From the 1990s onwards, fraud detection has become an increasingly important focus in the design and implementation of a variety of welfare schemes, including unemployment benefits, social assistance benefits, pensions, and personal care budgets. This culminated in the 2014 Fraud Act, which introduced a system of high sanction in all cases of benefit fraud, even if they were causes by administrative errors. In 2020 a parliamentary investigation committee concluded that the Dutch government had violated the foundational principles of the rule of law through the way suspected fraudsters with childcare allowances had been treated. This so-called Childcare allowances affair undermined the support for the harsh approach to fraud and led to a series of proposals to reform the Dutch ‘surveillance welfare state’. The Dutch Childcare allowances affair is an interesting case of a social policy crisis because its origins are not external events but lie in the regular implementation of policies that have been approved and supported rather widely by politicians, policymakers and street-level bureaucrats. In this article, we define and apply the concept ‘institutional implosion’ to analyse the Childcare allowances affair and its consequences. Moreover, we argue that the implosion in this affair follows from an extension of the target group from ‘non-deserving’ to ‘deserving’ citizens. Whereas the Fraud Act primarily was aimed towards recipients of unemployment, disability and social assistance benefits, a change in the system of childcare allowances extended the scope of the Fraud Act to an almost universal group of parents that use childcare facilities.
{"title":"The implosion of the Dutch surveillance welfare state","authors":"Menno Fenger, Robin Simonse","doi":"10.1111/spol.12998","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12998","url":null,"abstract":"From the 1990s onwards, fraud detection has become an increasingly important focus in the design and implementation of a variety of welfare schemes, including unemployment benefits, social assistance benefits, pensions, and personal care budgets. This culminated in the 2014 Fraud Act, which introduced a system of high sanction in all cases of benefit fraud, even if they were causes by administrative errors. In 2020 a parliamentary investigation committee concluded that the Dutch government had violated the foundational principles of the rule of law through the way suspected fraudsters with childcare allowances had been treated. This so-called Childcare allowances affair undermined the support for the harsh approach to fraud and led to a series of proposals to reform the Dutch ‘surveillance welfare state’. The Dutch Childcare allowances affair is an interesting case of a social policy crisis because its origins are not external events but lie in the regular implementation of policies that have been approved and supported rather widely by politicians, policymakers and street-level bureaucrats. In this article, we define and apply the concept ‘institutional implosion’ to analyse the Childcare allowances affair and its consequences. Moreover, we argue that the implosion in this affair follows from an extension of the target group from ‘non-deserving’ to ‘deserving’ citizens. Whereas the Fraud Act primarily was aimed towards recipients of unemployment, disability and social assistance benefits, a change in the system of childcare allowances extended the scope of the Fraud Act to an almost universal group of parents that use childcare facilities.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139410574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The growing use of digital tools in policy implementation has altered the work of street-level bureaucrats who are granted substantial discretionary power in decision-making. Digital tools can constrain discretionary power, like the curtailment thesis proposed, or serve as action resources, like the enablement thesis suggested. This article assesses empirical evidence of the impact of digital tools on street-level work and decision-making in service-oriented and regulation-oriented organisations based on a systematic literature review and thematic qualitative content analysis of 36 empirical studies published until 2021. The findings demonstrate different effects with regard to the role of digital tools and the core tasks of the public administration, depending on political and managerial goals and consequent system design. Leading or decisive digital tools mostly curtail discretion, especially in service-oriented organisations. In contrast, an enhanced information base or recommendations for actions enable decision-making, in particular in regulation-oriented organisations. By showing how street-level bureaucrats actively try to resist the curtailing effects caused by rigid design to address individual circumstances, for instance by establishing ways of coping like rule bending or rule breaking, using personal resources or prioritising among clients, this study demonstrates the importance of the continuation thesis and the persistently crucial role of human judgement in policy implementation.
{"title":"Does digital government hollow out the essence of street-level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review of how digital tools' foster curtailment, enablement and continuation of street-level decision-making","authors":"Justine Marienfeldt","doi":"10.1111/spol.12991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12991","url":null,"abstract":"The growing use of digital tools in policy implementation has altered the work of street-level bureaucrats who are granted substantial discretionary power in decision-making. Digital tools can constrain discretionary power, like the curtailment thesis proposed, or serve as action resources, like the enablement thesis suggested. This article assesses empirical evidence of the impact of digital tools on street-level work and decision-making in service-oriented and regulation-oriented organisations based on a systematic literature review and thematic qualitative content analysis of 36 empirical studies published until 2021. The findings demonstrate different effects with regard to the role of digital tools and the core tasks of the public administration, depending on political and managerial goals and consequent system design. Leading or decisive digital tools mostly curtail discretion, especially in service-oriented organisations. In contrast, an enhanced information base or recommendations for actions enable decision-making, in particular in regulation-oriented organisations. By showing how street-level bureaucrats actively try to resist the curtailing effects caused by rigid design to address individual circumstances, for instance by establishing ways of coping like rule bending or rule breaking, using personal resources or prioritising among clients, this study demonstrates the importance of the continuation thesis and the persistently crucial role of human judgement in policy implementation.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"143 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139376360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the Netherlands, many part-time domestic workers fall within the scope of a particular type of labour law, that gives them fewer social protection rights and that renders private actors (households and workers) responsible for exercising those rights. Over the years, this policy has been criticised for institutionalising the differential treatment of domestic workers, which goes against ideas propagated in international initiatives, like the European Pillar of Social Rights. This contribution explores Dutch domestic workers' access to social protection in greater detail. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 30 domestic workers, we show that the actual access to social protection greatly varies over different workers and over different employment relationships of individual workers, but generally falls below par. Our findings indicate that this is partly due to the fact that the Dutch policy option underestimates domestic workers' wariness of placing demands on the households they work for, which raises questions over the desirability of non-mediated employment relationships in the sector. We conclude with a brief discussion and suggestions for future policy directions.
{"title":"Excluded workers and exempted employers: A qualitative study on domestic workers' access to social protection in the Netherlands","authors":"David de Kort, Sonja Bekker","doi":"10.1111/spol.12989","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12989","url":null,"abstract":"In the Netherlands, many part-time domestic workers fall within the scope of a particular type of labour law, that gives them fewer social protection rights and that renders private actors (households and workers) responsible for exercising those rights. Over the years, this policy has been criticised for institutionalising the differential treatment of domestic workers, which goes against ideas propagated in international initiatives, like the European Pillar of Social Rights. This contribution explores Dutch domestic workers' access to social protection in greater detail. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 30 domestic workers, we show that the actual access to social protection greatly varies over different workers and over different employment relationships of individual workers, but generally falls below par. Our findings indicate that this is partly due to the fact that the Dutch policy option underestimates domestic workers' wariness of placing demands on the households they work for, which raises questions over the desirability of non-mediated employment relationships in the sector. We conclude with a brief discussion and suggestions for future policy directions.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"49 9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139376358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Digital labour platforms transform work and employment relations in many ways. Crucially, they renounce the role of the employer, leading to a redefinition of traditional categories of actors and their roles in social policy and dialogue. Using the example of the EU proposal for a directive on improving working conditions in platform work, this article examines how this redefinition is materialising in practice among social partners in order to understand its implications for the future of social dialogue and legislation. While previous research focused on the status of workers, this study takes a complementary view by considering the employer side as a key counterpart in a functioning employment relationship. The actor-approach is used to analyse the views and positions of EU social partners and how their prerogatives are affected by the blurring of the role of the employer and the redefinition of traditional categories of actors in social policy.
{"title":"Digital labour platforms and social dialogue at EU level: How new players redefine actors and their roles and what this means for collective bargaining","authors":"Agnieszka Piasna","doi":"10.1111/spol.13000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13000","url":null,"abstract":"Digital labour platforms transform work and employment relations in many ways. Crucially, they renounce the role of the employer, leading to a redefinition of traditional categories of actors and their roles in social policy and dialogue. Using the example of the EU proposal for a directive on improving working conditions in platform work, this article examines how this redefinition is materialising in practice among social partners in order to understand its implications for the future of social dialogue and legislation. While previous research focused on the status of workers, this study takes a complementary view by considering the employer side as a key counterpart in a functioning employment relationship. The actor-approach is used to analyse the views and positions of EU social partners and how their prerogatives are affected by the blurring of the role of the employer and the redefinition of traditional categories of actors in social policy.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139376332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the regulation–participation nexus in social care services. Participatory forms of social care regulation have been expanding over the past 20 years, but the literature on this trend remains scarce. To fill this gap, we developed an analytical framework for classifying participatory regulation methods. This framework is based on two axes, one drawn from the literature on regulation (the regulatory tasks), and the other from the literature on service user participation (the levels of participation). Using this framework and combining a systematic review of the literature with a case study of the Care Quality Commission in England, we identified and classified 12 participatory methods in three main regulatory tasks (monitoring, standard setting and enforcement). Our classification shows most of the participatory methods are concentrated in monitoring tasks, less in standard setting and least of all in regulatory enforcement. It also highlights the uniqueness of the goals and logics of participation in the regulatory context and the tendency towards the instrumental aspect of information gathering rather than the political aspect of participation. The article concludes by explaining our findings and suggesting future directions in developing the research agenda on the regulatory-participation nexus.
{"title":"Classifying participatory methods in social care regulation","authors":"Hilla Dolev, Avishai Benish","doi":"10.1111/spol.12995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12995","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the regulation–participation nexus in social care services. Participatory forms of social care regulation have been expanding over the past 20 years, but the literature on this trend remains scarce. To fill this gap, we developed an analytical framework for classifying participatory regulation methods. This framework is based on two axes, one drawn from the literature on regulation (the regulatory tasks), and the other from the literature on service user participation (the levels of participation). Using this framework and combining a systematic review of the literature with a case study of the Care Quality Commission in England, we identified and classified 12 participatory methods in three main regulatory tasks (monitoring, standard setting and enforcement). Our classification shows most of the participatory methods are concentrated in monitoring tasks, less in standard setting and least of all in regulatory enforcement. It also highlights the uniqueness of the goals and logics of participation in the regulatory context and the tendency towards the instrumental aspect of information gathering rather than the political aspect of participation. The article concludes by explaining our findings and suggesting future directions in developing the research agenda on the regulatory-participation nexus.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139376296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Encounters with welfare state bureaucracy are often burdensome and might even result in administrative exclusion and non-take up. With the growing scholarly interest in administrative burden experiences, a particular focus has been on learning costs, with evidence suggesting that difficulty obtaining reliable and useful information is one of their most fundamental aspects. We still lack a systematic conceptualization of bureaucratic information and its various dimensions. In this non-representative exploratory study, we draw on interviews with 15 Israeli social benefit claimants to delve deeper into the nature of the information required in encounters with welfare state bureaucracy. Using thematic analysis, we identify five dimensions of such information: primary information on the existence of the benefit, as opposed to secondary procedural information on the claiming process; universal, wide-ranging available information, in contrast to personalized information; one- versus two-directional information transfer; covert, informal and dynamic, as opposed to overt, publicly available information; and finally, online versus offline information. We suggest that this exploratory conceptual framework can serve as a starting point for future studies to develop deeper understanding of the information citizens need in their encounters with welfare state bureaucracy.
{"title":"“You didn't ask, so you don't know”: Information and administrative burden in social benefit claims","authors":"Noam Tarshish, Roni Holler","doi":"10.1111/spol.12992","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12992","url":null,"abstract":"Encounters with welfare state bureaucracy are often burdensome and might even result in administrative exclusion and non-take up. With the growing scholarly interest in administrative burden experiences, a particular focus has been on learning costs, with evidence suggesting that difficulty obtaining reliable and useful information is one of their most fundamental aspects. We still lack a systematic conceptualization of bureaucratic information and its various dimensions. In this non-representative exploratory study, we draw on interviews with 15 Israeli social benefit claimants to delve deeper into the nature of the information required in encounters with welfare state bureaucracy. Using thematic analysis, we identify five dimensions of such information: primary information on the existence of the benefit, as opposed to secondary procedural information on the claiming process; universal, wide-ranging available information, in contrast to personalized information; one- versus two-directional information transfer; covert, informal and dynamic, as opposed to overt, publicly available information; and finally, online versus offline information. We suggest that this exploratory conceptual framework can serve as a starting point for future studies to develop deeper understanding of the information citizens need in their encounters with welfare state bureaucracy.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139051150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jakub Sowula, Franziska Gehrig, Lyle A. Scruggs, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, Gabriela Ramalho Tafoya
This article highlights the limitations of unidimensional analyses in the comparative welfare state literature and emphasises the need for a more holistic, multidimensional approach incorporating social spending, welfare state outputs and outcomes. To illustrate the utility of a multidimensional approach, we examine the long-term welfare state trajectories of Sweden and Germany, prototypical social-democratic and conservative welfare states, respectively, and compare them against the baseline of Europe's prototypical liberal welfare state, the United Kingdom. The social spending (expenditure) and output (generosity) allowed us to identify significant changes in the Swedish welfare state (i.e., retrenchment). The outcome dimension alerts us to a policy drift in the German Welfare State, as relatively stable public spending and welfare generosity until the first half of the 2000s were nonetheless associated with sharply increased inequality and poverty. Overall, our findings suggest that a holistic, multidimensional approach is necessary to fully understand the complexities of welfare state change and continuity, as focusing solely on one dimension can lead to analytical misjudgments. The sharp rise in inequality and poverty across countries raises doubts about whether policymakers and researchers rely too much on outdated assumptions of normality that fail to meet the welfare state realities of today.
{"title":"The end of welfare states as we know them? A multidimensional perspective","authors":"Jakub Sowula, Franziska Gehrig, Lyle A. Scruggs, Martin Seeleib-Kaiser, Gabriela Ramalho Tafoya","doi":"10.1111/spol.12990","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12990","url":null,"abstract":"This article highlights the limitations of unidimensional analyses in the comparative welfare state literature and emphasises the need for a more holistic, multidimensional approach incorporating social spending, welfare state outputs and outcomes. To illustrate the utility of a multidimensional approach, we examine the long-term welfare state trajectories of Sweden and Germany, prototypical social-democratic and conservative welfare states, respectively, and compare them against the baseline of Europe's prototypical liberal welfare state, the United Kingdom. The social spending (expenditure) and output (generosity) allowed us to identify significant changes in the Swedish welfare state (i.e., retrenchment). The outcome dimension alerts us to a policy drift in the German Welfare State, as relatively stable public spending and welfare generosity until the first half of the 2000s were nonetheless associated with sharply increased inequality and poverty. Overall, our findings suggest that a holistic, multidimensional approach is necessary to fully understand the complexities of welfare state change and continuity, as focusing solely on one dimension can lead to analytical misjudgments. The sharp rise in inequality and poverty across countries raises doubts about whether policymakers and researchers rely too much on outdated assumptions of normality that fail to meet the welfare state realities of today.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138824293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a remarkable gap in research regarding principal-centred analyses of control means towards—in a formal sense—rather weak independent administrative actors as agents. Therefore, the paper develops a theoretical notion to link means of ex ante and ex post control and applies it to the (re-)actions of ministries vis à vis hardship commissions in the German Länder by asking: How does the super-ordinated ministry (principal) try to control the hardship commission (agent) and with what effect? The theoretical framework is based on principal-agent theory and argues that the respective relationship is best understood by a notion of control pliers which interlinks the principal's preferences, its means of ex ante and ex post control and the agent's output. We hereby draw on partisan and organization theory. The overall research design of the paper is confirmatory and the focus on the federal states allows to control most of the external variance. We use descriptive statistics and structural equation modelling for path analysis to investigate the ex ante and ex post elements of the control pliers. Our empirical analysis is based on the output of 12 hardship commissions for the period of 2005–2017. Our results show that ex post control seems to matter more than ex ante control, but also that the effects of both may be characterized as interdependent. Furthermore, we show that partisan influence seems to matter more than organizational factors considering the output of the agent but that most can be won by combining the two approaches.
{"title":"Control pliers in principal-agent relations: An investigation of hardship commissions in the German asylum administration","authors":"Ina Radtke, Markus Seyfried","doi":"10.1111/spol.12988","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12988","url":null,"abstract":"There is a remarkable gap in research regarding principal-centred analyses of control means towards—in a formal sense—rather weak independent administrative actors as agents. Therefore, the paper develops a theoretical notion to link means of ex ante and ex post control and applies it to the (re-)actions of ministries vis à vis hardship commissions in the German <i>Länder</i> by asking: <i>How does the super-ordinated ministry (principal) try to control the hardship commission (agent) and with what effect?</i> The theoretical framework is based on principal-agent theory and argues that the respective relationship is best understood by a notion of <i>control pliers</i> which interlinks the principal's preferences, its means of ex ante and ex post control and the agent's output. We hereby draw on partisan and organization theory. The overall research design of the paper is confirmatory and the focus on the federal states allows to control most of the external variance. We use descriptive statistics and structural equation modelling for path analysis to investigate the ex ante and ex post elements of the control pliers. Our empirical analysis is based on the output of 12 hardship commissions for the period of 2005–2017. Our results show that ex post control seems to matter more than ex ante control, but also that the effects of both may be characterized as interdependent. Furthermore, we show that partisan influence seems to matter more than organizational factors considering the output of the agent but that most can be won by combining the two approaches.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138629034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is scarce evidence regarding redistribution policies implemented by right‐wing populist parties forming majority governments. We contribute to this literature by measuring the effects of sweeping reforms of the tax and benefit system carried out by the populist party PiS governing Poland since 2015. The reforms included a generous, unconditional, and universal child benefit. Using micro‐simulation‐based decompositions of relative poverty, we separate poverty changes due to the populists' policies (policy effects) from observed poverty changes. We found that populists' reforms from 2015 to 2019 had large poverty‐reducing effects: total poverty was brought down by more than 2 percentage points, while child poverty by about 6.5 points. However, the policy effects account ‘only’ for about half of overall poverty declines over this period. On the other hand, they are much bigger than those obtained previously by a coalition of mainstream parties (2007–2011) or a coalition of populist ones (2005–2007). Since 2015, the populists' reforms targeted social groups that were neglected or inadequately addressed by anti‐poverty policies by past governments. Our results suggest that, at least in conservative and ethnically homogeneous societies, right‐wing populist majoritarian governments are capable of carrying out large‐scale redistribution projects that lead to sizeable poverty reductions and include non‐chauvinist, universal cash transfers.
{"title":"How do right-wing populist majoritarian governments redistribute? Evidence from Poland, 2005–2019","authors":"Leszek Morawski, Michal Brzezinski","doi":"10.1111/spol.12984","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12984","url":null,"abstract":"There is scarce evidence regarding redistribution policies implemented by right‐wing populist parties forming majority governments. We contribute to this literature by measuring the effects of sweeping reforms of the tax and benefit system carried out by the populist party PiS governing Poland since 2015. The reforms included a generous, unconditional, and universal child benefit. Using micro‐simulation‐based decompositions of relative poverty, we separate poverty changes due to the populists' policies (policy effects) from observed poverty changes. We found that populists' reforms from 2015 to 2019 had large poverty‐reducing effects: total poverty was brought down by more than 2 percentage points, while child poverty by about 6.5 points. However, the policy effects account ‘only’ for about half of overall poverty declines over this period. On the other hand, they are much bigger than those obtained previously by a coalition of mainstream parties (2007–2011) or a coalition of populist ones (2005–2007). Since 2015, the populists' reforms targeted social groups that were neglected or inadequately addressed by anti‐poverty policies by past governments. Our results suggest that, at least in conservative and ethnically homogeneous societies, right‐wing populist majoritarian governments are capable of carrying out large‐scale redistribution projects that lead to sizeable poverty reductions and include non‐chauvinist, universal cash transfers.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"22 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138507442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The question of whether welfare benefits imprison recipients in unemployment traps has been at the centre of academic and political debates in recent decades. Empirical evidence at the micro level supports the existence of work disincentive effects of welfare benefits, although of a small magnitude. However, the question of whether this translates into lower aggregate employment remains unsettled. This study innovates the existing literature by providing an estimation of the impact of the monetary component of the Italian minimum income scheme (MIS) on the employment rate. Isolating this impact from the spurious pro-work effects of the Active Labour Market Policies embedded in every contemporary MIS is possible because in the Italian case, in the first quarters of implementation of the policy, the activation side was not operating. We adopt a difference-in-differences method and find that the impact of the monetary component of the Italian MIS on the employment rate is not statistically significant. The finding is robust to different treatment definitions, different specification models and weighted and unweighted econometric analysis. We then carry out a heterogeneous analysis and find that the impact, despite being indistinguishable from zero on average, is significant and negative for provinces with weak labour demand.
{"title":"Does the unemployment trap still exist? The case of the Italian minimum income scheme","authors":"Gianluca Busilacchi, Alessandro Fabbri","doi":"10.1111/spol.12987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12987","url":null,"abstract":"The question of whether welfare benefits imprison recipients in unemployment traps has been at the centre of academic and political debates in recent decades. Empirical evidence at the micro level supports the existence of work disincentive effects of welfare benefits, although of a small magnitude. However, the question of whether this translates into lower aggregate employment remains unsettled. This study innovates the existing literature by providing an estimation of the impact of the monetary component of the Italian minimum income scheme (MIS) on the employment rate. Isolating this impact from the spurious pro-work effects of the Active Labour Market Policies embedded in every contemporary MIS is possible because in the Italian case, in the first quarters of implementation of the policy, the activation side was not operating. We adopt a difference-in-differences method and find that the impact of the monetary component of the Italian MIS on the employment rate is not statistically significant. The finding is robust to different treatment definitions, different specification models and weighted and unweighted econometric analysis. We then carry out a heterogeneous analysis and find that the impact, despite being indistinguishable from zero <i>on average</i>, is significant and negative for provinces with weak labour demand.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"21 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138507415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：