Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:55:20.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing Risk as well as Inequality: Assessing the Welfare State's Insurance Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2020

Jacob S. Hacker  and
Philipp Rehm Open the ORCID record for Philipp Rehm [Opens in a new window]
Jacob S. Hacker
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Philipp Rehm*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: rehm.16@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leading accounts of the politics of the welfare state focus on societal demands for risk-spreading policies. Yet current measures of the welfare state focus not on risk, but on inequality. To address this gap, this letter describes the development of two new measures, risk incidence and risk reduction, which correspond to the prevalence of large income losses and the degree to which welfare states reduce that prevalence, respectively. Unlike existing indicators, these measures require panel data, which the authors harmonize for twenty-one democracies. The study finds that large losses affect all income and education levels, making the welfare state valuable to a broad cross-section of citizens. It also finds that taxes and transfers greatly reduce the prevalence of such losses, though to varying degrees across countries and over time. Finally, it disaggregates the measures to identify specific ‘triggers’ of large losses, and finds that these triggers are associated with risks on which welfare states focus, such as unemployment and sickness.

Keywords

panel dataredistributionriskwelfare states
Type
Letter
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 456 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldwin, P (1990) The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class Bases of the European Welfare State, 1875–1975. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, N (2001) The Welfare State as Piggy Bank: Information, Risk, Uncertainty, and the Role of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Pres.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cournède, B et al. (2015) Effects of Pro-Growth Policies on the Economic Stability of Firms, Workers and Households. Available from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/effects-of-pro-growth-policies-on-the-economic-stability-of-firms-workers-and-households_5js3777tdqjf-en (accessed 4 January 2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiPrete, TA and McManus, PA (2000) Family change, employment transitions, and the welfare state: household income dynamics in the United States and Germany. American Sociological Review 65(3), 343–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehlert, M (2012) Buffering income loss due to unemployment: family and welfare state influences on income after job loss in the United States and Western Germany. Social Science Research 41(4), 843–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esping-Andersen, G (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fouarge, D and Layte, R (2005) Welfare regimes and poverty dynamics: the duration and recurrence of poverty spells in Europe. Journal of Social Policy 34(3), 407–426.10.1017/S0047279405008846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, RE (1988) Reasons for Welfare: The Political Theory of the Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J (1997) The consumption smoothing benefits of unemployment insurance. The American Economic Review 87(1), 192–205.Google Scholar
Hacker, JS (2018) Economic security. In Stiglitz, JE, Fitoussi, J-P and Durand, M (eds), For Good Measure: Advancing Research on Well-Being Metrics Beyond GDP. Paris: OECD, pp. 203–240. Available from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/for-good-measure_9789264307278-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, JS, Rehm, P (2019) “Replication Data for ‘Reducing Risk as Well as Inequality: Assessing the Welfare State's Insurance Effects’”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NZTGVE, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:sM1iJeFFzhLKdqxRy5vIkQ== [fileUNF]Google Scholar
Hacker, JS, Rehm, P and Schlesinger, M (2013) The insecure American: economic experiences and policy attitudes amid the great recession. Perspectives on Politics 11(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendren, N (2017) Knowledge of future job loss and implications for unemployment insurance. American Economic Review 107(7), 1778–1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, T and Soskice, D (2001) An asset theory of social policy preferences. American Political Science Review 95(4), 875–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mares, I (2003) The Politics of Social Risk. Business and Welfare State Development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Margalit, Y (2019) Political responses to economic shocks. Annual Review of Political Science 22(1), 277–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moene, KO and Wallerstein, M (2001) Inequality, social insurance, and redistribution. American Political Science Review 95(4), 859–874.10.1017/S0003055400400067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, and Rehm, P (2014) Income risk in 30 countries. Review of Income and Wealth 60, S98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, T (2019) How do economic circumstances determine preferences? Evidence from long-run panel data. British Journal of Political Science 49(4), 1381–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, LA and Pedulla, DS (2014) Material welfare and changing political preferences: the case of support for redistributive social policies. Social Forces 92(3), 1087–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, P (2016) Risk Inequality and Welfare States. Social Policy Preferences, Development, and Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, D and Stegmueller, D (2019) Who Wants What? Redistribution Preferences in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheve, K and Stasavage, D (2006) Religion and preferences for social insurance. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1(3), 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, L, Jahn, D and Kuitto, K (2014) Comparative Welfare Entitlements Dataset 2. University of Connecticut & University of Greifswald. Available from http://cwed2.org/.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Hacker and Rehm Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NZTGVE
Link
Supplementary material: File

Hacker and Rehm supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Hacker and Rehm supplementary material(File)
File 256.8 KB