IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/hbsarb/298.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Das Grundsicherungsniveau: Ergebnis der Verteilungsentwicklung und normativer Setzungen. Eine empirische Analyse auf Basis der EVS 2003 und 2008

Author

Listed:
  • Becker, Irene
  • Schüssler, Reinhard

Abstract

Die Kritik am Verfahren zur Bemessung der Grundsicherungs- bzw. Sozialhilfeleistungen reißt auch nach der Reform von 2011 nicht ab. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird zunächst der Frage nachgegangen, ob der methodische Ansatz (Statistikmodell) und die vom Gesetzgeber gewählten Referenzgruppen unter Berücksichtigung der Verteilungsentwicklung weiterhin geeignet sind, um das soziokulturelle Existenzminimum zu ermitteln. Darüber hinaus wird der Einfluss fiktiver Szenarien auf das Grundsicherungsniveau geprüft. Zum einen wird untersucht, inwieweit die Einführung eines gesetzlichen Mindestlohns zu höheren Regelbedarfen führen würde. Zum anderen werden die Effekte der normativen Neuausrichtung, die mit dem reformierten Verfahren der Bedarfsermittlung erfolgt ist, quantifiziert: Alternativrechnungen zeigen, dass die Umsetzung der verfassungsgerichtlichen Vorgaben zu einer deutlichen Erhöhung des Grundsicherungsniveaus geführt hätte, die aber durch Streichungen von Gütern aus dem regelbedarfsrelevanten Konsum und durch eine Verkleinerung des Referenzeinkommensbereichs überkompensiert wurde.

Suggested Citation

  • Becker, Irene & Schüssler, Reinhard, 2014. "Das Grundsicherungsniveau: Ergebnis der Verteilungsentwicklung und normativer Setzungen. Eine empirische Analyse auf Basis der EVS 2003 und 2008," Arbeitspapiere 298, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:hbsarb:298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/116755/1/hbs_arbp_298.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus M. Grabka & Joachim R. Frick, 2010. "Weiterhin hohes Armutsrisiko in Deutschland: Kinder und junge Erwachsene sind besonders betroffen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 77(7), pages 2-11.
    2. Richard Ochmann & Katharina Wrohlich, 2013. "Familiensplitting der CDU/CSU: Hohe Kosten bei geringer Entlastung für einkommensschwache Familien," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(36), pages 3-11.
    3. Kerstin Bruckmeier & Jürgen Wiemers, 2010. "A New Targeting - A New Take-Up?: Non-take-up of Social Assistance in Germany after Social Policy Reforms," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 294, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    4. Karl Brenke & Kai-Uwe Müller, 2013. "Gesetzlicher Mindestlohn: kein verteilungspolitisches Allheilmittel," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(39), pages 3-17.
    5. Joachim R. Frick & Olaf Groh-Samberg, 2007. "To Claim or Not to Claim: Estimating Non-take-up of Social Assistance in Germany and the Role of Measurement Error," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 734, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    6. Stephen Whelan, 2010. "The take-up of means-tested income support," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 847-875, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Becker, Irene & Hauser, Richard, 2012. "Kindergrundsicherung, Kindergeld und Kinderzuschlag: Eine vergleichende Analyse aktueller Reformvorschläge," WSI Working Papers 180, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    2. Bruckmeier, Kerstin & Riphahn, Regina T. & Wiemers, Jürgen, 2019. "Benefit underreporting in survey data and its consequences for measuring non-take-up: new evidence from linked administrative and survey data," IAB-Discussion Paper 201906, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    3. Gasior, Katrin & Hollan, Katarina & Fuchs, Michael & Premrov, Tamara & Scoppetta, Anette, 2019. "Falling through the social safety net? Analysing non-take-up of minimum income benefit and monetary social assistance in Austria," EUROMOD Working Papers EM9/19, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    4. Herber, Stefanie P. & Kalinowski, Michael, 2016. "Non-take-up of Student Financial Aid: A Microsimulation for Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145727, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Bruckmeier, Kerstin & Wiemers, Jürgen, 2011. "A new targeting - a new take-up? : non-take-up of social assistance in Germany after social policy reforms," IAB-Discussion Paper 201110, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    6. Jürgen Wiemers, 2015. "Endogenizing take-up of social assistance in a microsimulation model. A case study for Germany," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 8(2), pages 4-27.
    7. Kerstin Bruckmeier & Jürgen Wiemers, 2012. "A new targeting: a new take-up?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 565-580, October.
    8. Becker, Irene, 2015. "Der Einfluss verdeckter Armut auf das Grundsicherungsniveau," Arbeitspapiere 309, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf.
    9. Herber, Stefanie P. & Kalinowski, Michael, 2016. "Non-take-up of student financial aid: A microsimulation for Germany," BERG Working Paper Series 109, Bamberg University, Bamberg Economic Research Group.
    10. Bruckmeier, Kerstin & Wiemers, Jürgen, 2016. "Differences in welfare take-up between immigrants and natives : a microsimulation study," IAB-Discussion Paper 201608, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    11. Michelle Harnisch, 2019. "Non-Take-Up of Means-Tested Social Benefits in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1793, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    12. Eichhorst, Werner, 2013. "Wie weiter am deutschen Arbeitsmarkt?," IZA Standpunkte 61, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Wiemers, Jürgen, 2015. "Endogenizing take-up of social assistance in a microsimulation model : a case study for Germany," IAB-Discussion Paper 201520, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    14. Kerstin Bruckmeier & Regina T. Riphahn & Jürgen Wiemers, 2021. "Misreporting of program take-up in survey data and its consequences for measuring non-take-up: new evidence from linked administrative and survey data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 1567-1616, September.
    15. Bofinger, Peter & Buch, Claudia M. & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2013. "Gegen eine rückwärtsgewandte Wirtschaftspolitik. Jahresgutachten 2013/14 [Against a backward-looking economic policy. Annual Report 2013/14]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201314.
    16. Stefanie P. Herber & Michael Kalinowski, 2016. "Non-Take-Up of Student Financial Aid: A Microsimulation for Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 844, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Bruckmeier, Kerstin & Wiemers, Jürgen, 2016. "Differences in welfare take-up between immigrants and natives," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145828, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Wörz, Markus, 2011. "Financial consequences of falling ill: Changes in the German health insurance system since the 1980s," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2011-209, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    19. Hetschko, Clemens & Schöb, Ronnie & Wolf, Tobias, 2020. "Income support, employment transitions and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Amlinger, Marc & Bispinck, Reinhard & Schulten, Thorsten, 2014. "Niedriglohnsektor: Jeder Dritte ohne Mindestlohn? Ausnahmen vom geplanten Mindestlohn und ihre Konsequenzen," WSI Reports 12, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:hbsarb:298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/boeckde.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.