Income Polarisation in Germany Is Rising

Income disparities between poorer and richer households in Germany have been widening since reunification. Although this income polarisation is reduced during economically favourable periods by strong growth in employment, once the good times are over, it rises all the faster. The longer-term trend not only shows that the number of poorer households is steadily increasing, but also that on average they are getting poorer. On the flip side, the trend is toward an increasing number of richer individuals, whose average wealth is steadily increasing. This contrast is not only felt to be highly unfair, but also creates uncertainty among the middle class. Although the year of the financial crisis, 2009, saw the number of high-income households decrease, the average incomes of the remaining rich households continued to rise. As a result of job market measures, the lower income bracket has scarcely been affected by the financial and economic crisis.Income polarization, Middle class, SOEP

Polarisierung der Einkommen: die Mittelschicht verliert

Die Einkommensgegensätze zwischen ärmeren und reicheren Haushalten nehmen in Deutschland seit der Wiedervereinigung zu. Zwar reduziert sich diese Einkommenspolarisierung in konjunkturell günstigen Phasen mit starken Beschäftigungszuwächsen. Danach aber steigt sie umso schneller wieder an. Im längerfristigen Trend ist einerseits nicht nur die Zahl der ärmeren Haushalte stetig gewachsen - sie wurden im Durchschnitt auch immer ärmer. Auf der anderen Seite gibt es im Trend immer mehr Reichere, die im Durchschnitt auch immer reicher werden. Dieser Gegensatz wird von den Menschen nicht nur als besonders ungerecht empfunden, sondern er schürt auch die Verunsicherung der Mittelschicht. Im Krisenjahr 2009 nahm zwar der Anteil der Haushalte mit hohen Einkommen ab. Das Durchschnittseinkommen der verbliebenen reichen Haushalte aber stieg weiter. Im unteren Einkommensbereich wirkte sich auch dank der unterstützenden Arbeitsmarktmaßnahmen die Finanz- und Wirtschaftkrise bislang kaum negativ aus.Income polarization, Middle class, SOEP

The use of mechanical restraint and seclusion in patients with schizophrenia: A comparison of the practice in Germany and Switzerland

BACKGROUND: The use of coercive measures is an indicator of the quality of psychiatric inpatient treatment. To date, there is no data available to European comparisons on the incidence of such measures. METHODS: The frequency and duration of mechanical restraint and seclusion on patients with a diagnosis of F2 ICD-10 was analysed in seven German and seven Swiss psychiatric hospitals in the year 2004 using three indicators. Differences between German and Swiss hospitals regarding the indicators were tested for statistical significance using Mann-Whitney-U-tests. RESULTS: 6.6 % (Switzerland) and 10.4 % (Germany) of admissions respectively were affected by mechanical restraint and 17.8 % (Switzerland) and 7.8 % (Germany) respectively by seclusion. Seclusion as well as mechanical restraint per case were applied significantly more often in German than in Swiss hospitals and were of significantly longer duration in Swiss than in German hospitals. CONCLUSION: The results showed different patterns in the use of seclusion and mechanical restraint across Swiss and German hospitals. For future European research on the use of compulsory measures in routine psychiatric care, there is a need for uniformed definitions, reliable documentation of coercive measures as well as for an identical way of data analysis. To meet these conditions is the first step to achieve European standards for the use of coercive measures

Should welfare administration be centralized or decentralized? : Evidence from a policy experiment

The 2005 reform of the German welfare system introduced two competing organizational models for welfare administration. In most districts, a centralized organization was established where local welfare agencies are bound to central directives. At the same time, 69 districts were allowed to opt for a decentralized organization. We evaluate the relative success of both types of organizations. Compared to centralized organization, decentralized organization of welfare administration has a negative effect on the transition of male welfare recipients to self-sufficient employment, but it does not affect employment in combination with continuing welfare support. No significant effects were found for women