Social inequality and homeownership from a comparative perspective: Is there a return of the welfare state?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare state regimes has been one of the most influential contributions to comparative studies. The general picture of this typology has four variants: social democratic, conservative, southern European, and liberal regimes. This typology becomes controversial particularly when homeownership inequalities are considered. Our study aims to evaluate the sustainability of the welfare state regime typology with regard to reducing inequalities of homeownership. The paper uses data from the Luxembourg Income Study to analyze the changes in homeownership rates for low-income populations as compared to the entire population. We compared ten countries representing various welfare regimes from 2000 to 2013/16 to examine the variations of homeownership and social inequalities over time. The results show that the distribution of countries seems to have a negative correlation between welfare regimes (according to the Gini index) and homeownership rates. In liberal countries (except Canada) and southern European countries, homeownership rates fell over time. In most of these countries, low-income populations experienced the highest decline in homeownership rates during the observed period.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".