Andel fattiga barn i OECD-länderna

DEA

GRUKIRE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Före skatter och bidrag (%)

Efte

r ska

tter o

ch b

idra

g (%

)

Andelen fattiga barn beräknas här som andelen barn, som tillhör hushåll, där den disponibla inkomsten per konsumtionsenhet ligger under 50 procent av medianinkomsten i det egna landet. Disponibel inkomst är inkomst efter skatt och bidrag. I beräkningarna här har man beräknat andelen fattiga både före och efter skatt och bidrag. Hushållets antal konsumtions-enheter beräknas som kvadratroten ur antalet personer i hushållet.

BIP und Einkommensungleichheit (Gini-koeff.)

S

DK

N

FI DÖ

B

UK

SP

NLFR

IRESW

GRPT

USA

1500017000190002100023000250002700029000310003300035000

20 25 30 35 40 45

INKOMSTOJÄMLIKHET (GINI)

BIP

/Ein

woh

ner

NORDZENTRUM

SUED

Cellular subscribers per 1000 people. 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

PO

USA

JAP

FR

HU

D

ND

IRE

B

A

SP

P

DK

UK

N

GR

CZ

FI

S

IT

Figure 1 GDP per head of population in PPP, as percent of United States.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

UNITED STATESEUROPEAN UNION

NorwayIreland

DenmarkNetherlands

AustriaUnited Kingdom

BelgiumFrance

SwedenFinland

Germany

ItalySpain

GreecePortugal

Czech RepublicHungary

Slovak RepublicPoland

SwitzerlandCanada

AustraliaJapanKorea

MexicoTurkey

G7 countriesOECD

Northern EUCentral EUSouthern EUEastern EU

WELFARE REGIME

Figure 2 UNDPs Human Poverty Index (HPI-2) for developed nations. 2001

0 5 10 15 20

S

NO

ND

FI

DK

GE

FR

ES

JAP

CA

BE

AU

UK

IRE

USA

Figure 3 Estes' WISP for EU and USA. 2001

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

SDK

NOFI

GEA

ITB

ESUKND

FRIRESWGR

PUSA

Figure 4: GDP/head vs income inequality (Gini)

S

DK

N

FI DA

B

UK

SP

NLFR

IRESW

GR PT

USA

1500017000

1900021000

2300025000

2700029000

3100033000

35000

20 25 30 35 40 45

INCOME INEQUALITY

BN

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 5: GDP/head vs life expectancy

S

DK

N

FIDÖ

B

UK

SP

NL

FR

IRESW

GRPT

USA

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

75 76 77 78 79 80 81

LIFE EXPECTANCY

GD

P/ca

pita

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 6: GDP/head vs infant mortality

USA

PTGR

SWIRE

FRNL

SP

UK

BÖ

DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

2300025000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 2 4 6 8

Infant mortality

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 7: GDP/head vs female representation in parliament

USA

PTGR

SWIRE

FR NL

SP

UK

BA

D FI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 10 20 30 40 50

PERCENT WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDICCOUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 8: GDP/head vs poverty rates (percent by US poverty definition. Source: Smeeding, Rainwater and Burtless (2000): United States Poverty in Cross-national Context. Luxembourg Income Survey

NL

CA

UK

FRD

FI

N

S

170001800019000

2000021000220002300024000

250002600027000

0 5 10 15 20

GD

P/ca

pita

199

5, U

S $ NORDIC

COUNTRIES

CENTRAL

USA

AU

Figure 9: Percent living in poverty of children of single mothers. Poverty limit= 50% of the common median. Source: Unicef (Bradbury och Jäntti 1999)

I

USA

SWIRE

FRNL

SP

UK

B A DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Joachim Vogel University of Umeå, Sweden

Abstract Quality of life versus growth competitiveness: A comparative assessment of Scandinavia, Germany, USA and the European Union. Recent studies of welfare production (Vogel 1997a, 1997b, 1999, 2003) build on the regimes tradition (welfare state regimes, employment regimes, gender regimes, family regimes), in search for similarities and dissimilarities between European nations in the institutional pre-conditions shaping the level and distribution of living conditions. The regimes perspective of this contribution is not restricted to any of the major institutions per se (labour market, wel-fare state, family), but focused on the configuration (‘welfare mix’) between them. The wel-fare mix represents a functional division of responsibility between labour market, welfare state and family.

The driving forces behind the current welfare mix are external and internal factors, such as the his-torical and ideological tradition, global competition, national resources, infrastructure, power relations and ideological struggle. The institutional configuration or ‘welfare mix’ will change over time and differs between nations, forming clusters of similar welfare production strategies.

The distributive outcome will correspond to the welfare mix. Each of the three institutions, as well as the division of responsibility, can be evaluated with respect to its efficiency to produce living condi-tions and reduce poverty and social exclusion. At micro level, people will adapt to cope with the avail-able options (e.g. family formation, fertility).

Recent studies, based on ECHP and coordinated Nordic social surveys, indicate there are three main welfare delivery strategies within the European union. The European union ap-pears to be divided in three rather distinct and homogeneous clusters: 1. a Nordic cluster of ‘institutional welfare states’ (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway) exhibiting high employment rates and high social expenditure, but weak family ties; producing lower income inequality and poverty rates; 2. a Southern cluster of ‘family welfare states’ (Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal) characterized by low employment levels, as well as lower social expenditure, but strong traditional families, producing higher poverty rates and income inequality; 3. a Central European cluster (Germany, France, BeNeLux, Austria, UK and Ireland) in intermediate position concerning welfare mix as well as distributive outcome.

This presentation expands these findings by comparing the three European welfare regimes with USA, with respect to the level and distribution of living conditions, as well as growth potential. The comparison is based on a set of quality of life indexes, as well as the standard repertoire of single social indicators.

These findings indicate that the US welfare regime indeed represents a very different case, deviating much from all three European welfare regimes. The US GDP is not a reliable indi-cator of the quality of life at micro level. In spite of its high GDP and growth potential the US falls behind all of the EU15 member states on QOL indexes and most social indicators. The major factor is the diverse distribution of economic welfare, with high poverty rates, Gini-coefficients, volumes of working poor, and health inequality.

Within the European Union there are some tendencies towards integration of employment levels and social provisions as well as living conditions. Germany is catching up on Sweden on tax levels and social protection expenditure, but is still falling behind on employment. However, clear differences remain on female employment, family policies, fertility levels, life expectancy and income distribution.

In summary: the European three-cluster structure remains, but the variation tends to be re-duced. The Nordic cluster seems to match the growth competitiveness of the USA, while cen-tral EU and the Southern cluster fall behind. Job creation and family policy seem to be major impediments.

AGENDA and DATA 1. GDP AND GROWTH POTENTIAL: FIRST VIEW 2. QUALITY OF LIFE INDEXES 3. GDP VERSUS QOL INDEXES 4. GDP VERSUS CORE INDICATORS 5. THE LABOUR MARKET employment unemployment labour market policies 6. THE WELFARE STATE social protection expenditure redistribution by transfers and taxes 7. INCOME, POVERTY, REDISTRIBUTION income distribution poverty child poverty development assistance 8. FAMILY POLICIES public expenditure parental leave child care provisions 9. FAMILY FORMATION AND FERTILITY 10 HEALTH Health expenditure life expectancy 11 SOCIAL COHESION AND SOCIAL CONFLICT corruption military expenses crime and incarceration 12. COMPETITIVENESS public expenditure on education/training R&D expenditure technology diffusion growth competitiveness index 13. SUMMARISING: THE ECONOMIC VERSUS THE SOCIAL DIMENSION income inequality versus growth potential social capital versus growth potential

THE WELFARE PRODUCTION MODEL WELFARE INSTITUTIONS: DISTRIBUTIVE AND BEHA- (WELFARE MIX) VIOURAL CONSEQUENCES: LABOUR MARKET DISTRIBUTIVE FEATURES employment equality of disposable income unemployment hazards poverty female employment equality in material living standards earnings - by social class FAMILY NETWORKS - by generation age of leaving the nest - by gender singlehood - by ethnicity consensual unions - by family types household size - by region

multigenerational families

WELFARE STATE COPING STRATEGIES social protection expen- age of leaving the parental home diture partnering tax rate separations family policies fertility reconciliation between work/family .

DATA 1. GDP AND GROWTH POTENTIAL –A FIRST VIEW (colour refer to the European welfare regime classification) Figure 1 GDP per head of population in PPP, as percent of United States.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

UNITED STATESEUROPEAN UNION

NorwayIreland

DenmarkNetherlands

AustriaUnited Kingdom

BelgiumFrance

SwedenFinland

Germany

ItalySpain

GreecePortugal

Czech RepublicHungary

Slovak RepublicPoland

SwitzerlandCanada

AustraliaJapanKorea

MexicoTurkey

G7 countriesOECD

Northern EUCentral EUSouthern EUEastern EU

WELFARE REGIME

The Growth Competitiveness Index for 2005 (World Economic Forum).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ITGR

BF

SPIRE

LPT

ADEUKND

NSWDKSE

USAFI

2. QUALITY OF LIFE INDEXES Figure 2 UNDPs Human Poverty Index (HPI-2) for developed nations. 2001

0 5 10 15 20

S

NO

ND

FI

DK

GE

FR

ES

JAP

CA

BE

AU

UK

IRE

USA

Figure 3 Estes' WISP for EU and USA. 2001

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

SDK

NOFI

GEA

ITB

ESUKND

FRIRESWGR

PUSA

Satisfaction with Society ("very or fairly satisfied

with the 'kind of society' they live in").Source: EUROBAROMETER 2001.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

I

F

GR

E

B

P

D

UK

NL

A

S

FIN

IRL

DK

3. GDP VERSUS QOL INDEXES

USA

IRE

FRNL

SP

UK

B

DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 5 10 15 20

Human Poverty index HPI-2 (UNDP)

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDICCOUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN

4. GDP VS SINGLE INDICATORS Figure 4: GDP/head vs income inequality (Gini)

S

DK

N

FI DA

B

UK

SP

NLFR

IRESW

GR PT

USA

1500017000

1900021000

2300025000

2700029000

3100033000

35000

20 25 30 35 40 45

INCOME INEQUALITY

BN

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 5: GDP/head vs life expectancy

S

DK

N

FIDÖ

B

UK

SP

NL

FR

IRESW

GRPT

USA

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

75 76 77 78 79 80 81

LIFE EXPECTANCY

GD

P/ca

pita

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 6: GDP/head vs infant mortality

USA

PTGR

SWIRE

FRNL

SP

UK

BÖ

DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

2300025000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 2 4 6 8

Infant mortality

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 7: GDP/head vs female representation in parliament

USA

PTGR

SWIRE

FR NL

SP

UK

BA

D FI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 10 20 30 40 50

PERCENT WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDICCOUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 8: GDP/head vs poverty rates (percent by US poverty definition. Source: Smeeding, Rainwater and Burtless (2000): United States Poverty in Cross-national Context. Luxembourg Income Survey

NL

CA

UK

FRD

FI

N

S

170001800019000

2000021000220002300024000

250002600027000

0 5 10 15 20

GD

P/ca

pita

199

5, U

S $ NORDIC

COUNTRIES

CENTRAL

USA

AU

Figure 9: Percent living in poverty of children of single mothers. Poverty limit= 50% of the common median. Source: Unicef (Bradbury och Jäntti 1999)

I

USA

SWIRE

FRNL

SP

UK

B A DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

5. LABOUR MARKET PERFORM-ANCE

Labour force participation rate 2003.Source: EUSI.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

HU

GR

B

PO

SP

IRE

IT

FR

CZ

D

A

ND

P

JAP

UK

USA

FI

S

DK

N

Unemployment rate 2002Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20

PO

SP

GR

FI

IT

FR

D

B

CZ

HU

USA

JAP

A

UK

P

DK

IRE

N

S

ND

6. WELFARE STATE PROVISIONS: SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDI-TURE

Total social protection expenditure. Percent of GDP.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

p

2000

*

2001

*

EU-15 BE DKDE EL ESFR IE ITNL AT PTFI SE UKNO CH HUMT SI SK

SE

FI

DK

NO

D

EU15UKIT

ES

ELP

F

IRE

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

5 000

5 500

6 000

6 500

7 000

7 500

8 000

8 500

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

p

2000

*

2001

*

EU-15 BE DKDE EL ESFR IE ITNL AT PTFI SE UKNO CH HUSI SK

Total social protection expenditure. Per head of population in PPS.

DK

N

SE

FI

EU15

DE

IT

UK

FR

PT

ES

EL

HUSK

SI

CH

7. INCOME AND POVERTY

0,47

0,36

0,35

0,35

0,35

0,30

0,30

0,30

0,28

0,26

0,25

0,24

0,24

0,21

0,18

0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50

P

UK

GR

E

I

F

L

NL

D

IRL

B

DK

Sweden

N

FIN

Graph 5.A Inequality of disposable household income per consumer unit (Gini-coefficients). Source: ECHP 1994 and Nordic surceys.

Inequality of income by Gini-index. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

USA

P

UK

IT

IRE

GR

FR

ND

SP

A

D

FI

N

S

B

DK

Child poverty in Europe and USA

DK FIN SE

FB

ND

PT

USA

MX

DEA

GRUK

IRE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Pre tax and transfers (%)

Post

tax-

and

tran

sfer

s (%

)

Net official development assistance (ODA) as percent of GNI. 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

USA

IT

GR

JAP

A

SP

D

P

UK

FI

FR

IRE

B

ND

S

N

DK

Graph 6.A Poverty rates in the European Union. Poverty limit=50 % of the national average dis-posable household income per consumer unit.Source: ECHP 1994 and Nordic surveys.

26,821,8

20,620,0

19,117,9

13,112,912,6

11,410,9

6,55,5

5,04,6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

P

GR

UK

IRL

E

I

F

L

B

NL

D

DK

Sweden

N

FIN

Percent

8. FAMILY POLICIES Social expenditure for the function Family/ Children. Percent of GDP. Source: EUROSTAT

0

1

2

3

4

5

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

p20

00*

2001

*

EU-15 BE DK DEEL ES FR IEIT NL AT PTFI SE UK NOCH HU SI SK

DK

SE

NFI

DE

UK

FR

EU15

GR

IT

ES

P

CH

AU

Public child care support: Paid maternity/paternity leave (equivalent weeks paid 100%) and publicly funded child care provisions for the first child (percentage of children attending/available places). Source: EC 1998.

IRE

E

UK

D-W

A

GR

I

NLP

FIN

F B

NS

D-E

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Publicly financed care provisions for children O-3 yrs

Equi

vale

nt w

eeks

pai

d 10

0%

9. FERTILITY

Total period fertility rate 1970-97. Estimated average number of children a woman will bear in her lifetime. Source: Newchronos.

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

2,2

2,4

2,6

2,8

3,0

1970

1980

1990

1994

1996

Sweden

Denmark

Finland

Norway

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Belgium

France

Germany-WLuxembourg

The Netherlands

UK

Austria

10. HEALTH Public expenditure on health. Percent of GDP. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PO

IRE

HU

FI

GR

SP

A

ND

USA

JAP

UK

IT

B

P

CZ

N

DK

FR

S

D

Probability at birth not surviving to age 60. 2000-2005. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20

HU

PO

USA

CZ

P

DK

FI

FR

A

B

IRE

D

GR

UK

SP

ND

IT

N

JAP

S

11. SOCIAL COHESION AND CON-FLICT

Perceived Corruption Index (low level). Source: Transparency International 2001.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

CZ

POGR

HU

IT

PB

FR

SP

DIRE

USA

AUK

N

ND

SDK

FI

Figure 9.a Military expenditure. Percent of GDP2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5

GRUSA

FRUK

NITP

CZS

POHUNDDK

DBFI

SPJAP

AIRE

Incarceration rates per 100.000 adults. Source: Western and Beckett 1999, AJS 104:4.

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

010

0011

0012

0013

0014

0015

0016

0017

0018

0019

0020

00

USA-blackUSA-all

USA-whiteCAUKAU

ASWFR

DITBS

DKND

JAP

12. GROWTH POTENTIAL Public expenditure on education. Percent of GDP. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 2 4 6 8 10

JAP

GR

IRE

SP

CZ

UK

D

ND

IT

HU

PO

USA

FR

B

P

A

FI

N

S

DK

Research and development expenditure. Percent of GDP 1996-2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5

GR

P

SP

IT

IRE

N

ND

UK

A

CA

B

DK

F

D

USA

JAP

FI

S

Cellular subscribers per 1000 people. 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

PO

USA

JAP

FR

HU

D

ND

IRE

B

A

SP

P

DK

UK

N

GR

CZ

FI

S

IT

The Growth Competitiveness Index for 2005 (World Economic Forum).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ITGR

BF

SPIRE

LPT

ADEUKND

NSWDKSE

USAFI

13. SUMMARISING: ECONOMIC VERSUS SOCIAL DIMENSION Income Inequality versus Growth Competitiveness

DK

SE

FB

SP

FI

NDDE

A

GR

UK

PT

IRE

USA

IT

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

4 4,5 5 5,5 6

Growth Competitive Index (GCI) 2005

Inco

me

ineq

ualit

y (G

ini)

Source: ECHP/ZUMA and Word Economic Forum

Social capital (trust) versus growth competitiveness

DK

FI

SEND

DEA

GRUK

PT

IRE

SP USAIT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4 4,5 5 5,5 6

Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2005

Soci

al c

apita

l (tr

ust:

perc

ent s

ayin

g "m

ost

peop

le c

an b

e tr

uste

d")

Source: ZUMA and World Economic Forum

European welfare regimes and competitiveness:

A comparative assessment of Scandinavia, Germany, European union and USA. Joachim Vogel, University of Umeå, Sweden Recent studies of welfare production (Vogel 1997a, 1997b, 1999, 2003) build on the regimes tradition (welfare state regimes, employment regimes, gender regimes, family regimes), in search for similarities and dissimilarities between European nations in the institutional pre-conditions shaping the distribution of living conditions. The regimes perspective of this con-tribution is not restricted to any of the major institutions per se (labour market, welfare state, family), but focused on the configuration (‘welfare mix’) between them. The welfare mix re-presents a functional division of responsibility between labour market, welfare state and fam-ily.

The driving forces behind the current welfare mix are external and internal factors, such as the his-torical and ideological tradition, global competition, national resources, infrastructure, power relations and ideological struggle. The institutional configuration or ‘welfare mix’ will change over time and differs between nations, forming clusters of similar welfare production strategies and welfare perform-ance.

The distributive outcome will correspond to the welfare mix. The division of responsibility, as well as each of the three institutions, can be evaluated with respect to its contribution or efficiency to dis-tribute living conditions and reducing poverty, social exclusion and general inequality. At micro level, people will adapt to cope with the available options (e.g. family formation, fertility).

Recent studies, based on ECHP and coordinated Nordic surveys, indicate there are three main welfare delivery strategies within the European union. The European union appears to be divided in three rather distinct and homogeneous clusters: 1. a Nordic cluster of ‘institutional welfare states’ (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, also Norway) exhib-iting high employment rates as well as social expenditure, but weak family ties; producing lower in-come inequality and poverty rates; 2. a Southern cluster of ‘family welfare states’ (Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal) characterized by low employment levels, lower social expenditure, but strong traditional families, producing higher poverty rates and income inequality; 3. a Central European cluster (remaining EU-nations) in intermediate position concerning welfare mix as well as distributive outcome. UK joins the southern cluster with high levels of income inequal-ity and poverty.

The contribution for this seminar expands these findings by comparing the three European welfare regimes with USA, with respect to aggregate living conditions and the distribution of living conditions. The comparison is based on a set of quality of life indexes, as well as the standard repertoire of single social indicators.

These findings indicate that the US welfare regime indeed represents a very different case, deviating much from all three European regimes. In spite of its high GDP the US falls behind all of the EU15 member states on QOL indexes and many key indicators, in some cases even behind some of the new EU member states. The major factor is the diverse distribution of economic welfare, with high poverty rates, Gini-coefficients and volumes of working poor.

GROWTH VERSUS QOL: THE GENERAL PICTURE 1 GDP 2 GROWTH/COMPETITIVENESS 3 QOL INDEXES WELFARE DELIVERY INSTITUTIONS 3 The Labour market employment unemployment 4 The (Welfare) State: Public spending Social protection expenditure Family policies Labour market policies redistribution by transfers and taxes 5 The Family The gender issue Family formation and fertility SOCIAL INDICATORS 6 material living standards income distribution official development assistance 7 Health Health expenditure life expectancy COMPETITIVENESS 8 Conflict corruption military expenses crime, incarceration 9 Technology diffusion R&D cell phones WELFARE REGIMES AND WELFARE PRODUCTION The model

THE WELFARE PRODUCTION MODEL WELFARE INSTITUTIONS: DISTRIBUTIVE AND BEHA- (WELFARE MIX) VIOURAL CONSEQUENCES: LABOUR MARKET DISTRIBUTIVE FEATURES employment equality of disposable income unemployment hazards poverty female employment equality in material living standards earnings - by social class FAMILY NETWORKS - by generation age of leaving the nest - by gender singlehood - by ethnicity consensual unions - by family types household size - by region

multigenerational families

WELFARE STATE COPING STRATEGIES social protection expen- age of leaving the parental home diture partnering tax rate separations family policies fertility reconciliation between work/family .

APPENDIX GENERAL ASSESSMENT Figure 1 GDP per head of population in PPP, as percent of United States.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

UNITED STATESEUROPEAN UNION

NorwayIreland

DenmarkNetherlands

AustriaUnited Kingdom

BelgiumFrance

SwedenFinland

Germany

ItalySpain

GreecePortugal

Czech RepublicHungary

Slovak RepublicPoland

SwitzerlandCanada

AustraliaJapanKorea

MexicoTurkey

G7 countriesOECD

Northern EUCentral EUSouthern EUEastern EU

WELFARE REGIME

The Growth Competitive Index (World Economic Forum) for 2005.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ITGR

BF

SPIRE

LPT

ADEUKND

NSWDKSE

USAFI

SOCIAL INDICATORS AND QUALITY OF LIFE INDEXES Figure 2 UNDPs Human Poverty Index (HPI-2) for developed nations. 2001

0 5 10 15 20

S

NO

ND

FI

DK

GE

FR

ES

JAP

CA

BE

AU

UK

IRE

USA

Figure 3 Estes' WISP for EU and USA. 2001

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

SDK

NOFI

GEA

ITB

ESUKND

FRIRESWGR

PUSA

Satisfaction with Society ("very or fairly satisfied

with the 'kind of society' they live in").Source: EUROBAROMETER 2001.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

I

F

GR

E

B

P

D

UK

NL

A

S

FIN

IRL

DK

GDP VERSUS QOL INDEXES USA

IRE

FRNL

SP

UK

B

DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 5 10 15 20

Human Poverty index HPI-2 (UNDP)

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDICCOUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN

GDP VERSUS SINGLE INDICATORS Figure 4: GDP/head vs income inequality (Gini)

S

DK

N

FI DA

B

UK

SP

NLFR

IRESW

GR PT

USA

1500017000

1900021000

2300025000

2700029000

3100033000

35000

20 25 30 35 40 45

INCOME INEQUALITY

BN

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 6: GDP/head vs infant mortality

USA

PTGR

SWIRE

FRNL

SP

UK

BÖ

DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

2300025000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 2 4 6 8

Infant mortality

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 5: GDP/head vs life expectancy

S

DK

N

FIDÖ

B

UK

SP

NL

FR

IRESW

GRPT

USA

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

75 76 77 78 79 80 81

LIFE EXPECTANCY

GD

P/ca

pita

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 7: GDP/head vs female representation in parliament

USA

PTGR

SWIRE

FR NL

SP

UK

BA

D FI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 10 20 30 40 50

PERCENT WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDICCOUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Figure 8: GDP/head vs poverty rates (percent by US poverty definition. Source: Smeeding, Rainwater and Burtless (2000): United States Poverty in Cross-national Context. Luxembourg Income Survey

NL

CA

UK

FRD

FI

N

S

170001800019000

2000021000220002300024000

250002600027000

0 5 10 15 20

GD

P/ca

pita

199

5, U

S $ NORDIC

COUNTRIES

CENTRAL

USA

AU

Figure 9: Percent living in poverty of children of single mothers. Poverty limit= 50% of the common median. Source: Unicef (Bradbury och Jäntti 1999)

I

USA

SWIRE

FRNL

SP

UK

B A DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDIC COUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

LABOUR MARKET PERFORMANCE Labour force participation rate 2003.Source: EUSI.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

HU

GR

B

PO

SP

IRE

IT

FR

CZ

D

A

ND

P

JAP

UK

USA

FI

S

DK

N

Unemployment rate 2002Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20

PO

SP

GR

FI

IT

FR

D

B

CZ

HU

USA

JAP

A

UK

P

DK

IRE

N

S

ND

WELFARE STATE PROVISIONS: SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDI-TURE

Total social protection expenditure. Percent of GDP.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

p

2000

*

2001

*

EU-15 BE DKDE EL ESFR IE ITNL AT PTFI SE UKNO CH HUMT SI SK

SE

FI

DK

NO

D

EU15UKIT

ES

ELP

F

IRE

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

5 000

5 500

6 000

6 500

7 000

7 500

8 000

8 500

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

p

2000

*

2001

*

EU-15 BE DKDE EL ESFR IE ITNL AT PTFI SE UKNO CH HUSI SK

Total social protection expenditure. Per head of population in PPS.

DK

N

SE

FI

EU15

DE

IT

UK

FR

PT

ES

EL

HUSK

SI

CH

FAMILY POLICIES Social expenditure for the function Family/ Children. Percent of GDP. Source: EUROSTAT

0

1

2

3

4

5

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

p20

00*

2001

*

EU-15 BE DK DEEL ES FR IEIT NL AT PTFI SE UK NOCH HU SI SK

DK

SE

NFI

DE

UK

FR

EU15

GR

IT

ES

P

CH

AU

Public child care support: Paid maternity/paternity leave (equivalent weeks paid 100%) and publicly funded child care provisions for the first child (percentage of children attending/available places). Source: EC 1998.

IRE

E

UK

D-W

A

GR

I

NLP

FIN

F B

NS

D-E

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Publicly financed care provisions for children O-3 yrs

Equi

vale

nt w

eeks

pai

d 10

0%

HEALTH Public expenditure on health. Percent of GDP. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PO

IRE

HU

FI

GR

SP

A

ND

USA

JAP

UK

IT

B

P

CZ

N

DK

FR

S

D

Probability at birth not surviving to age 60. 2000-2005. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20

HU

PO

USA

CZ

P

DK

FI

FR

A

B

IRE

D

GR

UK

SP

ND

IT

N

JAP

S

COMPETITIVENESS Public expenditure on education. Percent of GDP. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 2 4 6 8 10

JAP

GR

IRE

SP

CZ

UK

D

ND

IT

HU

PO

USA

FR

B

P

A

FI

N

S

DK

Research and development expenditure. Percent of GDP 1996-2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5

GR

P

SP

IT

IRE

N

ND

UK

A

CA

B

DK

F

D

USA

JAP

FI

S

Cellular subscribers per 1000 people. 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

PO

USA

JAP

FR

HU

D

ND

IRE

B

A

SP

P

DK

UK

N

GR

CZ

FI

S

IT

SOLIDARITY Inequality of income by Gini-index. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

USA

P

UK

IT

IRE

GR

FR

ND

SP

A

D

FI

N

S

B

DK

Net official development assistance (ODA) as percent of GNI. 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

USA

IT

GR

JAP

A

SP

D

P

UK

FI

FR

IRE

B

ND

S

N

DK

Perceived Corruption Index (low level). Source: Transparency International 2001.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

CZ

POGR

HU

IT

PB

FR

SP

DIRE

USA

AUK

N

ND

SDK

FI

Figure 9.a Military expenditure. Percent of GDP2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5

GRUSA

FRUK

NITP

CZS

POHUNDDK

DBFI

SPJAP

AIRE

Incarceration rates per 100.000 adults. Source: Western and Beckett 1999, AJS 104:4.

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

010

0011

0012

0013

0014

0015

0016

0017

0018

0019

0020

00

USA-blackUSA-all

USA-whiteCAUKAU

ASWFR

DITBS

DKND

JAP

SUMMARY: ECONOMIC VERSUS SOCIAL FACTORS Income Inequality versus Growth Competitiveness

DK

SE

FB

SP

FI

NDDE

A

GR

UK

PT

IRE

USA

IT

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

4 4,5 5 5,5 6

Growth Competitive Index (GCI) 2005

Inco

me

ineq

ualit

y (G

ini)

Source: ECHP/ZUMA and Word Economic Forum

Social capital versus crowth competitiveness

F

B

DK

FI

SEND

DEA

GRUK

PT

IRE

SP USAIT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4 4,5 5 5,5 6

Growth Competitive Index (GCI) 2005

Soci

al c

apita

l (tr

ust)

Source: ZUMA ( Interview data, percent saying "most people can be trusted") and World Economic Forum

Diagr1

Sida 1

Crude divorce rate per 1000 average population

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

1970

1980

1990

1994

1996

AustriaBelgiumDenmarkFinlandFranceFRG bef.unif.GreeceItalyLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPortugalRussian FederationSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUnited Kingdom

Diagr4

Sida 1

Extra-marital birth, per 1000 birth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1970

1980

1990

1994

1996

AustriaBelgiumDenmarkFinlandFranceFRG bef.unif.GreeceIrelandItalyLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPortugal (1)Russian FederationSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUnited Kingdom

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

Finland

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Portugal

Spain

Austria

Belgium

France

Germany

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

UK

Switzerland

Social expenditure for the function Family/ Children. Percent of GDP. Source: EUROSTAT

0

1

2

3

4

5

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999p

2000*

2001*

EU-15 BE DK DEEL ES FR IEIT NL AT PTFI SE UK NOCH HU SI SK

DK

SE

NFI

DE

UK

FR

EU15

GR

IT

ES

P

CH

AU

Diagr5 (2)

Sida 1

Total period fertility rate 1970-97. Estimated average number of children a woman will bear in her lifetime. Source: Newchronos.

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

2,2

2,4

2,6

2,8

3,0

1970

1980

1990

1994

1996

Sweden

Denmark

Finland

Norway

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Belgium

France

Germany-WLuxembourg

The Netherlands

UK

Austria

1. Based on the total hours worked per capita.2. Based on GDP per hour worked.3. Includes overseas departments.4. GDP for Turkey is based on the SNA 68.Source : OECD estimates.

Percentage gap with respect to US GDP per capita

-80 -60 -40 -20 0

Norway

Canada

Austria

UnitedKingdom

Sweden

Germany

NewZealand

Portugal

SlovakRepublic

Turkey (4)

Effect of labour utilisation (1)

-80 -60 -40 -20 0

Effect of labour productivity (2)

-80 -60 -40 -20 0

+=

1. Based on the total hours worked per capita.2. Based on GDP per hour worked.3. Includes overseas departments.4. GDP for Turkey is based on the SNA 68.Source : OECD estimates.

Percentage gap with respect to US GDP per capita

-80 -60 -40 -20 0

Norway

Canada

Austria

UnitedKingdom

Sweden

Germany

NewZealand

Portugal

SlovakRepublic

Turkey (4)

Effect of labour utilisation (1)

-80 -60 -40 -20 0

Effect of labour productivity (2)

-80 -60 -40 -20 0

+=

Figure 1 GDP per head of population in PPP, as percent of United States.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

UNITED STATESEUROPEAN UNION

NorwayIreland

DenmarkNetherlands

AustriaUnited Kingdom

BelgiumFrance

SwedenFinland

Germany

ItalySpain

GreecePortugal

Czech RepublicHungary

Slovak RepublicPoland

SwitzerlandCanada

AustraliaJapanKorea

MexicoTurkey

G7 countriesOECD

Northern EUCentral EUSouthern EUE t EU

WELFARE REGIME

Figure 6.1 Inequality of income by Gini-index. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

USA

P

UK

IT

IRE

GR

FR

ND

SP

PO

A

D

FI

N

CZ

S

B

JAP

DK

HU

Labour force participation rate 2003.Source: EUSI.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

HU

GR

B

PO

SP

IRE

IT

FR

CZ

D

A

ND

P

JAP

UK

USA

FI

S

DK

N

Figure 9.a Military expenditure. Percent of GDP. 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5

GR

USA

FR

UK

N

IT

P

CZ

S

PO

HU

ND

DK

D

B

FI

SP

JAP

A

IRE

Net official development assistance (ODA) as percent of GNI. 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

USA

IT

GR

JAP

A

SP

D

P

UK

FI

FR

IRE

B

ND

S

N

DK

Perceived Corruption Index (low level). Source: Transparency International 2001..

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

CZ

PO

GR

HU

IT

P

B

FR

SP

D

IRE

USA

A

UK

N

ND

S

DK

FI

S

DK

N

FID

B

UK

SP

NL

FR

IRE

USA

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

5 10 15 20

Human Poverty index HPI-2 (UNDP)

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDICCOUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

USA

IRE

FR

NL

SP

UK

B

DFI

N

DK

S

15000

17000

19000

21000

23000

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

35000

0 5 10 15 20

Human Poverty index HPI-2 (UNDP)

GD

P/ca

pita

NORDICCOUNTRIES

CENTRAL EU

SOUTHERN EU

Incarceration rates per 100.000 adults. Source: Western and Beckett 1999, AJS 104:4.

0100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

USA-blackUSA-all

USA-whiteCAUKAU

ASWFR

DITBS

DKND

JAP

Diagr7

Sida 1

Public child care support: Paid maternity/paternity leave (equivalent weeks paid 100%) and publicly funded child care provisions for the first child (percentage of children attending/available places). Source: EC 1998.

IRE

E

UK

D-W

A

GR

I

NLP

FIN

F B

NS

D-E

DK

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Publicly financed care provisions for children O-3 yrs

Equi

vale

nt w

eeks

pai

d 10

0%

Public expenditure on education. Percent of GDP. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 2 4 6 8 10

JAP

GR

IRE

SP

CZ

UK

D

ND

IT

HU

PO

USA

FR

B

P

A

FI

N

S

DK

Public expenditure on health. Percent of GDP. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PO

IRE

HU

FI

GR

SP

A

ND

USA

JAP

UK

IT

B

P

CZ

N

DK

FR

S

D

Research and development expenditure. Percent of GDP 1996-2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 1 2 3 4 5

GRPO

PHUSPIT

IRECZAU

NNDUK

ACA

BDKFR

DUSAJAP

FIS

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

5 000

5 500

6 000

6 500

7 000

7 500

8 000

8 500

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

p

2000

*

2001

*

EU-15 BE DKDE EL ESFR IE ITNL AT PTFI SE UKNO CH HUSI SK

Total social protection expenditure. Per head of population in PPS.

DK

N

SE

FI

EU15

DE

IT

UK

FR

PT

ES

EL

HUSK

SI

CH

WELFARE STATE SPENDING Social expenditure for the function Family/ Children. Percent of GDP. Source: EUROSTAT

0

1

2

3

4

5

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999p

2000*

2001*

EU-15 BE DK DEEL ES FR IEIT NL AT PTFI SE UK NOCH HU SI SK

DK

SE

NFI

DE

UK

FR

EU15

GR

IT

ES

P

CH

AU

Probability at birth not surviving to age 60. 2000-2005. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20

HU

PO

USA

CZ

P

DK

FI

FR

A

B

IRE

D

GR

UK

SP

ND

IT

N

JAP

S

Figure 2.a UNDPs Human Poverty Index for developed nations (HPI-2). 2002. Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20

USA

IRE

UK

AU

B

CA

IT

JAP

SP

FR

G

DK

FI

ND

N

S

Unemployment rate 2002Source: UNDP 2004.

0 5 10 15 20

PO

SP

GR

FI

IT

FR

D

B

CZ

HU

USA

JAP

A

UK

P

DK

IRE

N

S

ND

The Growth Competitive Index (World Economic Forum) for 2005.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

ITGRIRE

LB

SPFA

PTUKDE

NNDSWDKSEFI

USA

Income Inequality versus Growth Competitiveness

FI

NDDE

A

GR

UK

PT

IRE

USA

IT

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

4 4,5 5 5,5 6Growth Competitive Index (GCI) 2005

Inco

me

ineq

ualit

y (G

ini)

Source: ECHP/ZUMA and Word Economic Forum

Social capital (trust) versus growth competitiveness

DK

FI

SEND

DEA

GRUK

PT

IRE

SP USAIT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4 4,5 5 5,5 6Growth Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2005

Soci

al c

apita

l (tr

ust:

perc

ent s

ayin

g "m

ost p

eopl

e ca

n be

trus

ted"

)

Source: ZUMA and World Economic Forum

Macreeconomic Environment Index. Source: World Economic Forum

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

GRIT

PTB

DEF

SPA

USAUKSWSEND

LIRE

FIDK

N

Technology Index. Source. World Economic Forum.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

ITGRIRE

LB

SPFA

PTUKDE

NNDSWDKSEFI

USA