Researching Social Services of General Interest: an Analytical Framework Derived from Underlying Policy Systems

This paper discusses Social Services of General Interest, a political term of the European Union, which lies at the heart of the European Model of Society and Cohesion concepts. How and why is the organization and provision of services across Europe rooted in, and shaped by, the prevailing national constitutional components of social welfare and spatial planning systems? A high degree of interrelation between these two systems is confirmed and Social Services of General Interest are detected and conceptualized as a substantiation of components of both systems. In a concluding step, an analytical framework is introduced which enables us to research Social Services of General Interest from different angles for the purpose of deploying promising policy solutions

Distributional National Accounts (DINA) with Household Survey Data: Methodology and Results for European Countries

The paper builds Distributional National Accounts (DINA) using household survey data. We present a transparent and reproducible methodology to construct DINA whenever administrative tax data are not available for research and apply it to various European countries. By doing so, we build synthetic microdata files which cover the entire distribution, include all income components individually aligned to national accounts, and preserve the detailed socioeconomic information available in the surveys. The methodology uses harmonized and publicly available data sources (SILC, HFCS) and provides highly comparable results. We discuss the methodological steps and their impact on the income distribution. In particular, we highlight the effects of imputations and the adjustment of the variables to national accounts totals. Furthermore, we compare different income concepts of both the DINA and EG-DNA approach of the OECD in a consistent way. Our results confirm that constructing DINA is crucial to get a better picture of the income distribution. Our methodology is well suited to build synthetic microdata files which can be used for policy evaluation like social impact analysis and microsimulation.Series: INEQ Working Paper Serie

Aufkommen von Erbschaftssteuern - Modellrechnung exemplarischer Tarife

(no Abstract available

Wealth and Welfare: Do Private and Public Safety Nets Compensate for Asset Poverty?

Economic shocks test the resilience of families around the world. Lockdowns, extended periods of unemployment, and inflation challenge the capabilities of private households to maintain their living standards whilst keeping their budgets in balance. Asset poverty is a concept invoked frequently to measure the capacity of private households to mitigate income loss by relying exclusively on their savings. In contrast to conventional asset poverty measures, we quantify the combined cushioning effect of private and public safety nets. Highlighting the importance of public safety nets and familial networks, this article devises a modified concept of asset poverty: Rather than purely simulating a household’s asset decumulation without replacement income, the modified indicator accounts for replacement income in a static setting. The empirical assessment of modified asset poverty in Europe and America combines harmonised microdata on household finances with simulations of institutional rules set by social insurance systems. Our results reveal how differences in social relations and institutional rules shape cross‐country variation in the vulnerability of private households. We find that, in contrast to the US, where the asset poverty of families is particularly low, households in most European countries are less vulnerable because generous social security systems coexist with low private assets. However, in some European countries, benefit generosity decreases the longer income losses last, exposing time dynamics in vulnerability. Complementing social insurance mechanisms, in countries such as Greece, households are more likely to receive financial support from family or friends. Cross‐national heterogeneity in vulnerability suggests that a shock may have different implications across countries