The document discusses different ways to measure and compare welfare states beyond just spending levels. It examines micro-level input measures including spending by sub-function, packages of support for different family types, and non-expenditure measures. One study analyzed packages of support for 9 family types and 8 income levels across 22 countries. Non-expenditure measures like decommodification indices based on social insurance rules can also provide insights but data is limited. Comparing micro-level inputs provides a richer picture of how systems function but data availability remains a challenge.

1. Comparative Social Structures and Welfare Week 8 Comparing Welfare Inputs - Beyond Spending

2. Re-Cap Last Week: Began Empirical Comparisons Examined Macro-Inputs What governments do Broad summary of national welfare state ‘effort’ cf: Outcomes (what happens) cf: Micro-level (lower level detail)

3. Re-Cap Different Measures of Spending NCU v US$ (PPP) Millions vs per capita % GDP Public v Public & Mandatory Private Spending Voluntary Private Spending Net Social Spending All measures have limitations

4. Session Objectives Examine Micro-Level Inputs Examine non-spending based input measures Explore some sample micro-input studies ALSO: module assessment!

5. Micro-Level Welfare-Inputs Measures of ‘Welfare State Effort’ But with more ground level detail Examine Three Examples: Spending by sub-function Packages by different family types Non-expenditure measures Less Common Focus for Studies data less widely available more complex measures less clear link with political debates? Q: Who spends the most on families with children?

6. 1. Spending by Sub-Function OECD Health Data package Social Expenditure by sub-category

7. 1. Spending by Sub-Function

8. 1. Spending by Sub-Function

9. 1. Spending by Sub-Function What do the figures tell us? Problems: Demographic make-up of nations? Destination of spending? System rules? More detail would be helpful

10. 2. Packages by Family Type Packages: range of supports is commonplace benefits, taxes, services, benefits-in-kind Family Types: family composition household income levels Useful micro-level data… hard to find!

11. 2. Packages by Family Type Bradshaw & Finch (2002): 22 rich countries Packages of support for families with children Many different family types Collected data from national experts Detailed picture of support arrangements

12. 2. Packages by Family Type NINE family types: Single person Couple Lone parent plus one child (aged 2 years and 11 months) Lone parent plus one child (aged 7) Lone parent plus two children (aged 7 and 14) at school. Couple plus one child (aged 2 years and 11 months) Couple plus one child (aged 7) at school. Couple plus two children (aged 7 and 14) at school. Couple plus three children (aged 7, 14 and 17) all at school

13. 2. Packages by Family Type EIGHT income cases One earner, 16 hours per week for the minimum wage One earner, full-time, half national average male earnings or the minimum wage (if higher) One earner, full-time, half national average female earnings or the minimum wage (if higher) One earner, average male earnings One earner, average female earnings Two earners, full-time, average male earnings and half average female earnings (or the minimum wage if higher) Two earners, one on average male earnings and one on average female earnings No earners - receiving social assistance

14. 2. Packages by Family Type Mass of detail for each family/income type: gross earnings income tax payable employee social security contributions income related child benefit non means-tested child benefit gross housing costs net housing costs gross local taxes net local taxes net childcare costs health charges/benefits education charges/benefits guaranteed child support, and other Huge data set!

15. 2. Packages by Family Type

16. 2. Packages by Family Type

17. 2. Packages by Family Type

18. 2. Packages by Family Type

19. 2. Packages by Family Type

20. 2. Packages by Family Type Bradshaw & Finch give us RICHER picture Micro-Level analysis Captures variations in treatment of key groups Clearer picture of how systems function Better picture of level of support Very expensive to conduct studies…

21. Sample Empirical Study Does the size of the child benefit package influence: Fertility rates? Child poverty rates? Indicators: Total Fertility Rate (TFR) % children in households with < 50% median income

22. negative and positive correlations -0.80 strong negative correlation 0.80 strong positive correlation Sample Empirical Study distribution of plots correlation coefficient very crudely: < 0.25 no correlation 0.25-0.5 weak correlation 0.5-0.75 moderate correlation 0.75 strong correlation

23. Sample Empirical Study

24. Sample Empirical Study

25. Sample Empirical Study NB: the influence of sample!

26. 3. Non-Expenditure Measures Packages approach demonstrates rules matter Esping-Andersen sceptical about expenditure measures Decommodification index based on rules : Unemployment, Sickness & Pension Insurance Rules: duration, waiting time, benefit rate, eligibility criteria Scored each element based on international average (1,2,3) Index is composite of these scores Measure of ‘social rights’

27. 3. Non-Expenditure Measures

28. 3. Non-Expenditure Measures Decommodification Index (DI) a micro-input measure Widely used in the literature BUT: Difficult to calculate Data patchy (1980 only!) Complex to explain Some attempts to repeat and extend DI Scruggs & Allan Bambra ALSO: no good for family & children question…

29. Conclusion Micro-Inputs Richer picture than overall spending levels Pros Truer picture? Can capture variations in treatment of groups Reflect rules of systems better Cons best measures patchy? too narrow a picture? may only tell us about one aspect of welfare? Macro & Micro Inputs cannot tell us about outcomes…