{"title":"财富与福利:私人和公共安全网能补偿资产贫困吗?","authors":"Severin Rapp, S. Humer","doi":"10.17645/si.v11i1.5937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economic shocks test the resilience of families around the world. Lockdowns, extended periods of unemployment, and inflation challenge the capabilities of private households to maintain their living standards whilst keeping their budgets in balance. Asset poverty is a concept invoked frequently to measure the capacity of private households to mitigate income loss by relying exclusively on their savings. In contrast to conventional asset poverty measures, we quantify the combined cushioning effect of private and public safety nets. Highlighting the importance of public safety nets and familial networks, this article devises a modified concept of asset poverty: Rather than purely simulating a household’s asset decumulation without replacement income, the modified indicator accounts for replacement income in a static setting. The empirical assessment of modified asset poverty in Europe and America combines harmonised microdata on household finances with simulations of institutional rules set by social insurance systems. Our results reveal how differences in social relations and institutional rules shape cross‐country variation in the vulnerability of private households. We find that, in contrast to the US, where the asset poverty of families is particularly low, households in most European countries are less vulnerable because generous social security systems coexist with low private assets. However, in some European countries, benefit generosity decreases the longer income losses last, exposing time dynamics in vulnerability. Complementing social insurance mechanisms, in countries such as Greece, households are more likely to receive financial support from family or friends. Cross‐national heterogeneity in vulnerability suggests that a shock may have different implications across countries.","PeriodicalId":37948,"journal":{"name":"Social Inclusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wealth and Welfare: Do Private and Public Safety Nets Compensate for Asset Poverty?\",\"authors\":\"Severin Rapp, S. Humer\",\"doi\":\"10.17645/si.v11i1.5937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Economic shocks test the resilience of families around the world. Lockdowns, extended periods of unemployment, and inflation challenge the capabilities of private households to maintain their living standards whilst keeping their budgets in balance. Asset poverty is a concept invoked frequently to measure the capacity of private households to mitigate income loss by relying exclusively on their savings. In contrast to conventional asset poverty measures, we quantify the combined cushioning effect of private and public safety nets. Highlighting the importance of public safety nets and familial networks, this article devises a modified concept of asset poverty: Rather than purely simulating a household’s asset decumulation without replacement income, the modified indicator accounts for replacement income in a static setting. The empirical assessment of modified asset poverty in Europe and America combines harmonised microdata on household finances with simulations of institutional rules set by social insurance systems. Our results reveal how differences in social relations and institutional rules shape cross‐country variation in the vulnerability of private households. We find that, in contrast to the US, where the asset poverty of families is particularly low, households in most European countries are less vulnerable because generous social security systems coexist with low private assets. However, in some European countries, benefit generosity decreases the longer income losses last, exposing time dynamics in vulnerability. Complementing social insurance mechanisms, in countries such as Greece, households are more likely to receive financial support from family or friends. Cross‐national heterogeneity in vulnerability suggests that a shock may have different implications across countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Inclusion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Inclusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i1.5937\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i1.5937","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Wealth and Welfare: Do Private and Public Safety Nets Compensate for Asset Poverty?
Economic shocks test the resilience of families around the world. Lockdowns, extended periods of unemployment, and inflation challenge the capabilities of private households to maintain their living standards whilst keeping their budgets in balance. Asset poverty is a concept invoked frequently to measure the capacity of private households to mitigate income loss by relying exclusively on their savings. In contrast to conventional asset poverty measures, we quantify the combined cushioning effect of private and public safety nets. Highlighting the importance of public safety nets and familial networks, this article devises a modified concept of asset poverty: Rather than purely simulating a household’s asset decumulation without replacement income, the modified indicator accounts for replacement income in a static setting. The empirical assessment of modified asset poverty in Europe and America combines harmonised microdata on household finances with simulations of institutional rules set by social insurance systems. Our results reveal how differences in social relations and institutional rules shape cross‐country variation in the vulnerability of private households. We find that, in contrast to the US, where the asset poverty of families is particularly low, households in most European countries are less vulnerable because generous social security systems coexist with low private assets. However, in some European countries, benefit generosity decreases the longer income losses last, exposing time dynamics in vulnerability. Complementing social insurance mechanisms, in countries such as Greece, households are more likely to receive financial support from family or friends. Cross‐national heterogeneity in vulnerability suggests that a shock may have different implications across countries.
期刊介绍:
Social Inclusion is a peer-reviewed open access journal, which provides academics and policy-makers with a forum to discuss and promote a more socially inclusive society. The journal encourages researchers to publish their results on topics concerning social and cultural cohesiveness, marginalized social groups, social stratification, minority-majority interaction, cultural diversity, national identity, and core-periphery relations, while making significant contributions to the understanding and enhancement of social inclusion worldwide. Social Inclusion aims at being an interdisciplinary journal, covering a broad range of topics, such as immigration, poverty, education, minorities, disability, discrimination, and inequality, with a special focus on studies which discuss solutions, strategies and models for social inclusion. Social Inclusion invites contributions from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and specializations, inter alia sociology, political science, international relations, history, cultural studies, geography, media studies, educational studies, communication science, and language studies. We welcome conceptual analysis, historical perspectives, and investigations based on empirical findings, while accepting regular research articles, review articles, commentaries, and reviews.