Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Net Social Expenditure, 2005 Edition: More Comprehensive Measures of Social Support


Author Info

  • Willem Adema
  • Maxime Ladaique
Registered author(s):


    This is the 2005 edition of a Net Social Expenditure paper that contains information on net (after tax) public and private social expenditure. These indicators supplement the detailed historical information on gross (before tax) publicly mandated social expenditure in the OECD Social Expenditure Database by accounting for the varying roles of voluntary private social spending and the tax system on social policy across OECD countries. Government intervention through the tax system affects social spending as governments levy direct taxes and social security contributions on cash transfers, and indirect taxes on goods and services bought by benefit recipients. In addition, governments may award tax advantages similar to cash benefits and/or grant tax concessions aiming to stimulate the provision of private social benefits. Through compulsion and tax relief public policy contributes to private pension plans, and such arrangements are generally considered within the social domain. This document refines the methodological framework previously developed per earlier editions of net social expenditure and presents indicators based on a common questionnaire for twenty-three OECD countries for which information on taxation of benefits in 2001 is now available: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. Accounting for the impact of the tax system and private social expenditure leads to a greater similarity in social expenditure to GDP ratios across countries and to a reassessment of the magnitude of welfare states. Usually, Denmark and Sweden are seen as the biggest social spenders. After accounting for the impact of taxation social expenditure to GDP ratios appear highest in France, Germany and Sweden. Ce document est l’édition 2005 du rapport sur les Dépenses sociales nettes (après imposition) publiques et privées. Ces indicateurs ont été développés afin d’apporter un supplément aux informations historiques détaillées des dépenses sociales publiques brutes (avant imposition) obligatoires disponibles dans la Base de données des dépenses sociales de l’OCDE (SOCX), en tenant compte des différentes fonctions des dépenses sociales privées volontaires et l’impact du système d’imposition sur les politiques sociales dans les pays OCDE. L'intervention des gouvernements au travers du système d’imposition a un impact sur les dépenses sociales. En effet, ils perçoivent à la fois des impôts directs et des cotisations de sécurité sociale sur les transferts en espèces, mais aussi des impôts indirects sur les marchandises et les services achetés par les bénéficiaires. De plus, les gouvernements peuvent accorder des déductions fiscales similaires à des prestations en espèces et/ou accorder des allégements fiscaux dans le but d’inciter les agents (instituts et/ou individus) privés à avoir recours aux assurances sociales. Par ces obligations et allègements fiscaux, les politiques publiques encouragent la couverture privée des risques ; de telles dispositions relèvent du domaine social. Ce document redéfinit le cadre méthodologique développé dans les éditions précédentes des dépenses sociales nettes, et présente des indicateurs issus d’un questionnaire envoyé à vingt-trois pays pour lesquels les informations sur l’imposition des prestations pour 2001 sont désormais disponibles : Allemagne, Australie, Autriche, Belgique, Canada, Corée, Danemark, Espagne, États-Unis, Finlande, France, Islande, Irlande, Italie, Japon, Mexique, Norvège, Nouvelle-Zélande, Pays-Bas, République tchèque, République slovaque, Royaume-Uni et Suède. L’ajustement « impôt et dépenses privées » montre une plus grande similitude en terme de dépenses sociales en pourcentage du PIB entre pays, et donne aussi une nouvelle vision de l’ampleur des états protecteurs. Habituellement, le Danemark et la Suède sont considérés comme les pays aux dépenses sociales les plus importantes. Après ajustement, ce sont ici la France l'Allemagne et la Suède qui apparaissent en tête.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 500 Internal Server Error ( [303 See Other]--> If this is indeed the case, please notify ()
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by OECD Publishing in its series OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers with number 29.

    as in new window
    Date of creation: 16 Dec 2005
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:oec:elsaab:29-en

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 2 rue Andre Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16
    Phone: 33-(0)-1-45 24 82 00
    Fax: 33-(0)-1-45 24 85 00
    Web page:
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research


    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Tangian, Andranik S., 2005. "European welfare state under the policy "make work pay" : Analysis with composite indicators," WSI Discussion Papers 141, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut (WSI), Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
    2. Tangian, Andranik, 2009. "Six families of flexicurity indicators developed at the Hans Boeckler Foundation," WSI Discussion Papers 168, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut (WSI), Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
    3. Irwin Garfinkel & Lee Rainwater & Timothy M. Smeeding, 2006. "A re-examination of welfare states and inequality in rich nations: How in-kind transfers and indirect taxes change the story," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 897-919.
    4. Lindbeck, Assar, 2006. "The Welfare State -- Background, Achievements, Problems," Working Paper Series 662, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    5. Nora Lustig, 2011. "Commitment to Equity Assessment (CEQ). A diagnostic framework to assess governments’ fiscal policies. Handbook," Working Papers 212, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    6. Tangian, Andranik, 2006. "Monitoring flexicurity policies in Europe from three different viewpoints," WSI Discussion Papers 145, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut (WSI), Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
    7. Luciano G. Greco, 2011. "Optimal Redistribution with Productive Social Services," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 113(1), pages 55-73, 03.
    8. Alber, Jens & Kohler, Ulrich, 2008. "The inequality of electoral participation in Europe and America and the politically integrative functions of the welfare state," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2008-202, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
    9. Tangian, Andranik, 2006. "European flexicurity: concepts (operational definitions), methodology (monitoring instruments), and policies (consistent implementations)," WSI Discussion Papers 148, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut (WSI), Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
    10. Shulruf, Boaz & O'Loughlin, Claire & Tolley, Hilary, 2009. "Parenting education and support policies and their consequences in selected OECD countries," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 526-532, May.
    11. Alber, Jens, 2009. "What the European and American welfare states have in common and where they differ: facts and fiction in comparisons of the European social model and the United States," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2009-203, Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).
    12. André Decoster & Jason Loughrey & Cathal O'Donoghue & Dirk Verwerft, 2011. "Microsimulation of indirect taxes," International Journal of Microsimulation, Interational Microsimulation Association, vol. 4(2), pages 41-56.


    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:elsaab:29-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.