Welfare state institutions, unemployment and poverty: comparative analysis of unemployment benefits and labour market participation in 15 European Union countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Much intellectual effort has been expended on debating welfare state regimes – whether they exist (and, if so, how many), what their central characteristics are and whether they are becoming more similar or not. In his Three worlds of welfare capitalism , which launched an avalanche of welfare regime studies, Gøsta Esping- Andersen (1990) emphasised that a welfare state regime consists of a multifaceted interplay between labour markets and social policies. From this perspective he distinguished three clusters of welfare state: Nordic, Liberal and Corporatist regimes. The hallmark of the Nordic welfare state, consisting of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, is a high level of employment, with high income protection when one is unemployed, sick, disabled, elderly, etc. As a consequence of these interacting factors, poverty rates in all population categories – the employed, the unemployed, the retired, etc – are low. In the Liberal welfare state means-tested or low flat-rate benefits dominate and, as a consequence of the low level of social protection, poverty among the welfare recipients is common. Typical examples of this welfare state model are: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the US. The third cluster, the Corporatist – typical of the Central European countries Austria, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands – combines high social insurance benefits for the labour market insiders and a strong degree of familialism that supports traditional gender roles. To preserve class and status difference, social security is organised according to occupational lines. Esping-Andersen's triad has been expanded to include a fourth model, the Southern European welfare state (Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain), characterised by generous entitlements for the core workers – the replacement rates are among the highest in the EU hemisphere – while other forms of social protection are underdeveloped and the extended family plays a central role in care-giving. Female labour force participation is thus very low in comparison to the other regimes (Ferrera, 2010). This chapter examines the interaction between the labour market, employment and social security in different welfare state regimes. More specifically, we investigate to what extent, if any, we can find regime-based differences in labour markets, in the generosity of unemployment insurance or in the economic consequences of being employed, becoming unemployed for a shorter or longer period and becoming employed again. Our study spans the mid-1990s to the late 2000s.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".