Suchergebnisse

Résumé Rainwater (Lee), Smeeding (Timothy M.)- - Le bien-être économique des enfants européens : une perspective comparative Une enquête comparative dans les pays industriels, le Luxembourg Income Study, permet de mesurer le bien-être économique des enfants au cours des années 1980. 12 pays sont en Europe (Allemagne, Belgique, Finlande, France, Irlande, Italie, Luxembourg, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni, Suède, Suisse) et 4 hors d'Europe (Australie, Canada, États- Unis, Israël). Dans quelques cas, des évolutions peuvent être mesurées depuis la fin des années 1960. La proportion d'enfants pauvres est plus forte dans les pays d'Europe (12 à 23 %) que dans les pays européens (3 à 13 %). Elle est aussi beaucoup plus forte dans les familles où la mère est seule (6 à 64 %) que dans celles où les deux parents sont présents (1 à 13 %). Au mieux, la situation économique des enfants est restée stable au fil du temps, mais elle s'est détériorée en 25 ans, au moins dans deux cas importants : le Royaunme-Uni et les États-Unis.

A computerized telecommunications network, the BITNET-EARN-NETNORTH system, has made it possible for some 588 Us worldwide to efficiently access large-scale statistical data sets stored at one central facility. Here, described is an attempt by the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) to overcome practical & traditional difficulties in comparative international research projects through the use of this network. The advantages & disadvantages of housing a statistical database such as LIS in one place are outlined. Using the BITNET-EARN-NETNORTH system plus the LIS user package reconciles costs & benefits & allows access by researchers at any BITNET-EARN-NETWORTH site. The challenge for realizing the social research potential of centralized data sets & scholarly colleagueship now lies in creating payment mechanisms & funding consortia based on principles that can facilitate international research collaboration. 2 Tables. Modified HA

A computerized telecommunications network, the BITNET-EARN-NETNORTH system, has made it possible for some 588 universities worldwide to efficiently access large-scale statistical data sets stored at one central facility. There are practical and traditional difficulties in comparative international research projects, and the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) seeks to overcome them. The advantages and disadvantages of housing a statistical data base such as LIS in one place are outlined. Advantages such as building an expert staff who thoroughly understand the data base and securing the privacy and confidentiality guarantees required before nations will grant access to official income statistics are contrasted with the disadvantages of time, cost, and user distance from the data base. The BITNET-EARN-NETNORTH system plus the LIS user package reconciles costs and benefits and allows access by researchers at any BITNET-EARN-NETNORTH site. The challenge for realizing the social research potential of centralized data sets and scholarly colleagueship now lies in creating payment mechanisms and funding consortia based upon principles that can facilitate international research collaboration.

This paper estimates the redistributive effects of welfare state expenditures on children and disparities in the economic well-being of children in ten nations and relates the two. Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and other sources for cash and non-cash social welfare benefits are used to describe differences in the size and nature of welfare states and their distributional effects. The OECD data are combined with micro data on household incomes from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) both to estimate the redistributive effects of the expenditures and taxes and to construct measures of the differences in the relative standard of living among children at various points in the income distributions of their countries. These measures may be thought of as capturing at least one of the essentials of the degree to which the poorest children in the country have a 'fair chance' and 'an equal opportunity chance' to succeed economically. The results indicate a wide range of differences in levels of economic resources and support for children within, as well as between, nations. The degree to which children have fair and equal opportunity chances varies considerably across countries and depends critically upon welfare state benefits. Taking account of non-cash benefits substantially reduces cross national differences, but does not eliminate them. Subject to a number of qualifications mentioned at the end of the paper, we find that non-cash benefits are particularly important for low-income American children and their families.

In this paper we use cross-national comparisons made possible by the LIS to examine America's experience in maintaining a low poverty rate. We compare the effectiveness of United States antipoverty policies to that of similar polices elsewhere in the industrialized world. If lessons can be learned from cross-national comparisons, there is much that can be learned about antipoverty policy by American voters and policymakers. The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor. Although the high rate of relative poverty in the United States is no surprise, given the country's well-known tolerance of wide economic disparities, the lofty rate of absolute poverty is much more troubling. After Luxembourg, the United States has the highest average income in the industrialized world. Our analysis of absolute poverty rates provides poverty estimates for 11 industrialized countries. The United States ranks second highest among the 11 in per capita income, yet it ranks third highest in the percentage of its population with absolute incomes below the American poverty line. The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent— 5.5 percentage points lower than the United States rate. Our paper suggests some reasons for this pattern. The paper is organized as follows. We begin by reviewing international concepts and measures of poverty as they relate to the main measures of income and poverty used in other chapters of this book. Next we present cross-national estimates of both absolute and relative poverty, concentrating on the latter measures. After examining the level and trend in these rates, we explore some of the factors that are correlated with national poverty rates and examine the antipoverty effectiveness of government programs aimed at reducing poverty. We conclude with a discussion of the relationship between policy differences and outcome differences among the several countries, and consider the implications of our analysis for antipoverty policy in the United States.

This paper describes the size, nature, and redistributive effects of welfare state expenditures in ten advanced industrialized nations and relates these differences across nations to disparities in the economic well-being of country populations as a whole and three (mutually exclusive and exhaustive) sub-groups: children (and their families); elders; and childless adult households. Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are used to describe differences in the size and nature of welfare states. The OECD health, welfare and education benefits data are combined with micro data on household incomes from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) to assess their distribution and finance across the income distribution in ten countries. The results indicate a wide range of differences in levels of economic resources and support, within as well as between, nations and groups. Counting in kind benefits at government cost substantially reduces cross national differences in market and cash disposable incomes, but does not eliminate them. But the results are very sensitive to how inkind benefits, especially health insurance, are measured and valued and call into question the extra-ordinarily high US expenditures on health care.

Explores why the US poverty rate & inequality are higher than that of 10 OECD countries via analysis of one absolute & two relative sets of poverty rates. Following a review of international concepts & measures of poverty, poverty among children & elderly are estimated & relative poverty trends for the other 10 nations tabulated. Findings indicate that the substantially higher US child poverty rate (14.7% vs 8% or less) is partially due to the relatively small allotment of national income to social transfers for families with a nonaged head as well as the wage distribution. The link between cross-national policy differentials & poverty is briefly addressed. It is concluded that while low US unemployment can reduce poverty by raising wages for low-skilled workers, the fact that not all poor will "earn" their way out of poverty & the possibility of recession limit this effect. An income package mixing work & benefits as well as other income transfers are proposed to ameliorate this particular brand of US poverty. 4 Tables, 3 Figures, 1 Appendix. J. Zendejas

In this paper we use cross-national comparisons made possible by the LIS to examine America's experience in maintaining a low poverty rate. We compare the effectiveness of United States antipoverty policies to that of similar polices elsewhere in the industrialized world. If lessons can be learned from cross-national comparisons, there is much that can be learned about antipoverty policy by American voters and policymakers. The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using an absolute or a relative standard for determining who is poor. Although the high rate of relative poverty in the United States is no surprise, given the country's well-known tolerance of wide economic disparities, the lofty rate of absolute poverty is much more troubling. After Luxembourg, the United States has the highest average income in the industrialized world. Our analysis of absolute poverty rates provides poverty estimates for 11 industrialized countries. The paper is organized as follows. We begin by reviewing international concepts and measures of poverty as they relate to the main measures of income and poverty used in other chapters of this book. Next we present cross-national estimates of both absolute and relative poverty, concentrating on the latter measures. After examining the level and trend in these rates, we explore some of the factors that are correlated with national poverty rates and examine the antipoverty effectiveness of government programs aimed at reducing poverty. We conclude with a discussion of the policy differences and outcome differences we find, and we consider the implications of our analysis for antipoverty policy in the United States.