievements and future challenges. Journal of European Public Policy 20(9): 1285–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Boef, S., and L. Keele. 2008. Taking time seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52(1): 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dreher, A. 2006. The influence of globalization on taxes and social policy: An empirical analysis for OECD countries. European Journal of Political Economy 22(1): 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ebbinghaus, B., and A. Hassel. 2000. Striking deals: Concertation in the reform of continental European welfare states. Journal of European Public Policy 7(1): 44–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Figari, F., M. Matsaganis, and H. Sutherland. 2013. Are European social safety nets tight enough? Coverage and adequacy of minimum income schemes in 14 EU countries. International Journal of Social Welfare 22(1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garrett, G., and D. Mitchell. 2001. Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD. European Journal of Political Research 39(2): 145–177.Google Scholar
  19. Gaston, N., and G. Rajaguru. 2008. The rise (and fall) of labour market programmes: Domestic vs. global factors. Oxford Economic Papers 60: 619–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Häusermann, S., G. Picot, and D. Geering. 2013. Review article: Rethinking party politics and the welfare state—Recent advances in the literature. British Journal of Political Science 43(1): 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hays, J.C. 2009. Globalization and the New Politics of Embedded Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henisz, W.J. 2002. The institutional environment for infrastructure investment. Industrial and Corporate Change 11(2): 355–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heston, A., R. Summers, and A. Bettina. 2012. Penn World Table Version 7.1. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  24. Hicks, A., and K. Freeman. 2009. Pension income replacement: Permanent and transitory determinants. Journal of European Public Policy 16(1): 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hicks, A., and C. Zorn. 2005. Economic globalization, the macro economy, and reversals of welfare: Expansion in affluent democracies, 1978–94. International Organization 59(03): 631–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hölsch, K., and M. Kraus. 2004. Poverty alleviation and the degree of centralization in European schemes of social assistance. Journal of European Social Policy 14(2): 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huber, E., and J.D. Stephens. 1998. Internationalization and the social democratic model: Crisis and future prospects. Comparative Political Studies 31(3): 353–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber, E., and J.D. Stephens. 2001. Partisan Choice in Global Markets: Developments and Crisis of Advanced Welfare States. Chicago: University Press of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Immervoll, H., S. P. Jenkins, and S. Königs. 2015. Are recipients of social assistance ‘benefit dependent’? Concepts, measurement and results for selected countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers no. 162. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  30. Iversen, T., and T.R. Cusack. 2000. The causes of welfare state expansion: Deindustrialization or globalization? World Politics 52(03): 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iversen, T., and D. Soskice. 2006. Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review 100(2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jensen, C. 2012. Labour market- versus life course-related social policies: Understanding cross-programme differences. Journal of European Public Policy 19(2): 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jensen, C., and P.B. Mortensen. 2014. Government responses to fiscal austerity: The effect of institutional fragmentation and partisanship. Comparative Political Studies 47(2): 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Korpi, W., and J. Palme. 2003. New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: Welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–95. American Political Science Review 97(03): 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leibrecht, M., M. Klien, and Ö. Onaran. 2011. Globalization, welfare regimes and social protection expenditures in Western and Eastern European countries. Public Choice 148(3–4): 569–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lødemel, I., and A. Moreira. 2014. Activation or Workfare? Governance and the Neo-liberal Convergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marchal, S., I. Marx, and N. Van Mechelen. 2014. The Great Wake-Up Call? Social citizenship and minimum income provisions in Europe in times of crisis. Journal of social policy 43(02): 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin, C.J., and D. Swank. 2004. Does the organization of capital matter? Employers and active labor market policy at the national and firm levels. American Political Science Review 98(04): 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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): 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson, K. 2012. Counteracting material deprivation: The role of social assistance in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 22(2): 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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): 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nickell, S. 1981. Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49(6): 1417–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD. 2014. Labor Force Statistics. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. 2015. In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD. 2016. Social Benefit Recipients Database. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  46. Offe, C. 1991. Smooth consolidation in the West German welfare states. In Labour Parties in Postindustrial Societies, ed. F. Fox Piven, 124–146. New York: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  47. Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pierson, P. 2001. Coping with permanent austerity: Welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies. In The New Politics of the Welfare State, ed. P. Pierson, 410–456. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Potrafke, N. 2016. Partisan Politics: The Empirical Evidence from OECD Panel Studies. CESifo Working Paper no. 6024.Google Scholar
  50. Rehm, P. 2016. Risk Inequality and Welfare States: Social Policy Preferences, Development and Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodrik, D. 1998. Why do more open economies have bigger governments. Journal of Political Economy 106(5): 997–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ross, F. 2000. ‘Beyond left and right’: The new partisan politics of welfare. Governance 13: 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rothstein, B. 1992. Labor-market institutions and working-class strength. In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed. S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, and F. Longstreth, 33–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rueda, D. 2007. Social Democracy Inside Out: Partisanship and Labor Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saint-Paul, G. 1996. Exploring the political economy of labour market institutions. Economic Policy 23: 263–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheve, K., and M.J. Slaughter. 2004. Economic insecurity and the globalization of production. American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 662–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scruggs, L. 2005. Welfare state entitlement data set: A comparative institutional analysis of eighteen welfare states. Version 1: 1.Google Scholar
  58. Swank, D. 2002. Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swank, D. 2011. Activating workers? The political economy of active social policy in postindustrial democracies. In Comparing European Workers Part B: Policies and Institutions, ed. D. Brady, 9–51. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swank, D. 2013. Party government, institutions, and social protection in the age of austerity. In Staatstätigkeiten, Parteien und Demokratie, ed. K. Armingeon, 307–330. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Kersbergen, K., B. Vis, and A. Hemerijck. 2014. The great recession and welfare state reform: Is retrenchments really the only game left in town? Social Policy & Administration 48(7): 883–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Mechelen, N., and S. Marchal. 2013. Struggle for life: Social assistance benefits, 1992–2009. In Minimum Income Protection in Flux, ed. I. Marx, and K. Nelson, 28–53. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Mechelen, N., S. Marchal, T. Goedeme, I. Marx, and B. Cantillon 2011. The CSB-Minimum Income Protection Indicators Dataset (CSB-MIPI). CSB Working Paper no. 05/2011.Google Scholar
  64. Van Oorschot, W. 2006. Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy 16(1): 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Vliet O., and K. Caminada. 2012. Unemployment replacement rates dataset among 34 welfare states 1971–2009: An update, extension and modification of Scruggs’ Welfare State Entitlements Data Set NEUJOBS Special Report nr. 2. Leiden University.Google Scholar
  66. Visser, J. 2013. Database on Institutional Characteristics of Trade Unions, Wage Setting, State Intervention and Social Pacts in 34 Countries between 1960 and 2012 (ICTWSS). Version 4, April 2013. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  67. Wallerstein, M. 1989. Union growth in advanced industrial democracies. American Political Science Review 83: 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Walter, S. 2017. Globalization and the demand-side of politics: How globalization shapes labor market risk perceptions and policy preferences. Political Science Research Methods 5(1): 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang, J., and O. Van Vliet. 2016a. Social assistance and minimum income benefits: Benefit levels, replacement rates and policies across 26 OECD countries, 1990–2009. European Journal of Social Security 18(4): 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang, J., and O. Van Vliet. 2016b. Social Assistance and Minimum Income Levels and Replacement Rates Dataset. Leiden University. http://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/law/institute-for-tax-law-and-economics/economics/data-sets/the-social-assistance-and-minimum-income-levels-and-replacement-rates-dataset.
  71. Whiteford, P. 1995. The use of replacement rates in international comparisons of benefit systems. International Social Security Review 48(2): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. World Bank. 2012. World Development Indicators. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations