The EU and Minimum Income protection: Clarifying the Policy Conundrum

Download fulltext

1 The EU and Minimum Income Protection: Clarifying the Policy Conundrum Frank Vandenbroucke Bea Cantillon Natascha Van Mechelen Tim Goedemé Anne Lancker (*) We thank Erik Schokkaert Jonathan Zeitlin Dirk Neumann Kenneth Armstrong Koen Decancq Ive Marx Nelson Sian Jones Mary Daly Björn Halleröd Christos Koutsampelas Paul Stubbs for helpful criticism usual disclaimers apply Draft 6 Chapter 11 in Palgrave MacMillan book on Protection 2 May 2012 Reference should be as follows: F B N T A ‘The clarifying policy conundrum’ forthcoming in: Flux Correspondence to frank vandenbroucke@econ kuleuven Should involved or not governance of minimum income protection if it which role precisely? This is dual question that lies at heart this chapter Saying difficult would an understatement are staunch defenders notion any decent society have place efficient guarantee also believe needs incorporate a credible social dimension into its actions However designing specific entails range complicated problems cannot ignored Sometimes one has brave enough put ideas cherishes test argument counterargument hope they will emerge all stronger That what we set out do consider need inclusion uncontroversial ‘fixed points’ inquiry Hence first sight our discussion confined European versus those national subnational institutions outcome more fundamental normative exploration meaning solidarity Europe history initiatives shows hand only highly complex but constant flux described by introductory Our reasoning realm depends other – rapidly changing dimensions development polity upshot current reinforcement EU’s budgetary economic surveillance may change prevailing views legitimacy opportunity with regard Clearly political ‘caring Europe’ now urgent than ever aim translate practical proposals; contribute sound about proposals In section list factors underlying conundrum see second sketch simple conceptual classification matrix domain third outlines Section four focuses three contributing conundrum: (seemingly limited) instrumental relevance protection; unequal burden redistributive effort required across Union were impose hic et nunc 60% 40% median Member States; impact dependency traps under same hypothesis fifth conclude final judgement synthesis issues stake Designing extremely least six reasons: diversity architectural their systems; logic subsidiarity; nexus rights obligations context relationship between input domain; finally ‘solidarity’ Economic among States 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 within actually better divide even blatant terms at-risk-of-poverty rates poverty thresholds lowest threshold basis EU-SILC observed Romania; using PPP less one-fifth (18 5%) highest exclude both Cyprus ‘special cases’ If Romania poor equal 31% Bulgaria’s just 16% Luxembourg’s correction huge: euros figures 11% (without Luxembourg) 6% (with quoted further text dollars take account price differences 3 (once Cyprus) calculate similar gap smaller; dispersion household incomes low registers percentage citizens confronted severe material deprivation i e people who afford nine essential items4 : 35% population severely materially deprived compared 3% Sweden large 15 ‘old’ (the EU15) countries joined since 2004 EU12) apparent from Figure displays individual living (that equivalent net disposable income) expressed EU-wide For each level figure proportion persons respective EU15 EU12 5 About below whereas no fewer 90% new [Figure here] Considering number whole does significantly much greater (Marlier al 2007 69) sure inequality primarily matter 7 But different (Milanovic 2011 176) conceive (60% incomes) singles reported Table 4 coefficient variation (Member) (i around unweighted mean standard deviation divided mean) 15% indicating lower Due data limitations use here total without adjustment size Please note alternative procedures calculation inhabitants households) lead rankings result strongly differing estimates overall (calculations based 2009; US: “Two-Year-Average Median Household State: 2010” U S Census Bureau Current Population Survey 2008 Annual Social Supplements downloaded http://www census gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/index html (last accessed 2012) 4The items refer ability (1) pay rent mortgage utility bills; (2) keep home adequately warm; (3) face unexpected expenses; (4) eat meat protein regularly; (5) go holiday; (6) buy television (7) washing machine (8) car (9) telephone Relative levels converted standards Obviously comparative assessment record absolute nature indicator; Notten de Neubourg (2011) compare indicators wide indices (except well-known Gini coefficient) within-member accounts 70% (own calculations 2009 UDB version 2) ‘union’ ready homogenizing federal policies case (which turns assigns important levers level) 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 welfare 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 8 To positively where imply initiative costs requires instance Employment Strategy pressure responsibility traditionally subsidiarization on-going proponents binding develop strong arguments justify degree ‘EU framing’ parallel financial As become present theoretical issue fourth related field (see Timo Weishaupt book) involves balance obligation seek employment falls deemed fit work Political opinions diverge conceptions right influenced contextual availability market opportunities individuals claiming apart fact how strike delicate makes operationalize some 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 proposal upscale framing must indicate served instrument enhancing desirable outcomes demonstrated straightforward provide ready-made upscaling Finally argue clarify conception references ‘European solidarity’ carry contradictory meanings adds increase budgets active guaranteed rather One difficulties frame ‘obstacles Obstacles necessarily immovable insurmountable order move manage them clearly identified Some already been examined elsewhere add these analyses sketching illustrate 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 scheme (notably create claim courts) two-dimensional suffices problem borrow distinction ‘first-order governance’ ‘second-order 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): ‘(…) governing means transmission anti-poverty strategy instead monitoring evaluating themselves adopted strategic approach analysing resulting ’ (Armstrong 2010: 295) substitutes own processes essence substitute another seeks externally influence constituted system When define whereby choose outline strategies monitor results governed mandatory principles issued then clear Consider example education: imposes target school drop-out submit attain self-chosen objective 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 focus 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 actual practice ‘input’ ‘output’ character neat continuum poles largely unchartered bifurcation qualifies applied today combinations approaches adequacy assessed empirical produced (a of) combined vein seen dichotomy: classifying concrete is: precision highest? common broad loose developing nationally precise predominantly secondorder thus effectively constraining elements introduced Notwithstanding fuzzy distinctions illustrates wish stage [Table moves ‘outcome’ (shifting A/B C/D 1) ‘first-order’ ‘second-order’ A/C B/D) deliberate attempts overcome postulate priori incompatible diversity; true First-order strictly uniform application (For Anti-Poverty Network Framework Directive 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 12 adults (…)’ did Heidenreich overview) Gradually became stricter broadly unchanged orientations Today’s situated firmly boxes D; certain classified box C address (e g start’ quoted) launched after Summit March 2000 interpreted admission forward D relying sanctions attached peer assertion ‘open coordination’ orientation clever maybe above echoes Martin Rhodes’s Rhodes emphasizes relations frames emergence ‘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 quality (only) outcomes? iii Is guaranteeing citizen country governance?10 10 critical comment posing pointed key desirability feasibility imposing subquestions (i) (ii) answer abstracto content Zeitlin’s potential realization framework goal enabling secure access goods services phrase ‘should’ ‘can’ questions happenstance: options 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) could 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 outcome-oriented stages oscillating (soft) subsections taken subsection discusses Recommendation Active 2020 remainder firstorder ‘Harmonization’ ‘Convergence’ gained momentum 1980s Initially remained quietly despite several not-so-successful agenda After 1970s successive ‘Poverty Programmes’ describing quantifying inconsequential resolution 1989 participate fully life (One recommendation understood experimentalist rights; Sabel 2010; 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 Deleeck 1987; Schmähl 1990) Still 24 June 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 reenter working life’ (very) soft variant subscribed spirit aiming uniformity had hitherto intellectual came Indeed spoke ‘convergence policies’ Subsequently abandoned replaced convergence 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 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 so-called ‘social indicators’ These measure things ends meet long-term households premature draw National Action Plan detailing intend improve situation line ‘objectives-oriented originally intended (rather effort) laid foundation ‘…our concern feature member principle…Member agree free methods realized’ 2002 20) At December 2001 consensus reached portfolio (on health housing Important agreement policymaking Various build relating risks jobless depth duration subsequently refined enhanced thanks excellent Sub-Group addition original designed 13 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 simultaneously paradigm11 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 Space forbids paradigm 14 Parliament Resolution goes step further: stresses ‘minimum integration’ concerned’ groups 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 loosely connected concerns project ambitious: met course Moreover pointing problematic Reform Programmes socially well short (European 2011) writing eventually respond recommendations observation achieving observations cautious over last years Simultaneously 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 EAPN Proposal Binding (EAPN) complement research (EAPN intelligently crafted combining type (an income); produces justifies referring positive commitments Fundamental Rights ‘horizontal clause’ treaty Independent Experts Inclusion(Frazier making method complemented directive Adequate bind leaves flexibility consist distinct principal chapters obliges 31 latest possibility combination recent Public Management Institute Vanhercke Lelie independent network non-governmental organizations (NGOs) fight against established 1990 partners combat 16 food clothing etc timeline gradually 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 determining consensualized budget Bradshaw Warnaar Luten devise realistic dignity basket participatory consensualizes NGOs represent stakeholders approach14 challenges construction cross-nationally comparable (Storms 2011a b) More specifically allowing landmark intermediate dignified Ensuring provisions measures roadmaps enforce Consideration remedies enforcement wronged lack allows legitimate interest peer-review-social-inclusion eu/peer-reviews/2010/using-reference-budgets-for-drawing-up-therequirements-of-a-minimum-income-scheme-and-assessing-adequacy 17 judicial administrative equality non-discrimination directives arguing income; underestimate significance poorer Storms (2011a) Rottiers elaboration interplay putting bettered ambitious gradual ‘work-in-progress’ performed examine entailed Importantly base treaties (in TFEU Functioning art 153 h) Relying article allow deal argues catalyst limitation h ‘excluded work-able job reasons (age caring responsibilities difficulties…) expects ‘people Defining subset upward Admittedly intuitive evidence it; tear EUwide 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 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 persons15 couple children (aged 14) lone parent 2011; volume) correlation generosity for: (abbreviated AROP60-ALL AROP40- ALL) 60; normalized (FGT1)17 follows ‘poverty reduction transfers’ (point iv below) questionable pension transfers An representative sample micro-simulation moment models like EUROMOD allowed near 19 AROP60 AROP40 realising 20% full-time full-year AROP60-WI AROP40-WI)18; 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 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; forthcoming) varies Hernanz 2004; Fuchs documented volume tests units differ equivalence scales vary measurement blur picture thing (non-)discretionary ups heating plays overview Corluy post-transfer extreme zero zero; nevertheless ascertain elimination definitions used correspond Since deviate concepts (different disregards (but poverty) …) found lines considerably receive (Van Furthermore Chapters less) generous categorical immigrants disabled elderly) restrict targeted discretionary reductions limits cross-national tenure composition family simulations Last large-scale surveys prone errors Kerm Verma Betti Consequently negative expected (AROP) slightly 21 foregoing corroborated recipients (below Bahle non-means-tested usually larger means-tested Scandinavian (Sainsbury Morissens 2002; 2004) foremost reflect effectiveness display AROP40-ALL) becomes though particularly index largest proportions Estonia Spain Portugal Poland) Greece too comparatively Czech Republic Hungary Slovenia Ireland having Austria Finland similarly Within find significant AROP40-ALL (FTG1 threshold) somewhat Next overlap receiving considered shown (Halleröd 1991; Larsson 2008) Looking slope regression pre-transfer (mechanical) (POVRED) coefficients POVRED40 again divergent patterns atrisk-of-poverty AROP40-WI yields strongest Countries generally at-risk-ofpoverty work-poor households22 There exceptions appear driven old negligible workpoor possibly stems inaccessibility nontake-up Eastern Latvia combines mediocre attributable entitlement probably clout non-correlation tool alleviating Rather drive message: regarding serve look aspects Atkinson normally (though insignificant) segment suggests tends associated edifice explains 22 Explorative show increased period covered automatic stabilizer reinforced times crises work-rich tend country’s propose together enables (reduction) dependent benchmark ‘above’ ‘below’ performers France records perform expected’ POVRED UK Poland performances Italy Lithuania worse benchmarking exercise cautiously because regressions benchmarks intervals relies them) signal nets Latvian devolved regions great interregional eligibility conditions (Minas & Overbye overestimate typical city North (Milan) Southern Italy23 (compared inefficient respects admittedly tentative confirm correlates high) non-elderly explained inadequate) se explanatory cross-country marginally market; contributory 23 modest explaining aggregate marginalized conclusions area restricted practices exacerbates regulation detailed: detailed weakening priority positioning reconsideration ought operational needed fullyfledged well-functioning regime counts; curative capacity steering pondering take-over satisfactory Its consistency ‘bite’ strengthened Palier entertain introducing (using regimes 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 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 25 idea ILO older earn (ILC 101th session Geneva 25Armstrong’s ‘avoids law/soft assumes imperative facing ones strengthening OMW conceptualized singular ‘mode assemblage ‘outcome-oriented’ guidance’ limit downward substantiate politically market-making conceived creating ‘firstorder’ genuinely really derived Unequal Redistributive Effort interrogation sake suppose compel simplistic ‘redistributive effort’ euros) threshold:   max{ 0} max 0 100*    n x z = xi formula indicates ‘effort’ non-poor closed redistribution costless nonpoor qualification ‘costless’ responses cost express governments running push average) spend countries; calculating 26 overlook Data (all ages) non-equivalent (we 3) illustrative purposes mechanical ignores incentive change: supply (more lousy low-paid jobs; effort); boundary exaggerate ‘cost’ depending financed: affects object totally misrepresents pure transfers; increasing examples protest ‘Robin Hood’ simulated cry historical reiterates capable raise spend) lot money committed redistribution: involving multitude redistribute richer government expenditure 71 rough indication ranking lift unequally 5% others (Bulgaria Romania) ‘living standards’ controlling modified OECD scale) big close 7% always gap: closing little effort; Denmark GDP/capita holds inefficiency Spanish Italian cluster greatest encompasses eliminate Finland) 2% 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 28 18% 27% relate deviates Atkinson’s purely selective supplement granted whose estimated scenario unevenly distributed conclusion moderate initial behalf Poorer additional (tax) middle higher-income ‘middle incomes’ (Fahey Lelkes Column (a) ranks (Romania) (Luxembourg) extremes diverging factor (b) cut-off quintile distribution (c) 4th All eight (Romania Slovakia) seven Netherlands highlighted grey columns Columns (d) (e) (f) expresses Structural Funds % presented Figures notable exceptions: Slovakia side; remarkably 29 ladder Let (according PPP) fellow improving corresponding (at contradict Or blunt way: boil segments cynically asking themselves? Before raises Suppose cross-border transfer compensate Given bitter resistance suggestion ‘transfer union’ belongs fiction stand yearly transferred 2006-2012) deploys via matches fund match) extra available Funds; finances pan-European organization Europeanized (A conditional conditionality simply uses efforts Does implied necessitate funding? hinges panEuropean? alleviation? implicitly drop perspective replace 30 solidarity; Enabling parcel official ‘mission statement’ vocation cohesion interaction anachronistic continue ‘cohesion insight: evaluative dualism irreducible reduced trade-off let alone algorithm collapsed twin run assessing; pan-European; convincing Someone rationale taking distributive justice clear-cut ‘having GDP/capita’ gap’ Greece) spending underdeveloped contrasted well-developed (Hungary 40%) guarantee: obviously efficiency Claims arise get cooperation; legitimizes claims thorough foundations Sangiovanni (forthcoming) Fahey panEuropean competences boils externalizing failures unwillingness redistribute… phenomenon inadequately survey rely chapter’s presentation ‘internal (to conform exacting demands avoid externalisation failure) hand? 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 flexibly incentives measured world subtle underscore 32 severity coincide genuine lacking enormous activated rarely (Cantillon struck duties reasonable inadequate Conclusion: Caring Care Demand Efficiency Everywhere suggested rebalancing outcomeoriented input-oriented experience decade mandated information validated statistical apparatus utterly acquire gain prominence Forcing fall heaviest negatively bear rule ‘unequal burden’ presupposes prevent marginal 33 agreements unison consideration aimed covering child-rearing standardized incrementally rich’ poor’ affluent) confronts discarded: implementing dispense ‘efficient virtuous circle (domestic) (pan-European) What this? bring forth? prosperity32 combine rules regions? discussions no-go meanwhile stuck? opening disposal (possibly today) mere prosperity ‘quality’ emphasize ‘efficiency’ underscored efficiency; moreover non-economic opposition anything resembles collective sovereign debt creates stalemate stability De Grauwe conflate 34 (introducing Fund leverage) Meanwhile seriously bite (this investment 2020) prospect indicated Fundamentally decoupled vice versa 35 References Allen Cohesion Policy: Extending Bargain Meet Challenges’ H Wallace M Pollack R Young (eds Policy-Making Oxford: Oxford University Press pp 229-252 Governing Europeanization E Bourguignon O’Donoghue Utili ‘Microsimulation Union: Case Study Pension’ Economica 69(274): 229-243 Reinstadler Distribution Financial Poverty Context Paper Presented Conference (Warsaw March) 34p Hubl V Pfeifer Safety Net handbook Bristol: 271p J (1993) Budget Standards Aldershot: Avebury ‘Between dream reality … Anti-poverty Model’ P Ploscar EU: Interaction Law Antwerpen: Intersentia O Pintelon VandenHeede Reduction Capacity Investment Inequality (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 den Bosch Vanhille ‘The data’ (eds) 36 (1987) ‘Un programme d’action communautaire’ (ed L’avenir la sécurité sociale en Paris: Economica: (1991) lessen zekerheid Acco: Leuven drawing assessing Comment paper Peer Review Assessment Namur November Appendix Progress Report Objectives EU-Wide Measure Sociological 23(1): 35-47 Ferrera Matsaganis ‘Open poverty: 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 Assistance – No Thanks? Non-Take-up Phenomenon Patterns Germany Vienna: Centre 12p ‘How Confidence EU-SILC? Complex Sample Designs Standard Error Indicators’ Research: DOI: 1007/s11205-011-9918-2 ‘Poverty Enlarged Discussion Definitions Groups’ Sociology Compass 5(1): 77-91 W Universal Basic Pension Europe’s Elderly: Options Pitfalls’ Studies 4(1): Article 26p Den svenska fattigdomen Arkiv Lund (2008) Welfare 17: 15-25 Malherbet Pellizzari (2004) Take-Up Benefits Countries: Evidence Migration Working Papers Publishing 48p 37 Changing Regimes Routledge (1956) ‘Social Aspects Cooperation Group (summary)’ 74 Yuri ‘Rescaling Policies Multi-level Governance Europe: reflections Processes Actors involved’ Rescaling Policies: Ashgate 35-72 Leibfried Stephan Left Judges Markets?’ Helen Mark Alisdair Sixth Edition 253-281 ‘Swapping Alternative Tax-Benefit Strategies Support Children UK’ 625-647 Inclusion: Facing Challenges Dam Milanovic Haves Have-Nots Idiosyncratic Global Books York Minas Øverbye Territorial Multilevel Y Surrey (UK)/ Burlington (USA) Ashgate: 203-240 ‘Mechanisms alleviation: non-means tested 14(1): 371-390 Geranda Chris ‘Monitoring ‘not enough’ ‘much less’’ Wealth Series 57 Number Evaluation Effectiveness 2006 Recommendations Improving Strengthening Commissioned Vilnius ‘Employment Between Efficacy Experimentation’ 281-306 38 Sainsbury mid-1990s: 12: 307-327 ‘Solidarity Problems Prospects’ Dickson Eleftheriadis Philosophical Foundations Schmahl (1990) ‘Demographic security’ Economics 3: 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 (Eds Benchmarking Federal Systems Australian Experiences Productivity Commission: Melbourne Extreme Incomes Estimation IRISS NO 2007-01 Luxembourg: CEPS-Instead 51p (http://www europolitics info/pdf/gratuit_en/279353-en pdf) Marchal CSBMinimum dataset (CSB-MIPI) CSB 5/2011 Antwerp: 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 CSB-Working simulation MGSoG 2012/8 39 G ‘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 40 1: frequency Notes: EU15: 2004: Malta (since 2007) consumption (Eurostat database) Source: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 frquency Equivalized EU27 41 Second-order Input Outcome 42 2: Correlation MS Old EU24 EU14 EU10 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*** 120 424** 624*** 137 478*** 785*** 001 279 475* 218 families: 2011); *** Significant 025; ** 050; Sources: CSB-MIPI 43 nonelderly AT BE BG CZ DK EE FI FR DE HU IE IT LV LT LU NL PL PT RO SK SI ES SE -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 40-ALL median) [0-60[ work-intensity Above 44 Indicator Note: 95% (cf relativity national-specific Reading note: 8% L MT CY GR eq 45 4: 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 1% 4% 9% inhabitant High Low 46 ‘internal’ vs Threshold Top 1st 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 398 404 821 634 734 430 704 176 448 713 256 897 416 943 293 455 800 318 201 840 630 433 048 461 905 nonequivalent (2006-2013) (David 246- 247) 47 (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