Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Persistent poverty in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK


Author Info

  • Fouarge, Didier
  • Muffels, Ruud


Using panel data for the Netherlands, Germany and the UK for seven years in the late 1980s and early 1990s the paper examines the comparative evidence on longitudinal income and persistent poverty for the three countries. Elaborating on the existing methodological literature of income dynamics, a panel regression model has been estimated to arrive at population wide estimates of the population in persitent and transitory poverty in a comparative perspective. What the model actually pursues is to disentangle income over time in a permanent and transitory part. The idea behind the approach is that what really matters for people’s welfare in the long run is their permanentincome. The basic assumption is that people have a kind of latent long-term income-toneeds level from which occasional departures are possible due to temporary income shortfalls or income surpluses associated with the occurrence of events such as(un)employment, disability or illness, overtime work or working time reductions. According to this framework, poverty can be seen as a state in which permanent income falls below a predefined threshold being the long-term poverty line. The approach can therefore be helpful in estimating the size of the population in persistent poverty. When appropriate variables are added to the empirical model, it is possible to monitor the effect of socio-economic events on the permanent income-to-needs level. Following Esping-Andersen’s seminal work on welfare-state regimes, one might perceive the UK as a liberal welfare state although in a less prototypical sense as it exists in the US. Germany should clearly be considered to belong to the corporatist prototype and the Netherlands to the social-democratic type. Then, presumably, the UK has the lowest permanent income-to-needs level, the highest persistent poverty incidence and the highest income mobility. The findings confirm the presumption that permanent income is lower in a liberal welfare state as the UK although not very much lower than in the other countries. Hence, the transitory part of income is slightly larger in this liberal type of welfare state. The results also show that permanent income is more unequally distributed in the UK than in the Netherlands and Germany and that income inequalities have a less permanent character in the Netherlands. Besides, transitory shocks in income have a less permanent effect in the Netherlands than in the two other countries. The inclusion of household composition or labour market variables does not alter the main results. Viewing the effect of labour market status variables, like living in a household with a not working head, it is shown that members of these households are more likely persistent poor, particularly when the head is female. The effects of household structure on persistent poverty appear quite large. Especially, lone-parents households seem prone to persistent poverty in all three welfare regimes but single elderly particularly in the UK.

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:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 13297.

as in new window
Date of creation: 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:13297

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page:
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Persistent poverty; income dynamics; inequality; panel data; error component models; BHPS-SEP-SOEP data models;

Find related papers by JEL classification:


References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. John M. Abowd & David Card, 1986. "On the Covariance Structure of Earnings and Hours Changes," NBER Working Papers 1832, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Bruce Headey & Robert Goodin & Ruud Muffels & Henk-Jan Dirven, 2000. "Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’," Social Indicators Research, Springer, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 115-157, May.
  3. Muffels, Ruud & Fouarge, Didier & Dekker, Ronald, 2000. "Longitudinal Poverty and Income Inequality A Comparative Panel Study for The Netherlands, Germany and the UK," MPRA Paper 13298, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  4. Mary Jo Bane & David T. Ellwood, 1986. "Slipping into and out of Poverty: The Dynamics of Spells," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 21(1), pages 1-23.
  5. Lillard, Lee A & Willis, Robert J, 1978. "Dynamic Aspects of Earning Mobility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 46(5), pages 985-1012, September.
  6. Joseph G. Altonji & Lewis M. Segal, 1994. "Small sample bias in GMM estimation of covariance structures," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago 94-8, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

Cited by:
  1. Martin Biewen, 2002. "The Covariance Structure of East and West German Incomes and its Implications for the Persistence of Poverty and Inequality," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 292, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  2. Luis Ayala & Antonio Jurado & Jesús Pérez‐Mayo, 2011. "Income Poverty And Multidimensional Deprivation: Lessons From Cross‐Regional Analysis," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 57(1), pages 40-60, 03.


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:pra:mprapa:13297. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht).

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.