Are Public and Private Social Expenditures Complementary?
Tóm tắt
Most analyses of social protection are focussed on public arrangements. However, social effort is not restricted to the public domain; all kinds of private arrangements can be substitutes to public programs. OECD data indicate that accounting for private social benefits has an equalising effect on levels of social effort across a number of countries. This suggests complementarity between public and private social expenditures. But their distributional effects differ. Using cross-country data, we find a negative relationship between net public social expenditures and income inequality, but a positive relationship between net private social expenditures and income inequality. We conclude that changes in the public/private mix in the provision of social protection may affect the redistributive impact of the welfare state.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adema, W. Net Social Expenditure, 2nd ed., Labour Market and Social Policy—Occasional Papers 52, Paris: OECD, 2001.
Atkinson, A. B. “On the Measurement of Inequality,” Journal of Economic Theory, 2, September 1970, pp. 244–63.
Atkinson, A. B. “The Changing Distribution of Income: Evidence and Explanation,” German Economic Review, 1, 1, February 2000, pp. 3–18.
Atkinson, A. B.; Rainwater, L.; Smeeding, T. M. Income Distribution in OECD Countries: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study, OECD Social Policy Studies 18, Paris: OECD, 1995.
Bazen, S.; Moyes, P. International Comparisons of Income Distribution, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 341, Luxembourg, 2003.
Caminada, K.; Goudswaard, K. P. “International Trends in Income Inequality and Social Policy,” International Tax and Public Finance, 8, 4, August 2001, pp. 395–415.
Caminada, K.; Goudswaard, K. P. “Income Distribution and Social Security in an OECD Perspective,” in Social Security in the Global Village, Roland Sigg and Christina Behrendt (eds.), International Social Security Series, 8, New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers, 2002, pp. 163–88.
Cantillon, B.; Marx, I.; Van den Bosch, K. “The Puzzle of Egalitarianism. About the Relationships Between Employment, Wage Inequality, Social Expenditures and Poverty,” CSB-Berichten (Centrum voor Sociaal Beleid UFSIA), Antwerp, Belgium, December 2002.
Casey, B. H.; Yamada, A. The Public–Private Mix of Retirement Income in Nine OECD Countries: Some Evidence from Micro-data and an Exploration of its Implications, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 311, Luxembourg, 2002.
Champernowne, D. G. “A Comparison of Measures of Inequality of Income Distribution,” Economic Journal, 84, December 1974, pp. 787–816.
Ervik, R. The Redistributive Aim of Social Policy. A Comparative Analysis of Taxes, Tax Expenditure Transfers and Direct Transfers in Eight Countries, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 184, Luxembourg, 1998.
Ferrarini, T.; Nelson, K. The Impact of Taxation on the Equalising Effect of Social Insurance to Income Inequality: A Comparative Analysis of Ten Welfare States, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 327, Luxembourg, 2002.
Föster, M. Trend and Driving Factors in Income Distribution and Poverty in the OECDF Area, Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers 42, Paris: OECD, 2000.
Gottschalk, P.; Smeeding, T. M. “Cross-National Comparisons of Earnings and Income Inequality,” Journal of Economic Literature, 35, June 1997, pp. 633–87.
Gottschalk, P.; Smeeding, T. M. Empirical Evidence on Income Inequality in Industrialized Countries, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 154 (revised), Luxembourg, 1998.
Gottschalk, P.; Smeeding, T. M. “Empirical Evidence on Income Inequality in Industrialized Countries,” in Handbook of Income Distribution, A. B. Atkinsin and F. Bourgignon (eds.), New York: Elsevier-North Holland Publishers, 1, 2000, pp. 262–307.
Gouyette, C.; Pestieau, P. “Efficiency of the Welfare State,” Kyklos, 52, 4, 1999, pp. 537–53.
Kakwani, N. C. Analyzing Redistribution Policies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Korpi, W.; Palme, J. “The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries,” American Sociological Review, 63, 5, October 1998, pp. 661–87.
Luxembourg Income Study. ‘LIS Key Figures’ and ‘LIS Information Guide—Revised February 1998,’ Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 7, Luxembourg, 1998. LIS website http://www.lisproject.org/.
Musgrave, R. A.; Case, K. E.; Leonard, H. B. “The Distribution of Fiscal Burdens and Benefits,” Public Finance Quarterly, 2, July 1974, pp. 259–311.
Ringen, S. “Households, Standard of Living and Inequality,” Review of Income and Wealth, 37, 1, March 1991, pp. 1–13.
Smeeding, T. “Changing Income Inequality in OECD Countries: Updated Results from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS),” in The Personal Distribution of Income in an International Perspective, R. Hauser, I. Becker (eds.), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000, pp. 205–24.
Smeeding, T. Globalization, Inequality and the Rich Countries of the G-20: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 320, Luxembourg, 2002.
Smolensky, E.; Hoyt, W.; Danziger, S. “A Critical Survey of Efforts to Measure Budget Incidence,” in The Relevance of Public Finance for Policy-Making, H. M. van de Kar, B. L. Wolfe (eds.), Proceedings IIFP Congress 1985, Detroit, pp. 165–79.
Swabisch, J.; Smeeding, T.; Osberg, L. Income Distribution and Social Expenditures: A Cross-National Perspective, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 350, Luxembourg, 2003.