Welfare State Expenditures and the Distribution of Child Opportunities
This paper estimates the redistributive effects of welfare state expenditures on social and economic disparities in the economic well-being of citizens in ten nations. Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and other sources for cash and non-cash social welfare benefits (health and education benefits from third parties) are used to describe differences in the size and nature of welfare states and their distributional effects. The OECD data are combined with micro data on household incomes from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) both to estimate the redistributive effects of the expenditures and taxes and to construct measures of the differences in the relative standard of living among the population at various points in the income distributions of their countries. Estimates are provided for country populations as a while and for three mutually exclusive groups: all persons; non-aged persons living with children; non-aged without children at home; and the elderly. These measures may be thought of as capturing the degree to which welfare states at the end of the 20th and dawn of the 21st century provide for the developmental needs and capabilities of their populations in terms of cash, access to health care, and educational opportunity. The results indicate a wide range of differences in levels of economic resources and support, within as well as between, nations and groups. The degree to which children have fair and equal opportunity chances; the degree to which the population has access to quality health care; and the population groups who are most called upon (most taxed) to provide these benefits are all investigated here. Non-cash benefits are particularly important for low-income Americans, especially elders and children and their families, and should not be taken for granted by analysts of the welfare state. Counting in-kind benefits at government cost substantially reduces across-national differences in market and cash disposable incomes, but does not eliminate them. The results are very sensitive to how in-kind benefits are measured and valued. [Revised October 2004]
|Date of creation:||Jun 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 426 Eggers Hall, Syracuse, New York USA 13244-1020|
Phone: (315) 443-3114
Fax: (315) 443-1081
Web page: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/cpr.aspx
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Smeeding, Timothy M, et al, 1993. "Poverty, Inequality, and Family Living Standards Impacts across Seven Nations: The Effect of Noncash Subsidies for Health, Education and Housing," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 39(3), pages 229-56, September.
- William Duncombe & John Yinger, 1997. "Why is it so hard to help central city schools?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 85-113.
- David Card & A. Abigail Payne, 1998.
"School Finance Reform, the Distribution of School Spending, and the Distribution of SAT Scores,"
NBER Working Papers
6766, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- David Card & Abigail A. Payne, 1997. "School Finance Reform, the Distribution of School Spending, and the Distribution of SAT Scores," Working Papers 766, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:max:cprwps:63. 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: (Kelly Bogart)or (Katrina Wingle)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.