The EU and minimum Income protection: clarifying the policy conundrum

Download fulltext

CSB WORKING PAPER centreforsocialpolicy eu June 2012 No 12 / 05 University of Antwerp Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy Sint-Jacobstraat 2 BE – 2000 fax +32 (0)3 265 57 98 The EU and Minimum Income Protection: Clarifying the Conundrum Frank Vandenbroucke Bea Cantillon Natascha Van Mechelen Tim Goedemé Anne Lancker Conundrum1 Working Paper ABSTRACT Should be involved in governance minimum income protection if it should which role precisely? This question raises a complex policy conundrum We focus on proposal by European AntiPoverty Network (EAPN) an Framework Directive Protection order to examine three aspects that conundrum: (1) instrumental relevance protection; (2) unequal burden redistributive effort would required across Union were impose hic et nunc guarantee 60% or 40% median national all Member States; (3) impact dependency traps under same hypothesis illustrate each these observations empirically using cross-nationally comparable data living conditions (EU-SILC) levels (CSB-MIPI) Since harmonised scheme requires significantly greater budgetary behalf some poorer States Eastern Southern Europe about meaning solidarity within Enhanced cannot decoupled from enhanced among vice versa Simultaneously put positive pressure richer gradually improve overall quality efficiency their welfare regimes In this context prospect flexibly introducing more binding framework may become realistic Keywords: harmonisation convergence 1 working paper is pre-publication version Chapter 11 Palgrave MacMillan book May Reference as follows: F B N T A ‘The clarifying conundrum’ forthcoming Ive Marx Kenneth Nelson (eds ) Flux Correspondence frank vandenbroucke@econ kuleuven THE AND MINIMUM INCOME PROTECTION: CLARIFYING POLICY CONUNDRUM 3 Introduction not dual lies at heart chapter Saying difficult understatement are staunch defenders notion any decent society have place efficient also believe needs incorporate credible social dimension into its actions However designing specific entails range complicated problems ignored Sometimes one has brave enough ideas cherishes test argument counterargument hope they will emerge stronger That what we set out do consider need inclusion uncontroversial ‘fixed points’ inquiry Hence first sight our discussion confined versus those subnational institutions outcome fundamental normative exploration history initiatives shows hand only highly but constant flux described introductory Our reasoning realm depends other rapidly changing dimensions development polity upshot current reinforcement EU’s economic surveillance change prevailing views legitimacy opportunity with regard Clearly political ‘caring Europe’ now urgent than ever aim translate practical proposals; contribute sound proposals section list factors underlying see second sketch simple conceptual classification matrix domain third outlines Section four focuses contributing (seemingly limited) fifth conclude final judgement synthesis issues stake 4 NO Designing extremely least six reasons: diversity architectural systems; logic subsidiarity; nexus rights obligations relationship between input domain; finally ‘solidarity’ Economic obvious yet often underemphasized Using purchasing power parities (PPP) excluding Luxembourg outlier top end GDP per capita Bulgaria poorest 27 amounts 33% richest State By way comparison Mississippi US states 51% American state (likewise outliers rich small scarcely populated District Columbia Delaware Alaska) want include incorporated territory Puerto Rico comparison: Rico’s relative so calculated 36% implying position actually better divide even blatant terms at-risk-of-poverty rates poverty thresholds lowest threshold basis EU-SILC observed Romania; PPP less one-fifth (18 5%) highest exclude both Cyprus ‘special cases’ If Romania poor equal 31% (once Cyprus) calculate similar gap smaller; dispersion household incomes low registers percentage citizens confronted Bulgaria’s just 16% Luxembourg’s correction huge: euros figures 11% (without Luxembourg) 6% (with quoted further text dollars take account price differences (60% equivalent incomes) singles expressed reported Table coefficient variation (Member) (i e around unweighted mean standard deviation divided mean) whereas 15% indicating much lower Due 5 severe material deprivation i people who afford nine essential items5 : 35% population severely materially deprived compared 3% Sweden large 15 ‘old’ (the EU15) countries joined since 2004 EU12) apparent Figure displays individual (that net disposable income) EUwide For level figure proportion persons respective EU15 EU12 6 About below EU-wide no fewer 90% new limitations use here total without adjustment size Please note alternative procedures calculation inhabitants households) lead different rankings result strongly differing estimates (calculations based 2009; US: “Two-Year-Average Median Household State: 2007 2010” U S Census Bureau Current Population Survey 2008 2011 Annual Supplements downloaded http://www census gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/index html (last accessed 2012) items refer ability pay rent mortgage utility bills; keep home adequately warm; face unexpected expenses; (4) eat meat protein regularly; (5) go holiday; (6) buy television (7) washing machine (8) car (9) telephone Relative converted standards 1: frequency distribution 2009 0 01 02 03 04 06 07 08 09 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 frquency Equivalized % EU27 Notes: EU15: 2004: Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Slovakia Slovenia well (since 2007) Incomes consumption (Eurostat line database) Source: UDB own calculations Considering number whole does (Marlier al 69) 7 sure inequality primarily matter 8 But (Milanovic 176) conceive ‘union’ ready homogenizing federal policies case (which turns assigns important levers level) Obviously comparative assessment record absolute nature indicator; Notten de Neubourg (2011) compare indicators wide indices (except well-known Gini coefficient) withinmember accounts 70% (own 2) Architectural general particular recurring theme reiterate Initiatives streamline challenge assistance schemes such insurance systems wage guarantees industrial structures Convention (and logic) dictates hierarchy benefits tier floors Raising require lifting reorganizing entire edifice; presuppose substantial performance labour markets embedded in) can offer sufficiently high wages Subsidiarity constitutes reason why defining principle stating matters best handled smallest centralized competent authority acquired status legal principle: shall act objectives proposed action achieved therefore scale effects (art Treaty Union) Apart there traditional cleavage ‘subsidiarists’ (who prefer minimize direct interventions fortiori protection) ‘federalists’ open intervention too) difficulty when comes subsidiarity debates considerable domestic implementation design 9 Kazepov Barberis document ‘a converging trend towards decentralization’ qualify ‘subsidiarization process’; notably activation in-kind provision increasingly defined local analysis process fragmentation: ‘as long relevant resources regulated redistributed degrees coherence higher might expect’ (Kazepov 2010 p71 words extent ‘framing’ linked complete partial funding Conversely leads following conclusion: euro-federalists easily reject appeal regional To positively where responsibility traditionally subsidiarization ongoing proponents develop strong arguments justify degree ‘EU framing’ parallel financial As present theoretical issue fourth related field (see Timo Weishaupt book) involves balance obligation seek employment falls deemed fit work Political opinions diverge conceptions imply right influenced contextual availability market opportunities individuals claiming apart fact how strike delicate makes operationalize reference albeit implicit importance formulated implemented agencies say hard legislation justiciable before courts; specify concomitant tangible citizens’ daily lives crucially depend judgements contexts output Any upscale framing must indicate served instrument enhancing desirable outcomes demonstrated initiative costs instance Employment Strategy increase budgets active guaranteed rather straightforward provide ready-made upscaling Finally argue clarify conception references ‘European solidarity’ carry contradictory meanings adds One difficulties frame ‘obstacles upscaling’ Obstacles necessarily immovable insurmountable move manage them clearly identified Some already been examined elsewhere add analyses sketching provides illustrations obstacles encountered leading us query Scope Initiatives: Conceptual Matrix With view mapping possible ‘ways out’ outlined previous useful classify two criteria: whether establish first-order inputs Further bifurcations added (notably create claim courts) two-dimensional suffices problem borrow distinction ‘first-order governance’ ‘secondorder Armstrong introduces his careful ‘Europeanization policy’ discussing future Open Method Coordination (OMC) Although expression appears passing remark Armstrong’s contrasting second-order illuminating robust According OMC essentially remain so): 10 ‘(…) governing means transmission anti-poverty strategy instead monitoring evaluating themselves adopted strategic approach analysing resulting ’ (Armstrong 2010: 295) substitutes processes essence substitute another seeks externally influence constituted system When define whereby choose outline strategies monitor results governed mandatory principles issued then clear ‘second-order Consider example education: imposes target school drop-out submit attain self-chosen objective secondorder governance; contrast upon education compulsory till age 18 highlights ‘input ‘outcome concerning refers reduce early leavers; leavers relates desired former exemplifies latter seems suggest ipso facto whilst inevitably implies turn point instruments residual constitute policy; goals makers pursue diminishing So oblige every adequate criteria ‘adequate assistance’ effect organizing focusses intervenes directly structure States’ Alternatively guidelines follow up vis-à-vis evolution level; Inclusion instantiates although weak sense non-binding Would make sense? indeed applies Eurozone attempt implement strict existing targets replacement understanding macro-economic external competitiveness qualified organize concept conceivable inclusion? single (say cut half given date) interference qualifies applied today practice combinations approaches adequacy assessed actual empirical produced (a of) combined vein firstorder seen neat dichotomy: continuum classifying concrete is: precision highest? common broad loose developing nationally precise predominantly thus effectively constraining elements introduced Notwithstanding fuzzy distinctions illustrates wish stage First-order Second-order Input Outcome C D moves ‘input’ ‘outcome’ (shifting A/B C/D 1) ‘first-order’ ‘second-order’ A/C B/D) deliberate attempts overcome postulate priori incompatible diversity; true strictly uniform application (For Anti-Poverty discussed next envisages definition ‘adequacy’ x% takes choice perceived most promising namely shift bottom row and/or column methodologies depicted Historically shifting pattern visible illustrated ‘harmonization’ ‘convergence’ Activist entrepreneurs Commission Council openly argued was feasible generation fitted Lisbon archetypal mixture flexible none enforceable recall guideline as: ‘Member setting raising rate reaching 70%’; stating: ‘Every unemployed person offered start months unemployment young adults (…)’ did Heidenreich Zeitlin overview) Gradually became stricter broadly unchanged orientations Today’s situated firmly boxes D; certain classified box address (e g start’ quoted) launched after Summit March interpreted admission forward 13 relying sanctions attached peer assertion ‘open coordination’ orientation clever maybe above echoes Martin Rhodes’s Rhodes emphasizes relations frames emergence largely ‘efforts pro-integration élites member-state vetoes neutralize operation double socialists/social democrats liberals’(2010 p 287) however concludes being solution ‘double cleavage’ fell victim cleavages tensions creation merely illusory ways arises: governance? Borrowing conceptualization reformulate studied interrelated questions: think protection? ii (only) outcomes? iii Is guaranteeing citizen country governance?10 phrase ‘should’ ‘can’ questions happenstance: desirability feasibility options critical comment posing Jonathan pointed key imposing sub-questions (i) (ii) answer abstracto content Zeitlin’s potential realization goal enabling secure access goods services participate fully life (One could recommendation understood experimentalist rights; Sabel 2010; 14 Brief History From outset cooperation integration underpinned intellectually 1950s report group experts International Labour Organization chairmanship Bertil Ohlin Swedish economist made pioneering contribution theory international trade (International 1956) starting law advantage according stimulate growth mechanism suffice effective improvement Against background major pacts supported post-war confidence spectre tax competition dumping French socialists saw threat prompting favour clauses Rome) averted through remains basic philosophy day Yet call ‘more never died completely Especially 1990s combating providing come fore prominently consistently areas recurrent briefly main steps (for extensive overviews Marlier 2007; 2010) led outcomeoriented stages oscillating (soft) subsections taken subsection discusses Recommendation Active 2020 remainder ‘Harmonization’ ‘Convergence’ gained momentum 1980s Initially remained quietly despite several not-so-successful agenda After 1970s successive ‘Poverty Programmes’ describing quantifying inconsequential resolution 1989 asserted ‘combating exclusion regarded part internal market’ (Council Charter year equally vague And run-up establishment 1993 preparatory documents conspicuously quiet harmonization security neither necessary nor 1987; Schmähl 1990) Still 24 1992 sufficient emerging (Ferrera 2002) calls ‘progressively cover situations possible’ It recognize ‘basic live manner compatible human dignity’ ‘to adapt necessary’ mind defines able subject ‘active vocational training obtaining work’ called ensure ‘whose condition render ‘receive help enter re-enter life’ (very) soft variant subscribed spirit aiming uniformity had hitherto intellectual came Indeed spoke ‘convergence policies’ Subsequently abandoned replaced On insight likely yield progress (due ‘unfeasible undesirable unnecessary’ (Deleeck 1991)) ambition (such introduction standards) reduction) left decide accordance requirements preferences deploy opt spending) shaped effectuating 16 Indicators supporting agreed including eradication developed supposed enable learn another’s experiences previously (Treaty Amsterdam 1997) extended Nice Laeken purpose measuring (Atkinson referred ‘soft coordination’: achieve manifold authors emphasized ‘mutual learning’ Hemerijck (2012) (2010 ‘experimentalist Others stressed model’ (Vandenbroucke 2002); coordination exert intelligent counter-pressure pressures due Stability Growth Pact relation quantification socalled ‘social indicators’ These measure things ends meet long-term households premature draw National Action Plan detailing intend situation ‘objectives-oriented originally intended (rather effort) laid foundation ‘…our concern feature member principle…Member agree free methods realized’ 2002 20) 17 At December 2001 consensus reached portfolio (on health housing Important agreement policymaking Various build relating risks jobless depth duration subsequently refined thanks excellent Sub-Group addition original designed pensions included indicator (by comparing line) variable evaluation Perhaps marks beginning phase They arguably articulation growing awareness connection ‘common objectives’ pursued merger OMCs crucial domains) undoubtedly facilitated New Agenda 2005-2010 back discourse ‘Active Inclusion’ (Frazer October excluded occupies central ‘design integrated comprehensive strategy’ ‘the support inclusive far concerned explicit mentioned Thus while building Recommendations somewhat encompassing respect treatment Nonetheless institutional prescriptive certainly avoids guarantees’ 282) lays down strands leaving dominant thrust mainly symbolic ‘high politics’ prove ineffective (Leibfried review organized quite Frazer testifies examination 2009) assess real assume influences entertained dismissed trivial Parliament Resolution goes step further: stresses ‘minimum integration’ concerned’ factions compelled introduce rejected Plenary Session approved study provisional slow Union’s time quantified indicators: risk unable determined items) very intensity 20 million criticized various First Graaf-Zijl Nolan component reducing ambiguous objection easy reach rapid decrease 2005 Europeans affected ‘severe deprivation’ Third response 19 loosely connected criticism concerns project ambitious: met course Moreover pointing problematic Reform Programmes socially short (European 2011) writing eventually respond recommendations observation achieving cautious over last years elaborate civil servants scope underestimated Second promises potentially follow-up formulates constrain choices (albeit lesser extent) whatever intrinsic weaknesses headline Will cheap talk focal Council? direction politics warrant optimism crisis attention focused regaining seem seat recent Public Management Institute Vanhercke Lelie EAPN Proposal Binding complement research (EAPN intelligently crafted combining type (an income); produces directive consist distinct principal chapters obliges 31 latest leaves possibility combination food clothing etc timeline amount ‘work-in-progress’: describes methodology ‘Adequate Schemes’ shared comprise transparent up-rating mechanisms coverage improved take-up participation experiencing shaping contain Mutual Information System (MISSOC) establishing beyond method determining consensualized budget Bradshaw Warnaar Luten devise dignity independent network non-governmental organizations (NGOs) groups fight against established 1990 partners combat 21 basket participatory consensualizes NGOs represent stakeholders approach13 challenges construction (Storms 2011a b) More specifically allowing landmark intermediate dignified Ensuring provisions measures roadmaps enforce Consideration remedies enforcement wronged lack allows legitimate interest judicial administrative equality non-discrimination directives arguing income; underestimate significance Storms (2011a) Rottiers elaboration interplay putting bettered ambitious gradual ‘work-in-progress’ performed entailed peer-review-social-inclusion eu/peer-reviews/2010/using-reference-budgets-fordrawing-up-the-requirements-of-a-minimum-income-scheme-and-assessing-adequacy 22 Importantly base treaties (in TFEU Functioning art 153 h) Relying article allow deal argues catalyst limitation h ‘excluded workable job reasons (age caring responsibilities difficulties…) expects ‘people Defining subset upward Admittedly intuitive evidence it; tear assistance: architecture EAPN’s scrutinized carefully Verschueren adoption exclusion’ mentions limited ‘persons deems uncertain legally non-legal listed Legally Guarantee: Three Interrogations revisit presents formidable link envisaged underscores formulation 23 uneven Both articulations characterizing (Seemingly Limited) Instrumental Relevance play either shape society’s indirectly safety benefit generosity’ (further abbreviated ‘benefit generosity’) average ratio package (including taxes contributions allowances child benefits) five model families elderly persons14: couple children (aged 14) lone parent 2011; volume)15 correlation generosity for: (abbreviated AROP60-ALL AROP40-ALL) 60; normalized (FGT1)16 AROP60 AROP40 realising 20% full-time follows ‘poverty reduction transfers’ (point iv below) questionable pension transfers An representative sample micro-simulation moment models like EUROMOD allowed near full-year AROP60-WI AROP40- WI)17; difference ‘post transfer’ AROP ‘pre obtained (pensions excepted) respondents’ (POVRED60 POVRED40) correlations pretend reveal causality association expect headcount truly many account: sources (assets liabilities) eligible test? Which behavioural conditionalities apply? How takeup assured (or maximized)? affect (AROP-ALL AROP-WI) Nevertheless (AROP-WI) relatively AROP-ALL (FGT1) especially non-take-up widespread correlate generosity) still FGT Foster 1984; Decancq forthcoming) measurement plays overview Corluy Erik Schokkaert post-transfer extreme zero posttransfer zero; nevertheless ascertain elimination definitions used correspond deviate concepts (different units equivalence scales disregards tests (but poverty) …) found lines 25 varies Hernanz 2004; Fuchs documented volume differ vary blur picture thing (non- )discretionary ups heating considerably receive (Van Furthermore Chapters less) generous categorical immigrants disabled elderly) restrict targeted discretionary reductions limits crossnational tenure composition family simulations Last large-scale surveys prone errors Kerm Verma Betti Consequently negative expected (AROP) slightly foregoing corroborated recipients (below Bahle non-means-tested usually larger means-tested Scandinavian (Sainsbury Morissens 2002; 2004) foremost reflect effectiveness 26 2: Correlation non-elderly All MS Old EU24 EU14 EU10 coefficients AROP60-ALL(post-transfer headcount) – 225 343 044 FGT1 (poverty 60%) 313 587** 031 POVRED60 (ppt transfers) 320 574** (post-transfer =< 316 535** 091 > 85 330 418 128 AROP40-ALL(post-transfer 404** 672*** 120 POVRED40 424** 624*** 137 AROP40-WI 478*** 785*** 001 279 475* 218 measured families: 2011); *** Significant 025; ** significant 050; Sources: CSB-MIPI display AROP60- ALL 28 becomes index largest proportions Spain Portugal Poland) Greece too comparatively Ireland having Austria Finland similarly Within find AROP40-ALL (FTG1 threshold) pre-transfer (mechanical) (POVRED); again divergent patterns yields strongest Countries generally work-poor households20 There exceptions particularly appear driven old negligible possibly stems inaccessibility nontake-up combines mediocre though attributable entitlement probably clout Explorative show increased period covered suggests automatic stabilizer reinforced times crises 29 non-correlation tool alleviating Rather drive message: regarding serve look Atkinson normally (though insignificant) segment tends associated edifice explains work-rich tend country’s propose together enables regression (reduction) dependent benchmark ‘above’ ‘below’ performers France records perform expected’ POVRED UK WI performances Italy worse benchmarking exercise cautiously because rely intervals them) signal nets Latvian devolved regions great interregional eligibility (Minas Overbye overestimate 30 typical city North (Milan) Italy21 (compared inefficient respects admittedly tentative confirm correlates simultaneously high) explained inadequate) se explanatory cross-country marginally market; contributory explaining aggregate marginalized conclusions area restricted practices exacerbates regulation detailed: detailed weakening priority positioning reconsideration ought operational needed fully-fledged well-functioning modest regime counts; curative capacity steering pondering take-over satisfactory Its consistency ‘bite’ strengthened Palier entertain (using guidance puts value complement? well-conceived generate inspires inclusion; reinforce good strengthen austerity vulnerable victims States? Why level? substantiates recognizes maintain popular fundamentally political: appropriate powerless; playing market) dignity) multi-tiered minimal balancing ‘market-making rights’ rights’; otherwise 32 sustainability congenial ‘OMC-driven constitutionalism’ accountable conceptualizing realizing […] function court-led constitutionalism prise nation demonstrate reconciled OMC-driven demand explanations exercises sovereignty values protecting 261-262) depart ‘are test’ substantive consistent ‘outcome-oriented’ guidance’ limit downward substantiate politically market-making conceived character creating genuinely really derived ‘avoids law/soft assumes imperative facing ones strengthening OMW conceptualized singular ‘mode making assemblage 33 Unequal Redistributive Effort Next interrogation sake suppose compel simplistic ‘redistributive effort’ euros) threshold:   max{ 0} max 100*    n x z = xi formula indicates ‘effort’ non-poor closed redistribution costless qualification ‘costless’ responses cost express governments running push average) spend countries; calculating overlook Data (all ages) non-equivalent (we 3) ‘living standards’ controlling modified OECD scale) big 34 3: Indicator eliminate CZ FR HU AT SI NL FI L SK MT IE CY DE PT PL SE EE DK GR IT BG ES V RO eq Note: 95% (cf relativity lift national-specific Reading note: 8% close illustrative purposes mechanical ignores incentive change: supply (more lousy low-paid jobs; effort); boundary exaggerate ‘cost’ totally misrepresent pure transfers; increasing examples protest ‘Robin Hood’ simulated cry historical reiterates capable raise spend) lot money committed redistribution: involving multitude redistribute government expenditure 71 35 rough indication unequally 5% others (Bulgaria Romania) 7% always gap: closing little effort; Denmark GDP/capita holds inefficiency Spanish Italian cluster greatest encompasses 4: LT LU LV 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 0% 1% 2% 4% 9% inhabitant High Low vertical axis crosses horizontal weighted PPS Eurostat database (GDP/capita) 36 Finland) Spain) smaller looks ‘feasible’ disparity pronounced Whereas increases demanding disproportionately ‘better performers’ class falling obstacle kind foreseeable Now wonder low-work dependence expenditures construe counterfactual successful doing mitigate perhaps eliminating (2002) (2009) discuss universal Vandeninden examines (residual) (2010) 22) Starting Levy Lietz Sutherland (2007) consequences tax-benefit halved 18% 27% relate deviates Atkinson’s purely selective supplement granted whose estimated scenario unevenly distributed 37 conclusion moderate initial Poorer additional (tax) middle higher-income ‘middle incomes’ (Fahey Lelkes ‘internal’ vs panEuropean Poverty Threshold Top 1st quintile 4th Structural Funds (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 122 055 764 528 439 239 580 491 133 615 574 322 011 699 423 490 846 237 540 762 755 983 933 934 793 602 838 138 557 559 590 995 831 163 007 688 061 227 655 041 119 477 707 451 220 241 760 205 275 710 869 Belgium 398 404 821 Germany 634 734 430 704 176 448 713 256 897 416 943 Netherlands 293 455 800 318 201 840 630 433 048 461 39 905 cut-off distributive nonequivalent (2006-2013) yearly (David Allen pp 246- 247) 38 Column ranks ranking (Romania) (Luxembourg) extremes diverging factor eight (Romania Slovakia) seven highlighted grey columns Columns expresses receiving presented Figures notable exceptions: side; remarkably ladder Let (according PPP) fellow improving corresponding (at contradict Or blunt way: boil segments cynically asking themselves? Before Suppose crossborder transfer compensate Given bitter resistance suggestion ‘transfer union’ belongs fiction stand transferred 2006-2012) deploys via matches fund match) extra available Funds; finances pan-European organization Europeanized (A conditional conditionality idea simply uses efforts Does implied necessitate funding? hinges pan-European? alleviation? implicitly drop perspective replace solidarity; Enabling parcel official ‘mission statement’ vocation cohesion interaction anachronistic continue ‘cohesion insight: Claims justice arise get cooperation; legitimizes claims thorough 40 evaluative dualism irreducible reduced trade-off let alone algorithm collapsed twin run assessing; pan-European; convincing Someone object rationale taking clear-cut ‘having GDP/capita’ gap’ Greece) spending underdeveloped contrasted well-developed (Hungary 40%) guarantee: obviously boils externalizing failures unwillingness redistribute… foundations Sangiovanni (forthcoming) Fahey competences 41 ‘internal (to conform exacting demands avoid externalisation failure) hand? wellknown solidarity: delineate delineating Solidarity mutually interdependent Impact Dependency Traps destroy tension claimants minimum-wage earners Europe-wide minimums inactivity trap eleven States: recipient 25% 30% wage; claimant 14% Less United Kingdom raised 50% hypothetical (between %) Only augmented switch heterogeneity incentives world subtle underscore 42 Net (full time)* assumption 40-50-60% Raise (Vienna) 61 92 53 79 127 76 115 86 129 58 87 107 51 77 73 110 55 83 66 99 70 105 75 112 88 132 (Catalonia) 78 116 * Based statutory (Denmark Sweden) except Austrian collectively “Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund” “Wirtschaftskammer Österreich” leather fur sector severity coincide genuine lacking enormous activated rarely (Cantillon & struck duties reasonable inadequate presupposes prevent marginal 43 Conclusion: Caring Care Demand Efficiency Everywhere suggested rebalancing input-oriented outcome-oriented experience decade mandated information validated statistical apparatus utterly acquire gain prominence Forcing fall heaviest negatively bear rule ‘unequal burden’ agreements unison consideration aimed covering child-rearing standardized incrementally 44 rich’ poor’ affluent) confronts discarded: implementing dispense ‘efficient virtuous circle (domestic) (pan-European) What this? bring forth? prosperity combine rules regions? discussions no-go meanwhile stuck? opening disposal (possibly today) (introducing Fund leverage) Meanwhile seriously bite (this investment 2020) indicated Fundamentally opposition anything resembles collective sovereign debt creates stalemate stability De Grauwe conflate 45 Acknowledgement thank Dirk Neumann Koen Annette Freyberg helpful usual disclaimers apply References Cohesion Policy: Extending Bargain Meet Challenges’ H Wallace M Pollack R Young Policy-Making Oxford: Oxford Press 229-252 Governing Europeanization E Bourguignon O’Donoghue Utili ‘Microsimulation Union: Case Study Pension’ Economica 69(274): 229- 243 Reinstadler Distribution Financial Context Presented Conference (Warsaw March) 34p Hubl Pfeifer Safety handbook Bristol: 271p J (1993) Budget Standards Aldershot: Avebury ‘Between dream reality … Anti-poverty Model’ P Ploscar EU: Interaction Law Antwerpen: Intersentia O Pintelon den Heede (2012 Reduction Capacity Protection’ 46 Better Worse Richer (1989) Ministers Affairs Meeting September Combating Exclusion [1989] OJ C277/1 Conclusions jobs smart sustainable Brussels ‘Household joblessness Journal 21(5):413-431 Managing Fragile CESifo Forum 12(2) 40-45 K Bosch Vanhille data’ (eds) (1987) ‘Un programme d’action communautaire’ (ed L’avenir la sécurité sociale en Paris: Economica: 229-243 (1991) lessen zekerheid Acco: Leuven drawing assessing Comment Peer Review Assessment Namur November Appendix Progress Report Objectives EU-Wide Measure Sociological 23(1): 35-47 Ferrera Matsaganis ‘Open poverty: process’ 12(3): 227-239 Greer Thorbecke (1984) ‘A Class Decomposable Measures’ Econometrica 52(3):761-766 Schemes Across Synthesis Brussels: DG Equal Opportunities ‘Strengthening Learning Past’ Natali VAN DAM Towards EU? I Peter Lang 47 Assistance Thanks? Non-Take-up Phenomenon Patterns Vienna: 12p ‘How Confidence EU-SILC? Complex Sample Designs Standard Error Indicators’ Research DOI: 1007/s11205-011-9918-2 Enlarged Discussion Definitions Groups’ Sociology Compass 5(1): 77-91 W Universal Basic Pension Europe’s Elderly: Options Pitfalls’ Studies 4(1):Article 26p Malherbet Pellizzari (2004) Take-Up Welfare Benefits Countries: Evidence Migration Papers 17: Publishing 48p Changing Regimes Routledge (1956) ‘Social Aspects Co-operation Group Experts (summary)’ 74 Y ‘Rescaling Policies Multi-level Governance Europe: reflections Processes Actors involved’ Yuri Rescaling Policies: Ashgate 35-72 Leibfried Left Judges Markets?’ Helen Mark Alisdair PolicyMaking Sixth Edition 253-281 ‘Swapping Alternative Tax-Benefit Strategies Support Children UK’ 625-647 Inclusion: Facing Challenges Dam Milanovic Haves Have-Nots Idiosyncratic Global Inequality Books York Minas Øverbye Territorial 48 Multilevel Surrey (UK)/ Burlington (USA) Ashgate: 203-240 ‘Mechanisms alleviation: non-means tested states’ 14(1):371-390 G ‘Monitoring ‘not enough’ ‘much less’’ Wealth 57(2) Evaluation Effectiveness 2006 Improving Strengthening Commissioned Vilnius ‘Employment Between Efficacy Experimentation’ 281-306 Sainsbury mid- 1990s: 12: 307-327 ‘Solidarity Problems Prospects’ Dickson Eleftheriadis Philosophical Foundations Schmahl (1990) ‘Demographic security’ Economics 159-177 Budgets: Are Line? FISS Sigtuna 8-10 (2011b) ‘De meting van armoede Europese Unie: een pleidooi voor ontwikkeling referentiebudgetten’ Tijdschrift Sociologie 32(3-4): 470-496 ‘Benchmarking Decade on: Demystifying OMC’s Tools’ Fenna Knuepling Benchmarking Federal Systems: Australian Experiences Productivity Commission: Melbourne Extreme Estimation IRISS Series 2007-01 Luxembourg: CEPS-Instead 51p (http://www europolitics info/pdf/gratuit_en/279353-en pdf) 49 Marchal CSB-Minimum dataset 5/2011 Antwerp: ‘Foreword’ Gosta Esping-Andersen Duncan Gallie Anton John Myles pact OSE Without vision mutual trust trapped short-term management Kirsty Hughes’ ‘Ten failures’ Friends Individual decomposition CSBWorking 12/06 simulation MGSoG 2012/8 ‘Data Accuracy EU-SILC’ Living Conditions Publications Office 57-78 ‘Union Fight Poverty: Legal Instruments’ Handbook Budgets Netherlands: Nibud ‘Towards Stronger 2020: Architecture Coordination’ EU?Brussels: Ch Experimentalist ‘Experimentalist Governance’ Levi-Faur