IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Financial Consequences of Widowhood in Europe: Cross-Country and Gender Differences



We document in this paper the financial consequences of widowhood using both cross-section and panel data from the European Community Household Panel. The research reveals that there are large differences across countries. For example, widowed persons in Greece and Portugal have the lowest income – less than a half that of those widowed in Austria. Cross-country differences decrease somewhat if we consider household income net of housing costs, owing to the higher share of home ownership in low-income countries. Further, the income reduction upon widowhood is generally larger for widows than it is for widowers. The difference in income between the genders is largest in Denmark, Spain, Austria and Finland, where widowers enjoy an income that is more than 30% higher that of widows. The main culprit of the differences in income between widows and widowers lies in pension regulations. As today’s elderly women and those approaching old age spent their working years in an era where women worked at home, raised children and did not participate in the labour market, many depend mostly on survivorship pensions as their main source of income. Yet in most countries this kind of pension tends to be much lower than the applicable old-age pension, owing to the prevailing pension laws. Consequently, the financial situation of widows is unlikely to improve in the medium term unless pension regulations change.

Suggested Citation

  • Namkee Ahn, 2005. "Financial Consequences of Widowhood in Europe: Cross-Country and Gender Differences," Economics Working Papers 032, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.
  • Handle: RePEc:epr:enepwp:032

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Dan Ben-David & Ayal Kimhi, 2001. "Trade and the rate of income convergence," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 419-441.
    2. Romain Wacziarg & Karen Horn Welch, 2008. "Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 22(2), pages 187-231, June.
    3. Kaitila, Ville, 2003. "Convergence of Real GDP per Capita in the EU15 area: How do the Accession Countries Fit in ?," Discussion Papers 865, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    4. Guillaume Gaulier, 2003. "Trade and Convergence: Revisiting Ben-David," Working Papers 2003-06, CEPII research center.
    5. Ville Kaitila, 2004. "Convergence of real GDP per capita in the EU15. How do the Accession Countries fit in?," Economics Working Papers 025, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.
    6. Wagner, Martin & Hlouskova, Jaroslava, 2001. "The CEEC10's Real Convergence Prospects," Transition Economics Series 20, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    7. Andrea Bassanini & Stefano Scarpetta, 2003. "The Driving Forces of Economic Growth: Panel Data Evidence for the OECD Countries," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2001(2), pages 9-56.
    8. Robert J. Barro, 1991. "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 407-443.
    9. Fischer, Stanley, 1993. "The role of macroeconomic factors in growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 485-512, December.
    10. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 407-437.
    11. Hamilton, James D. & Monteagudo, Josefina, 1998. "The augmented Solow model and the productivity slowdown," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 495-509, October.
    12. Benhabib, Jess & Spiegel, Mark M., 1994. "The role of human capital in economic development evidence from aggregate cross-country data," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 143-173, October.
    13. Edwards, Sebastian, 1998. "Openness, Productivity and Growth: What Do We Really Know?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(447), pages 383-398, March.
    14. Henrekson, Magnus & Torstensson, Johan & Torstensson, Rasha, 1997. "Growth effects of European integration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1537-1557, August.
    15. Ben-David, Dan, 1996. "Trade and convergence among countries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-4), pages 279-298, May.
    16. Baldwin, Richard & Seghezza, Elena, 1996. "Growth and European Integration: Towards an Empirical Assessment," CEPR Discussion Papers 1393, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Yongcheol Shin & Ron P Smith & Mohammad Hashem Pesaran, 1998. "Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels," ESE Discussion Papers 16, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    18. Francisco Rodriguez & Dani Rodrik, 2001. "Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic's Guide to the Cross-National Evidence," NBER Chapters,in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2000, Volume 15, pages 261-338 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Ben-David, Dan, 1996. "Technological Convergence and International Trade," CEPR Discussion Papers 1359, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Crafts, Nicholas & Kaiser, Kai, 2004. "Long-term growth prospects in transition economies: a reappraisal," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 101-118, March.
    21. Dan Ben-David, 1993. "Equalizing Exchange: Trade Liberalization and Income Convergence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 653-679.
    22. Miller, Stephen M. & Upadhyay, Mukti P., 2002. "Total factor productivity and the convergence hypothesis," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 267-286, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:epr:enepwp:032. 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: (CEPS). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.