Search

In this paper we seek to explain variations in levels of deprivation between EU countries. The starting-point of our analysis is the finding that the relationship between income and life-style deprivation varies across countries. Given our understanding of the manner in which the income-deprivation mismatch may arise from the limitations of current income as a measure of command over resources, the pattern of variation seems to be consistent with our expectations of the variable degree to which welfare-state regimes achieve 'decommodification' and smooth income flows. This line of reasoning suggests that cross-national differences in deprivation might, in significant part, be due not only to variation in household and individual characteristics that are associated with disadvantage but also to the differential impact of such variables across countries and indeed welfare regimes. To test this hypothesis, we have taken advantage of the ECHP (European Community Household Panel) comparative data set in order to pursue a strategy of substituting variable names for country/welfare regime names. We operated with two broad categories of variables, tapping, respectively, needs and resources. Although both sets of factors contribute independently to our ability to predict deprivation, it is the resource factors that are crucial in reducing country effects. The extent of cross-national heterogeneity depends on specifying the social class and situation in relation to long-term unemployment of the household reference person. The impact of the structural socio-economic variables that we label 'resource factors' varies across countries in a manner that is broadly consistent with welfare regime theory and is the key factor in explaining cross-country differences in deprivation. As a consequence, European homogeneity is a great deal more evident among the advantaged than the disadvantaged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares recent developments in income inequality in Canada, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In addition to describing cross-national variation in changes in income inequality, the paper examines different explanatory factors for these recent developments. The findings reported indicate that there is substantial cross-national variation, not only with regard to the level of inequality, but furthermore with regard to changes in inequality. The results indicate that the equalizing effect of welfare state redistribution did not decrease in all countries. By contrast, in all countries there was a universal tendency towards increased inequality in the pre-tax and transfer distribution, although the magnitude of the change differs from country to country. Even though a polarization of the earnings distribution is reported, the results still give no support to cross-national convergence with regard to income inequality during the 1980s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper represents an attempt to compare the incidence of relative deprivation and poverty in Sweden and Great Britain. The study goes beyond the limitations of traditional income-based comparisons and the method applied builds on Mack & Lansley's (1985) direct consensual definition of deprivation. The analyses show that deprivation is more prevalent and more unevenly distributed in Britain compared with Sweden. However, more detailed analyses reveal that the probability of being poor is distributed in a similar way in the two countries. Low income households, the unemployed, those dependent on means-tested benefits and lone parents are worse off in both countries. Thus, it is very much the same processes that generate deprivation and poverty. However, Swedes are less deprived because incomes have been distributed more equally, unemployment has been lower, means-tested benefits have been more generous, and the situation for lone parents has been better in Sweden than in Britain during the 1980s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-welfarist approaches to well-being are often criticized for ignoring personal preferences and suffering from a dictatorial logic. This paper argues that welfarist approaches do not have a special quality of preference neutrality and that non-welfarist/non-dictatorial approaches to well-being and interpersonal comparison are possible. Utility is a function not of goods and preferences, but of goods and tastes, and the latter are decomposed into expectations and preferences. A theory of well-being based on choice is recommended. Choice is defined as a function of personal resources and arena options. A typology of measurement approaches is developed. Indirect measurement is recommended above direct measurement. Implications are discussed for income, social indicators, and capabilities in the measurement of well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to our understanding of the relationship between geographical and social mobility by examining the marginal contributions of migration to occupational status and income. The analysis is based on a sample of more than 22,000 Norwegian men aged 30 to 36 years in 1980 taken from the Norwegian Census Sample, a public-use sample from the 1960, 1970, and the 1980 censuses. Variables representing distance of migration and a taxonomy of migration paths are added to baseline human capital regression models for occupational prestige and income. The findings indicate that the type of labour market of destination as well as the distance of migration make a difference in terms of status attainment. Urban destinations, and/ or long-distance migration, give gains of two to three points in occupational prestige and 10-16 per cent in income compared to remaining in rural areas. The most rewarding path is long-distance, urban to urban migration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What attitudes relating to differences in occupational earnings did people in state-socialist societies hold before and after the transformation in 1989, compared with people in market-regulated societies? And, how can differences between and changes within these societies in attitudes towards income inequality be explained? To find out, hypotheses are tested using survey data from the International Social Survey Programme, comparing several state-socialist societies with several market societies both before (1987) and after (1992) the political and economic transformation. Before the transformation, the public in central and eastern Europe was much more egalitarian than in market-regulated societies. The results show that the amount of income inequality that people think legitimate has increased in all countries, but the increase was far more dramatic in former state-socialist than in market-regulated societies. Differences in the class and demographic composition of the population hardly explain variations in inequality attitudes between societies, but differences in perceptions of income inequality do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid accumulation of state functions in agriculture during this century is a new kind of phenomenon in our history. It is also a process common to all developed capitalist countries in Europe. This article concentrates on the mare features of agricultural policies in Finland, in order to illustrate the socio-economic reasons behind state intervention in agriculture. Production, income and structural policies all have, besides agricultural, also more general social and economic goals. But mechanisms exist that counteract the attainment of these goals. Capitalization of subsidies to land prices, differentiation as a cause and as a consequence of policies, and rising accumulation threshold are considered. It is suggested that expanded reproduction is inevitable for family farms and that generation change is a most critical point of the reproduction process. Thus it also is a most strategic object for state intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of socioeconomic background -- as measured by father's education and occupation -- on income level are studied among the gainfully employed employees in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. The data are based on the Scandinavian Survey in 1972. The results are interpreted by using the concept of socioeconomic life cycle. In the populations studied here father's education and occupation do not directly affect income level, but their effect is mediated by a person's own education and occupation. A considerable part of income variance can be explained by factors describing socioeconomic life cycle (i.e., by father's education and occupation and by the person's own education and occupation). However, income level is also affected by variables independent of socioeconomic life cycle. Thus, age and sex, two ascribed characteristics, also have a considerable effect on income level. The comparison of the Scandinavian countries reveal considerable similarities, but slight differences are also found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]