Are Social Benefits Distributed Effectively in Terms of the Redistribution Function? The Case of European Countries

• Autorzy: Ewa Aksman

Warianty tytułu

Czy świadczenia społeczne są dystrybuowane efektywnie z punktu widzenia funkcji redystrybucyjnej? Przypadek państw europejskich

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The study identifies the loss in redistributive effect of social benefits consequently to ineffective distribution of the transfers. The Lorenz curve approach, including the Gini coefficient as income inequality measure, is applied. Firstly, it is figured out what an increase in redistributive effect of social benefits would be if the transfers were allocated in such a way as to minimize income inequality (as compared to actual redistributive outcome). Next, the gain in transfer redistributive effect is decomposed, allowing to partially isolate impacts of constant average benefit rate, higher benefit concentration (over the poor), and elimination of reranking effect. The new methodological insight is applied to data on 15 EU countries that represent different welfare state regimes (data is taken from the EU-Survey on Income and Living Conditions). In line with the results obtained, if the present social spending was allocated according to the bottom-up equalization of gross income of the least well-off, the income equalizing effect would be, roughly speaking, twice higher (with reference to equivalised income distribution). This study is based on data from Eurostat: European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (RPP 44/2022-EU-SILC). The responsibility for all conclusions drawn from the data lies entirely with the author. (original abstract)

Badanie identyfikuje utratę redystrybucyjnego efektu świadczeń społecznych jako konsekwencji nieefektywnej alokacji tychże transferów. Zastosowana metodologia bazuje na krzywej Lorenza, wraz ze współczynnikiem Giniego jako mierniku nierówności w rozkładzie dochodów. Najpierw jest policzone, jaki byłby przyrost redystrybucyjnego efektu świadczeń społecznych, gdyby transfery te były alokowane w taki sposób, aby zminimalizować nierówności dochodowe (w porównaniu z rzeczywistym redystrybucyjnym efektem); przyrost redystrybucyjnego efektu zdekomponowano, umożliwiając częściowe wyizolowanie oddziaływania stałej średniej stopy świadczeń, większej koncentracji świadczeń (względem najuboższych podmiotów) i eliminacji tzw. efektu przeszeregowania. To nowe metodologiczne ujęcie jest zastosowane do danych dotyczących 15 państw europejskich, które reprezentują różne modele państw dobrobytu (dane pochodzą z Europejskiego Badania Warunków Życia Ludności EU-SILC). Zgodnie z otrzymanymi wynikami, gdyby bieżące wydatki społeczne były alokowane w sposób oddolnie wyrównujący dochody brutto najuboższych gospodarstw domowych, ich efekt redystrybucyjny byłby w przybliżeniu dwukrotnie większy (uwzględniając rozkład dochodów ekwiwalentnych). (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Income inequalities; Redistribution; Gini coefficient

PL

Nierówności dochodowe; Redystrybucja; Współczynnik Giniego

• Czasopismo: Polityka Społeczna
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: nr 8
• Strony: 9--16

Twórcy

autor

Ewa Aksman

• Uniwersytet Warszawski

Bibliografia

• 1. Aronson, J.R., Johnson, P., Lambert, P.J., 1994. Redistributive Effect and Unequal Income Tax Treatment. The Economic Journal, 104(423), 262-270.
• 2. Atkinson, A.B., 1980. Horizontal Equity and the Distribution of the Tax Burden. W: H.J. Aaron, M.J. Boskins, red. The Economics of Taxation. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
• 3. Bishop, J.A., Grodner, A., Liu, H., Ahamdanech-Zarco, I., 2014. Subjective Poverty Equivalence Scales for Euro Zone Countries. Journal of Economic Inequality, 12, 265-278.
• 4. Causa, O., Hermansen, M., 2017. Income Redistribution Through Taxes and Transfers Across OECD Countries. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 1453, OECD Publishing.
• 5. Christl, M., Köppl-Turyna, M., Lorenz, H., Kucsera, D., 2020. Redistribution Within the Tax-Benefits System in Austria. Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, 68(C), 250-264.
• 6. Coady, D., D'Angelo, D., Evans, B., 2020. Fiscal Redistribution and Social Welfare: Doing More or More to Do? EUROMOD Working Paper, Series EM 10/20.
• 7. Collado, D., 2020. The Anti-Poverty Marginal Benefit of Public Funds. EUROMOD Working Paper, Series EM 2/20.
• 8. Espin-Andersen, G., 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• 9. Ferrera, M., 1996. The "Southern Model" of Welfare in Social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17-37.
• 10. Figari, F., Verbist, G., 2014. The Redistributive Effect and Progressivity of Taxes Revisited: An International Comparison Across European Union. Public Finance Analysis, 70(3), 405-429.
• 11. Fuest, C., Niehues, J., Peichl, A., 2009. The Redistributive Effects of Tax Benefit Systems in the Enlarged EU. IZA Discussion Paper, 4520. Bonn, Germany.
• 12. Gassmann, F., Trindade, L.Z., 2019. Effect of Means-tested Social Transfers on Labor Supply: Heads versus Spouses - An Empirical Analysis of Work Disincentives in the Kyrgyz Republic. The European Journal of Development Research, 31, 189-214.
• 13. Global Wage Report 2018/19, 2018. What Lies Behind Gender Pay Gaps. Geneva: International Labour Office, International Labour Organization. Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_650553.pdf [Access: 09.08.2022].
• 14. Guillaud, E., Olckers, M., Zemmour, M., 2020. Four Levers of Redistribution: The Impact of Tax and Transfer Systems on Inequality Reduction. Review of Income and Wealth, 66(2), 444-466. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12408 [Date of access: 09.08.2022].
• 15. Inequality in Europe, 2018. European Investment Bank (authors: Rocco L. Bubbico (ECON), Leon Freytag (CEPS), Luxembourg. Retrieved from: https://www.eib.org/attachments/efs/econ_inequality_in_europe_en.pdf [Access: 09.08.2022].
• 16. Kakwani, N.C., 1977. Measurement of tax progressivity: an international comparison. The Economic Journal, 87(345), 71-80.
• 17. Kneeshaw, J., Collado, D., Framarin, N., Gasior, K., Xavier, H., Tamayo, J., Leventi, C., Manios, K., Popova, D., Tasseva, I., 2021. Baseline results from the EU28 EUROMOD: 2017-2020. EUROMOD Working Paper Series EM 01/21.
• 18. Korpi, W., Palme, J., 1998. The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality, and Poverty in the Western Countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661-687.
• 19. Lambert, P.J., 2001. The Distribution and Redistribution of Income. Third ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• 20. Lambert, P.J., Pfähler, W., 1988. On Aggregate Measures of the Net Redistributive Impact of Taxation and Government Expenditure. Public Finance Quarterly, 16, 178-202.
• 21. Lindert, P.H., 2004. Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 22. Marchal, S., Kuypers, S., Marx, I., Verbist, G., 2020. Singling out the truly needy: the role of asset testing in European minimum income schemes. EUROMOD Working Paper, Series EM 4/20.
• 23. Marx, I., Salanauskaite, L., Verbist, G., 2013. The Paradox of Redistribution Revisited: and that it may rest in peace? IZA Discussion Paper, 7414.
• 24. McCarty, N., Pontusson, J., 2011. The Political Economy of Inequality and Redistribution. W: B. Nolan, W. Salverda, T.M. Smeeding, red. The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality. London: Oxford University Press.
• 25. Milanovic, B., 1995. The Distributional Impact of Cash and In-Kind Transfers in Eastern Europe and Russia. W: D. Van De Walle, K. Nead, red. Public Spending and the Poor: Theory and Evidence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• 26. Milanovic, B., 1999. Explaining the Increase in Inequality During Transition. Economics of Transition, 7(2), 299-341.
• 27. Olivera, J., 2015. Preferences for Redistribution, IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 4(14), 1-18.
• 28. Paci, P., Sasin, M.J., Verbeek, J., 2004. Economic Growth, Income Distribution, and Poverty in Poland During Transition. Policy Research Working Paper, 3467. Washington: D.C. World Bank. Retrieved from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/14723 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO [Access: 09.08.2022].
• 29. Plotnick, R., 1981. A Measure of Horizontal Inequity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 63(2), 283-288.
• 30. Rao, V.M., 1969. Two Decompositions of Concentration Ratio. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 132(3), 418-425.
• 31. Urban, I., 2008. Income Redistribution in Croatia: The Role of Individual Taxes and Social Transfers. Financial Theory and Practice, 32(3), 387-403.
• 32. Urban, I., 2009. Kakwani Decomposition of Redistributive Effect: Origins, critics and upgrades. Working Papers, 148. ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality. Retrieved from: http://www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2009-148.PDF [Access: 10.08.2022].
• 33. Zaidi, S., 2009. Main Drivers of Income Inequality in Central European and Baltic Countries, Some Insights from Recent Household Survey Data. Policy Research Working Paper, 4815. The World Bank, Europe and Central Asia Region, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Department.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0016.0014