View
216
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Disambiguating Lisbon. Growth, employment and social inclusion in practice
Bea CantillonHerman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of AntwerpLiège, 7-8 september 2010
Lisbon: the assumption
complementarity between:
growth
employment inclusion
Source: Eurostat
EU27
EU15
EURO16
22000
23000
24000
25000
26000
27000
28000
29000
14,5 15 15,5 16 16,5 17 17,5
% population at risk of poverty
GD
P (
in P
PS
per
cap
ita)
EU27EU15EURO16
EU27
EU15
EURO16
63
63,5
64
64,5
65
65,5
66
66,5
67
67,5
14,5 15 15,5 16 16,5 17 17,5
% population at risk of poverty
Empl
oym
ent r
ate
EU27
EU15
EURO16
Lisbon: in practice
Why?
• More in work poverty?
• More jobless households?
• Less social spending?
• Less social protection for the poor?
Poverty reduction by taxes and transfers vs. employment, 1995-2000-2005
Source: OECD, calculations by Koen Vleminckx.
50,00
55,00
60,00
65,00
70,00
75,00
80,00
85,00
30,00 35,00 40,00 45,00 50,00 55,00 60,00 65,00 70,00 75,00
Poverty HC Reduction by Taxes and Transfers
Em
plo
ymen
t/p
op
ula
tio
n r
atio
FR
BE
FI DE
SWNL
DK
At-risk-of-poverty rates among unemployed (most frequent activity status)
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
2005 2006 2007 2008
% o
f u
nem
plo
yed
at
risk
of
po
vert
y
EU27 EU15 NMS12 EURO16 MEAN
Source: Eurostat, based on ECHP (1994-2001) and EU-SILC (2004-2007)
Net minimum income benefits standardized for wage growth in 12 European Countries, 1990-2005/2009
Net minimum income benefit (PPPs)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Aut Bel Den Fin Fra Ger Ire Net Nor Swe Swi Uk
19901995200020052009
Source: SaMip (Nelson, 2007) and SCIP (Korpi, 2001).
Distribution of child benefits, care services, leave benefits in Flanders
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
Mill
ion
Euro
s
Income Quintiles (Equivalent Disposable Household Income)
Child and birth benefits
Care services
Leave benefits
Source: FFCS, authors’ calculations.
Summing up
• Poverty stand still despite growth of income and employment and little change in social spending
• Because: social protection for jobless HH declined employment related social spending
increased
Lisbon: the ambiguities
• Tension/conflict between employment, growth and social inclusion
• The concept of social inclusion: low income, joblessness, low skills, bad health, material deprivation…
Lisbon: the ambiguities
• Priority: more jobs
• At the cost of less social protection
Disambiguating Lisbon: Active Inclusion
“encourage all Member States to design and implement policies which should facilitate the integration into sustainable, quality employment of those who can work and provide resources which are sufficient to live in dignity, together with support for social participation for those who cannot” (European Commission, 2008).
Need for:
• More adequate social protection
• Indicators on adequacy of SP
• A tightened poverty reduction target
More adequate social protection ( 2008 )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Rom Bul Est Lit Sln Pol Uk Hun Ger Spa Fin Ita Cze Aut Swe Lat Fra Bel Den IreNet
soc
ial a
ssis
tanc
e be
nefit
in %
of
med
ian
equi
vale
nt in
com
e
Source: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy (Van Mechelen et al., forthcoming).
Indicators on adequacy of social protection
• overarching indicator on overall replacement rates of pensions and of unemployment benefits
• indicator on the adequacy of minimum benefit levels
• primary overarching indicator on in work poverty and on poverty of the unemployed
the 2020 poverty reduction target
reduction by 20 million of the number of people who are at-risk-of-poverty and/or materially deprived and/or living in jobless households
Back to the ambiguity of Lisbon
growth
(material deprivation)
employment inclusion
(jobless HH) (at-risk-of-poverty)
Tightening the poverty reduction target
The poverty reduction target should be re-defined in such a way that member states should be forced to make progress on and at-risk-of-poverty and material deprivation and living in households with low work intensity
Conclusion:
• take stock of the failures of the Lisbon strategy
• develop a ‘road map on active inclusion’ (Frazer et al., 2010)
• make progress on and at-risk-of-poverty and material deprivation and living in households with low work intensity