Two decades after Korpi and Palme’s “paradox of redistribution”: What have we learned so far and where do we take it from here?

Dimitri Gugushvili, Tijs Laenen
{"title":"Two decades after Korpi and Palme’s “paradox of redistribution”: What have we learned so far and where do we take it from here?","authors":"Dimitri Gugushvili, Tijs Laenen","doi":"10.1017/ics.2020.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Over two decades ago, Korpi and Palme (1998) published one of the most influential papers in the history of social policy discipline, in which they put forward a “paradox of redistribution”: the more countries target welfare resources exclusively at the poor, the less redistribution is actually achieved and the less income inequality and poverty are reduced. The current paper provides a state-of-the-art review of empirical research into that paradox. More specifically, we break down the paradox into seven core assumptions, which together form a causal chain running from institutional design to redistributive outcomes. For each causal assumption, we offer a comprehensive and critical review of the relevant empirical literature, also including a broader range of studies that do not aim to address Korpi and Palme’s paradox per se, but are nevertheless informative about it.","PeriodicalId":38249,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"112 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/ics.2020.24","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2020.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Abstract Over two decades ago, Korpi and Palme (1998) published one of the most influential papers in the history of social policy discipline, in which they put forward a “paradox of redistribution”: the more countries target welfare resources exclusively at the poor, the less redistribution is actually achieved and the less income inequality and poverty are reduced. The current paper provides a state-of-the-art review of empirical research into that paradox. More specifically, we break down the paradox into seven core assumptions, which together form a causal chain running from institutional design to redistributive outcomes. For each causal assumption, we offer a comprehensive and critical review of the relevant empirical literature, also including a broader range of studies that do not aim to address Korpi and Palme’s paradox per se, but are nevertheless informative about it.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科尔皮和帕尔梅的“再分配悖论”二十年后:到目前为止,我们学到了什么?我们从哪里得到了它?
二十多年前,Korpi和Palme(1998)发表了社会政策学科史上最具影响力的论文之一,他们提出了一个“再分配悖论”:越多的国家将福利资源专门针对穷人,实际实现的再分配就越少,收入不平等和贫困的减少就越少。本文对这一悖论的实证研究进行了最新的回顾。更具体地说,我们将这一悖论分解为七个核心假设,它们共同构成了一条从制度设计到再分配结果的因果链。对于每一个因果假设,我们都对相关的实证文献进行了全面和批判性的回顾,还包括更广泛的研究,这些研究并不旨在解决Korpi和Palme悖论本身,但仍然提供了有关它的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Social policy in Africa: Risks, protection, and dynamics The challenge of youth unemployment in Nigeria International charitable connections: Variation in the countries of operation of overseas charities Scales of ideational policy influence: A multi-level, actor-centric, and institutionalist perspective on the role of ideas in African social policy The state role in civilising childcare – comparing policy intentions with childcare in Brazil and Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1