Bradshaw Et Al - 1993 - A Comparative Study of Child Support in Fifteen Countries

Journal of European Social Policy
http://esp.sagepub.com
A Comparative Study of Child Support in Fifteen Countries

Jonathon Bradshaw, John Ditch, Hilary Holmes and Peter Vilhiteford
Journal of European Social Policy 1993; 3; 255
DOI: 10.1177/095892879300300402
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/4/255
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of European Social Policy can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://esp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://esp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

1993 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
ARTICLE
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CHILD SUPPORT IN FIFTEEN
COUNTRIES
Jonathon Bradshaw, John Ditch, Hilary Holmes and Peter Vilhiteford, Social Policy Research
Unit, University of York
R6sum6
Summary
This article reports on a study of the child
support package in all countries of the European Community, Australia, Norway and the
United States of America. The package is
defined as consisting of all social security benefits, child support (maintenance) arrangements where they are guaranteed, benefits for
lone parents and equivalent help kind such as
Food Stamps; it also includes fiscal arrangements and benefits that mitigate the impact of
housing costs or reduce the costs of health
care, schooling and pre-school child care.
The objectives of the study were to compare
the structure and level of child support in fifteen countries; to assess the value of the child
support package in and between each country
and to compare the levels of support between
children of different ages, families of different
size and composition.
A model families matrix was constructed for
lone parents and couples with up to four children at eight different income levels. Their
earnings, social security contributions and tax
liabilities, benefit entitlements, housing and
other costs are specified for the month of May
1992. These data were collected by a panel of
national respondents and subsequently entered
on a
spread-sheet for analysis.
The UK package overall is ranked towards

the middle of the league table of countries. It
tends to be ranked higher in its package for
low-paid lone parents and couples, and where
comparisons are made after housing costs. It
tends to be ranked lower in its package for
large families, families with a pre-school child
requiring care and lone parents and children
and couples with children dependent on
income support.
255 71
TUDE
..
COMPARATIVE DES
S
PRESTATIONS POUR ENFANTS DANS

S
QUINZE
PAYSS
Cet article prisente une tude effectue sur

1ensemble des prestations pour enfants dans
tous les pays de la Communaut Europienne,
Australte,
en Norvge et aux Etats-Unis

Cet ensemble de prestations est
dfini comme suit: Il comprend toutes les prestations de scurit sociale, les mesures de soutien (entretien) quand elles sont garanties, les
allocations pour parents isolis et les aides iquivalentes comme les bons de nourrtture; tl constdre igalement les dispositions fiscales et les
prestations qui attinuent les cots du logement
ou rdutsent les dpenses de santi et des soins
en
dAmnque.
aux
enfants en dge scolaire et prscolatre.

objectifs de cette tude taient de com-
Les
parer la structure et le niveau des prestations

pour enfants dans 15 pays, desttmer leur
valeur dans chaque pays et entre les pays ainsi
que de comparer les taux dassistance chez des
enfants dages dtffrents et appartenant des
families de tatlle et de composition dtffrentes.
Une matrice modle des families a iti itablie
pour les parents tsols et les couples ayant
quatre enfants au maximum. Cette matrice
tient compte de huit niveaux dtffrents de revenus. Les salaires, les cotisations la scurtt
sociale et 1assu~ettissement a ltmpt, les droits
aux allocations, les frats de logement et autres
© Crown Copyright
1993. Published by permission of

the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office. No
part of this publication may be reproduced In any form
without the permission of the Department of Social
Secunty.
© Crown Copyright
1993
0958-9287/93/03402255/$03.50

256
concernent
rearing, to redistribute
ont
tally and
le mots de mai 1992. Ces donnes

ete rumes auprs dun groupe de per-
sonnes
interrog6es dans chaque pays puis
ont
fait loblet dune analyse.

Si on les considre dans leur ensemble, les
prestations du Royaume-Um se sttuent dans la
moyenne des pays. Elles se sttuent au-dessus de
la moyenne avec les allocations pour parents
isolis et couples aux revenus modestes et
quand les comparaisons ont ete tabltes apres
avotr tenu compte des dipenses de logement.
Elles se situent en-dessous de la moyenne au
niveau des allocations pour families nombreuses, pour families ayant un enfant en ge
prscolatre et nicessitant des soins amst quau
niveau des prestations accordies aux parents
isolis et aux couples avec enfants dpendant de
laide au revenu (revenu minimum).
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to review the
methodology and key conclusions from a large
scale comparative study which has sought to
identify and compare the diverse elements m
the child support package in fifteen countries
Specifically, the study sought to quantify the
value of the total package and assess its contribution to meeting the needs of a variety of
family types at different income levels.
It is a common feature of all welfare states
that there is a system of child support. However, although all welfare states have a system
of child support, each country has a different
combination of cash benefits, tax reliefs or services in kind which provide support for those
families rearing children. Typically this child
support package has a variety of origins and a
number of different policy objectives (Barbier
1990; Gefam 1992; Dumon 1991, 1992; Land
1975). In some countries, elements of the
package have had an explicit pro natalist
purpose to mcrease fertility. In others the aims
have been to contribute to the costs of child
resources
both horizon-
period in the life cycle when

families are more likely to experience hardship
to a
and live in poverty. Sometimes benefits in

respect of children have been introduced to
supplement low wages and reduce demands
for increased wages or a minimum or family
wage (Macmcol 1980). In other circumstances
the desire to increase work incentives and
enable unemployment benefits to be paid at
reasonable levels without undermining incentives have been the motives (Beveridge 1942).
Elements within each countrys child support package will have distinct and explicit
objectives: some will be clearly related to education, housing, health or child care policy.
Others will be more generally related to a
vision of family life or the role women play in
the labour marker In a policy environment
where objectives are varied and sometimes
contradictory it is not possible, in any country,
to conceive of, or evaluate, support for children in terms of a single and coherent package.
Nevertheless, the total package does represent
welfare state effort in respect of children and
by comparing the structure and level of child
support in different countries it is possible to
evaluate the effort made to contribute to
family welfare.
Five distinct elements in the comprehensive
package can be identified:
means-tested and
non means-tested family

mcludmg child support
arrangements where they are guaranteed,
benefits for lone parents and equivalent
help in kind such as Food Stamps
allowances,
arrangements in the income tax system that

recognize the presence of children, dependent wives and lone parents mcludmg tax
allowances or credits in respect of child
care, housing and other expenditures
benefit systems that mitigate the impact of
housing costs
4
benefits or services that reduce the

health care

costs
of
257
benefits
or services
schooling
and
that reduce the
pre-school
costs
of
care.
It is recognized that there are a number of

other benefits and services which might have
been included (but, for a variety of reasons
were not) and among these were maternity
grants and allowances, maternity and
paternity leave, fostering allowances and benefits for disabled children.
Why comparative research?

The benchmark and perspective for this study
is that derived from the experience of the
United Kingdom: how does the UK compare
with other countries? What is done differently
and why? How could things be done better? A
number of themes articulate the background.
For
example, firstly, despite
the European Community

ested in social policy in
recent
set-backs,
increasingly intergeneral and family

policy in particular (EC, COM [89] 363 final);
although there remains an aspiration to convergence of policy and practice there is little
is
information about the nature of existing divergence. Second, m the UK and elsewhere, there
has been a long running debate about the
status of child benefit and in particular
whether it should, or could, be better targeted
(Brown 1990; Ditch, Pickles and Whiteford
1992). Thirdly, there is evidence which
suggests that over the past decade or so there
are now more families living in relative poverty
in the United Kingdom and that families with
children have drifted down the income distribution (COM [91] 29, final and DSS 1990).
Finally, results from existing comparative
research are mixed, often due to the definition
of poverty used: some studies show that the
UK has a relatively high rate of poverty among
children and others suggest that it is middling
to low (Mitchell 1991a; Smeedmg et al 1992).
In a broader academic context there is a
growing commitment to international com-
parison. On the
one hand there is a stream of

research that seeks to rank or classify welfare
states on the basis of their institutional
arrangements or their, so called, welfare state
effort. There is a large literature of this type of
comparison of inputs. Perhaps the most distinguished recent proponent is Esping Andersen (1990) who classified welfare states into
liberal, corporatist and socialist on the basis,
mter aha, of their scores on an index of decommodification.
The second stream of research focuses on
outcomes and employs the analysis of micro
social data (Mitchell 1991a,b; Mitchell and
Bradshaw 1991). This work has made a considerable contribution to our knowledge of the
outcomes of social policy and has led to questioning the validity of Esping Andersens
classification based on inputs. However these
studies of outcomes tend to raise more
questions than they answer. In particular it is
very difficult to discern from the results of such
micro social data what it is about the primary
distribution of income or the tax and benefit
system that produces the outcomes observed.
What is needed to make progress in this field
is detailed studies of how social policies operate so that outcomes can be linked with a real
understanding of how they are achieved. This
research, which revisits and extend a previous
study (Bradshaw and Piachaud 1980) is a contribution to that end. Its key objectives were
threefold: first to compare the structure and
level of child support in fifteen countries;
secondly, to assess the value of the child support package in and between each country;
thirdly, to compare the level of support between children of different ages, and between
families of different size and composition
(Bradshaw et al. 1992).
Methods
There are broadly three ways of comparing the
child benefit package in different countries.

258
One way is to derive data from national expenditure and administrative statistics in respect
of children, then using comparable data on the
numbers and types of families with children
assess the level and structure of the child benefit package. This method was explored in this
study but proved unsatisfactory. The major
problems are that national accounts are not
produced in a uniform manner. It is impossible
in many cases to distinguish between expenditure on children and expenditure on the adults
within families with children. It is impossible
to distinguish between expenditure on children
by age and family type. It is particularly difficult to assess the value of tax expenditures at
an aggregate level.
A second approach makes use of survey data
on the actual circumstances of families in
different countries (Rainwater, Rein and
Schwartz 1986). There are three problems
with this methods: not all countries have such
surveys; the surveys which exist are not comparable ; and the analysis of such surveys takes
a long time - for example the Luxembourg
Income Study is just producing results for the
1985/86 period. Moreover, these data have
not generally taken account of the value of
services in kind. It is likely that the ranking of a
country purely on the basis of income may
alter sigmficantly when account is taken of the
value of health and education services, and the
differences between countries may be narrowed considerably (Saunders 1992). Third,
the method used in this study, is to simulate
the ways in which the child benefit package
helps model families. The advantage of this
approach is that it prescribes a set of common
assumptions about family types and income
levels and thereby contributes to a comparison
of like with like. However, there are two disadvantages :
1
produces a description of the way the

system should work rather than does work.
Thus for example it assumes the full take
up of means-tested benefits which in fact
may only be being claimed by a proportion
of those eligible
it
choices have to be made about the nature

and circumstances of the model families
and as choice is piled on choice it leads to
the model families becoming less and less
representative of all families. As a result the
method cannot claim to be representative only illustrative.
What choices were made? In order to establish an analytic base a smgle person (without a
child) and a couple without a child are specified. Lone parent and couple families with one,
two, three and four children were then
mcluded. For the core of the matrix all children in the family were presumed (for heuristics purposes) to be aged 7 years. However a
variant was included which specified a preschool aged child (a 3 year old), and secondary
school aged child (a 14 year old). Eight separate earmngs and employment situations were
mcluded covering a range of earnings as well
as a case where the parent(s) are unemployed
and receiving social assistance. The eight cases
are summarized in Table 1. Choices also had
to be made about other matters: first, the families were assumed to be tenants (private or
public whichever was the most prevalent pattern), paying typical rents (and local taxes) for
dwellmgs of a specified size in a given location
m each county. Secondly, a standard package
of health care was costed for each family and it
mcluded three prescriptions per person per
year for a standard antibiotic, three visits per
general practitioner, a visit to a

fillmg and one week m hospital
per person. Thirdly, it was assumed that children lived near enough to their schools to walk
to school but other costs or charges associated
person
to a
dentist for
with education were deducted or benefits such

as free meals added. In the case of pre-school
education/care informants were asked to price
the most prevalent form of full-time day care
in their country. Finally, all data concerning
earnings, benefits and fiscal arrangements were
as they existed at 1 May 1992.
The earnings figures were derived from Orgamzation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) estimates contained in

259
Table 1
The
matrix:
earnings of
employment
account
of differences
in
prices between
coun-
satisfactory. Purchasing power

parities are developed by the OECD (1992a, b)
and are based on a basket of goods. For
example, they provide an estimate of how
much it costs in francs in France to buy the
same basket of goods as 100 would buy in the
tries
status
is
not
very
UK.
Findings
The data
plex : the
set for the study is large and comfollowing discussion indicates some
key findings but is not exhaustive of the dmersity of family types or earnings levels.
It must be recognised first that we are not
the 1989 Tax-Benefit Position of Production

Workers (OECD 1980, 1987, 1988, 1990).
These were average gross earnings of all adult
full-time production workers in the manufacturing sector in each country and was updated
to 1992 using the index of hourly earnings of
production workers in the manufacturing
sector given in the OECD publication, Main
Economic Indicators (January 1992a). It is
recognized that these earnings data are more
representative of average earnings in those
countries with a high proportion of production
workers among their employed population
than in those countries where the proportion is
lower.
The actual value of the wages and assistance
to children is determined using purchasmg
power parities which convert national currency amounts into a ccmmon monetary denominator. The use of exchange rates to take
starting from the same base in all the countries

because earnings vary. In Greece and Portugal
average earnings are little more than a third of
those in the USA. In France earnings are much
lower than other northern European neighbours. However, this is another reason for the
importance of looking at incomes after the
impact of the tax and benefit package because
what the worker in France is forgoing in earnings he may make up in benefits. In contrast, in
the USA the worker may be taking his living
standard in earnings rather than benefits. Also
the relationship between mens and womens
earnmgs is not the same in each country. In
Australia female earnings are much closer to
mens than in the UK. In the UK the level of the
child benefit package may be compensating for
relatively low female earnings and vice versa.
Figure 1 illustrates this point. This is for a
single earner couple on half average earnings
with four children - the poorest and largest
family in the study. For example, Denmark
comes second in the league table of original
income but as the result of relatively high taxes
and relatively low benefits it moves down the
league table of final income. In contrast the UK
and Australia are ninth and seventh respectively on the league table of earnings but move
up to sixth and second after tax and benefits

260
Figure
Couple plus four children - half average earnings: purchasing power parity
and fourth and second after

taken into account.
housing costs
are
Variation in the child benefit package

However a comparison of the rankmgs of
countries before and after taxes and benefits is
not an evaluation of the child benefit package
it does not establish the value of the horizontal transfers. Two measures have been derived
to compare the value of the child benefit pack-
shows how much redistributive effort is being

made in respect of families with children in
each country. The second measure compares
the actual value of the child benefit package
using purchasing power parities (discussed
above).
By income
age.
The first, which is relative, is the extra that a
family with children gets as a proportion of the

net
income of
This
earnings.
ences in earnings
childless
on the same
controls for differlevels between countries and
measures
couple
uses the first measure to compare the

horizontal redistributive effort made by countries for a standard couple with two school
aged children at three income levels before
housing costs. It can be seen that havmg two
children in the UK adds 34 per cent to the net
disposable income of a couple at half average
Figure 2
earnings
compared to 45 per cent in Germany.

261
Figure 2 Horizontal redistribution couple plus two at primary school: additional
net
disposable income before housing costs

While the same UK family at average earnings
continues to receive 8 per cent more in respect
of their children, in Australia (because of their
more selective system) the family only receives
5 per cent more in respect of their children. In
some countries the child benefit system is more
progressive than others - the Benelux countries and France are the least progressive while
in the United States only poorer families
receive any benefit in respect of children.
number of children
at one
and
half average
Belgium, Luxembourg and France

have notably more generous benefits for larger
earnings.
families. Greece and Italy, who both have fertility rates well below replacement level, structure their child benefit packages in favour of
the fourth child in a family but Spam, with an
equally low fertility level, does not.
By the age of the children
By the number of children

the second (purchasing
show how the level
of the child benefit package varies with the
Figure
power
employs
parity)
measure to
4 shows the extent to which the child

benefit package varies with the age of the child
at half average earnings and before the impact
of pre-school child care costs. France and Norway have higher benefits for a pre-school child
Figure

262
Figure 3 Additional net disposable income over a couple before housing costs:
earnings, purchasing power - sterling
and the UK has higher benefits for the older

child (because family credit is age related).
Pre-school
1.5 average male
residual support evenly across the countries child care is heavily subsidized in Denmark
and Norway.
costs
Benefits for lone parents

5 takes account of the impact of preschool child care costs. In this chart a lone
parent with one pre-school child and a couple
with a workmg mother requiring child care are
shown. It can be seen that the costs of preschool child care more than wipe out the benefits provided in respect of children in nearly
all the countries. In the case of the couple only
France, Belgium and Luxembourg provide any
net support for a child requiring child care.
The costs of child care does not reduce the
Figure
Part of the pre-school child care costs for lone

parents in a number of countries are being met
in part by the elements of the child benefit
package that favour lone parents. Figure 5
shows the difference between the level of the
child support package paid for a couple and
that for a lone parent. Not all countries pay
more generous benefits to lone parents - Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy and the United
States pay less to lone parents than couples but

263
Figure 4 Additional net disposable income over a couple before housing costs:
earmngs, purchasing power parity - sterlmg
Denmark, France and Norway there is very

generous provision for lone parents and also in
Australia at low earnings levels.
in
Discussion
...
was asserted at the beginning of the article

that every welfare state has a package of social
policies that effectively assist parents in the
financial costs of rearing children. In the light
of the findings this statement ought to be qualified. Not all countries have systems that benefit all families with children. In Greece and
Spain the level of the package is very low both
in absolute terms and as a proportion of earnings. In the United States a system really only
It
0.5 average male
exists for low-income families. Lone parent

families in some countries are worse off than
childless couples with the same earnings. Furthermore the benefits paid in respect of children can be wiped out by the extra costs that
parents have to pay to house those children or
pay for pre-school child care. Benefits that
mitigate housmg costs for families with children and free or subsidised pre-school child
care are important elements of a child benefit
package.
A good deal of effort was made in the study
the burdens of health care costs for
families. As it turned out, health care costs
were not as important as might have been
expected - public systems of health care exist
m all countries, albeit that they might not be
equally accessible or of the same quality. Given
to assess

264
Figure 5
Additional
net
disposable income over a couple before housing costs: purchasing power
parity - sterling
the assumptions used in this study only in

France, Ireland and the United States did any
families have health care costs that were worth
noting.
Rather similar conclusions can be drawn in
respect of the costs of going to school. The
Benelux countries had the largest costs but
even these were small as a proportion of the
child benefit package.
When Bradshaw and Piachaud (1980)
undertook their study of the child benefit package in nine countries of the European Community only Denmark, Germany, France and
the UK had an element of means testing in
their family allowance schemes. Since then the
scheme in Denmark has become non means
tested, Ireland has developed a means tested
family income supplement and Italy has made
their scheme
means
tested. Of the countries
added, Spain, Greece, Australia and the Umted

States all have entirely means tested schemes.
So there is evidence from this that means tested
family allowances are growing in importance.
However, among the countries included in
this study, non means-tested systems of family
allowances are still the most important part of
the child benefit system - most countries have
them, even in some of the countries that do not
their income related systems are paid so far up
the income distribution as to be almost universal. In cash terms non income related family
allowances still provide the largest proportion

of the child benefit package that most families,
in
most
countries, receive.
What are the explanations for the consideration variation in the level of the child benefit

265
package that has
been observed in this study?

One of the difficulties in answering that
question lies in the difficulty of summarizing
the overall level of a countrys child benefit
package. As has been seen, the level of the
child benefit package varies from country to
country according to a variety of factors -
the earnings level, the family type,

the number and ages of children and whether
the comparison is made before or after housing
costs and child care costs. Analysis has therefore been undertaken at a disaggregated and
aggregated level. Thus the level of the child
benefit package paid to a variety of family
types and income levels has been related to a
number of explanatory variables. However, in
addition an overall ranking of the generosity of
the child benefit package has also been derived
by averaging the rankings in league tables of
three family types (families with one preschool child, families with two pre-school age
children and families with three children ages
3, 7 and 14) at each of the twelve earnings
levels. Thus the overall summary rankings are
based on performance on 36 league tables
covering a range of family types and earnings
includmg
levels. The overall league table of child benefit

generosity is summarized in Table 2.
There are three groupings of countries m the
level of generosity of their child benefit package. The
bourg,
generous countries are LuxemNorway, France and Belgium. Then

most
group of countries with middling provision including Denmark, Germany, UK, Australia and the Netherlands. Then the countries
come a
with the least generous child benefit
package
mcludmg Portugal, Italy, USA, Ireland, Spain
and Greece. These groupings remain very similar after housing costs. The USA is way down
the ranking thanks to high housing costs in
New York and France moves to the top of the
league table thanks to its housing benefits. The
ranking on the league table of the level of the
child benefits package paid to lone parents is
also quite similar with Norway and Australia
moving up and Portugal and Spain moving
down.
A variety of possible explanations for these
rankings are summarized in Table 3. This list
of hypotheses is of course not all that could be
considered. There are a huge variety of possible other explanations for the level of generos-

266
Table 3
packages
Reasons for
diversity of child benefit
ity of the child benefit package but between

them they cover a range of possible demographic, economic and socio political explanations.
There are a number of further observations

be made. First, there is no relationship between the proportion of children in the population and the level of the child benefit package. Second, there is no relationship between
countries fertility rates and the level of the
child benefit package overall nor the level of
the child benefit package paid to families with
three or more children. The relationship between the fertility level and the overall rankings is shown in Figure 6. Thirdly, as can be
seen in Figure 7 there is a relationship between
the level of generosity of child benefit paid to
lone parents and the proportion of lone
parents in the population. However Denmark
and the United States are others.
The economic variable with the closest relationship to the level of the child benefit package is the level of tax paid per capita in purchasing power parity (Figure 8). It may seem an
obvious finding that the countries with more
generous child benefit have higher levels of taxation. Indeed they may need to have higher
levels of taxation to maintain higher benefits.
However what is significant about the findmg is
that the relationship between this variable and
the level of generosity of child benefit was far
stronger than any other of the economic variables - stronger than GDP per capita, stronger
than social expenditure as a proportion of GDP
and stronger than the level of male and female
earmngs. This tends to suggest that other things
being equal it is those welfare states which are
successful in legitimising and sustaining high
levels of tax on their populations who are best
able to redistribute horizontally. The performance of the UK is interesting in this respect.
During the 1980s the overall level of taxation
has been sustained (though there has been a
shift from direct to indirect taxation) and the
UK finds itself towards the upper end of the
league table of generosity.
Among the other economic variables there
are weaker relationships between the level of
to

267
Figure 6 Fertility rate by generosity of child benefit package: before housing costs
the generosity of the child benefit package and

GDP per capita, social expenditure as a proportion of GDP, the level of average male and
female earnings but no relationship with the
level of female labour participation.
There appears to be no relationship between
the level of generosity of the child benefit package and whether a country is predominantly
catholic, whether left of centre governments
have dominated government in the last ten
years and the extent to which women have
penetrated policy making structures.

To explore how these independent variables
might interact in explaining the overall ranking of countries in the generosity of child benefit package we undertook a regression analysis (despite the limitation of applying this
technique with only fifteen countries). It was
found that
in a
regression of average overall
rankings only one variable entered the model per capita - and explained 63 per cent of
the variation in ranking. If the USA was left
out of the analysis, three variables entered the
equation - tax per capita, public expenditure
tax
percentage of GDP, and average female

explaining 90 per
cent of the variation in rankings.
It could be argued that an attempt to relate
measures of child benefit package generosity to
a range of explanatory variables misinterprets
the nature of welfare states. The character of a
welfare state is derived over a long period of
time and has its roots in the history, culture
and political structure of a country as well as
its economic development. There is considerable and growing scholarship which seeks to
explore the historical development of welfare
states by reference to changing pohtical ideolas a
earnings - between them

268
Lone benefit families as a proportion of all families

for lone parent families before housing costs
Figure 7
ogies, cultural values and economic systems.

Baldwins (1990) study locates the agency for
social
policy development
in
professional
gamzations and middle class

contrast
accounts
to
more
movements
traditional
or-
in
(historical)
(for example, Rimlinger 1971) which
primacy to the effectiveness of social

democratic and workmg class political parties.
Similarly, Ashford (1986) analyzes the development of welfare states in a way which recognizes and elaborates the idiosyncrasy and
specificity of social policy development: his
perspective places emphasis on the role of
political ideas and values, individual decision
makers and policy actors. These approaches,
and the scholarship they embody, provide a
valuable and necessary context for the continued analysis of welfare regimes and policy
dynamics. The methodological and theoretical
give
by generosity of child benefit package
assumptions found within
diverse, but complementary approaches, are discussed in Jones

(1985). The challenge is to bring methodologies and perspectives into alignment.
Welfare states can be classified into types or
classes that purport to represent these characters and the level and structure of the child
benefit system could be related to those types
or classes. There are a variety of these that we
could choose but we have chosen probably the
most up-to-date and sophisticated, Esping
Andersens (1990) typology of welfare state
regimes. He divides welfare states in Social
Democratic, Corporatist and Liberal on the
basis of their scores on a decommodification
index which is derived from the types and
levels of arrangements for pensions, sickness
and unemployment benefit. The index represents the extent to which workers are freed

269
. &dquo;--<;1-
Figure 8
package
-....
Tax per capita in purchasing power

before housing costs
&dquo;---&dquo;<;1 -----
paritys 1,000 by generosity of child benefit
from market competition by taking them out

of the market place - it is thus an indication of
the extent to which the welfare state enhances
cohesion and undermines capitalism by freemg
workers from dependence on the market place.
Using the index he depicted Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium as social
democratic regimes, Germany, France and
Italy as corporatist regimes and the UK,
Ireland, Australia and the United States as
liberal welfare states. Family benefits played
no part in the Esping-Andersen decommodification index. But they might have, for as we
have seen child benefits have as one of their
possible objectives to reduce pressure for
increased earnings. They are a source of
income independent of the market which
might reduce the need for a second earner in a
family and enable lone parents to bring up
their children without recourse to the market.
The rank order of countries on the decommodification index is compared with our overall
rankmg before and after housing costs in
Table 4.
If welfare states had been ranked on the basis
of their effort in respect of families with children, different groupings to Esping Andersen
would have been produced. In particular it
would have been mappropriate to classify the
Netherlands with Norway, France with Germany and the United States with the UK, at least
on the basis of the value of their horizontal
redistribution in favour of children.
A key (but not necessarily the only or most
important) objective of the child support package is to relieve child poverty. How does the
rankmg of the generosity of the child benefit
package compare with the prevalence of child
poverty in each country? We are hampered in
answering this question by the absence of up to

270
Table 4 Decommodification rank and child

benefit rank
dates of the data this may be explained by the

fact that the level of benefits paid to unemployed families m France is much lower than
the benefits paid to families in work yet it is the
former who are more likely to be livmg in
poverty.
Conclusions
Usmg the model family method this study has
compared the structure and level of child benefit packages in fifteen countries. Though it has
sought to overcome the difficulties inherent in
date data
on
the
prevalence
of child poverty.
However there are eight countries in the 1985/

86 sweep of the Luxembourg Income Study
who are also in this study, Table 5 gives the
rank order of countries by the percentage of

couples with children in poverty, the poverty
gap (or the amount by which people are poor)
and the generosity of child benefits. The poverty
definitions follow those of Mitchell (1991a)
and Bradshaw (1993).
There is some consistency in these rankings
though France has a higher family poverty rate
than would be expected from its overall level of
child benefits. Apart from the difference in the
Table 5
Poverty ranks
comparative research it has once again revealed

the problems in ensuring that like is being compared with like in international comparisons of
social policy.
The results have shown that because the
structure and level of the child benefit package
varies so much within countries (according to
the characteristics and circumstances of the
family), it is necessary to be wary about the
results of studies which seek to compare family
policies on the basis of the treatment of one
family type or a limited range of policies. Such
studies are m danger of misrepresenting a
countrys overall efforts in respect of children.
The range of family types to be found in this
study, together with detailed information about
their circumstances affords a more detailed
empirical basis for comparative analysis.
The UK child benefit package overall is
ranked towards the middle of the league table
of countries. It tends to be ranked rather higher
in its package for low paid lone parents and
couples and where the comparisons are made
after housing costs. It tends to be ranked rather
lower in the league table in its package for
larger families, families with a pre-school child
requiring care and lone parents and couples
with children dependent on income support.
Note
1
Fifteen countries are included in this study: it was

originally intended to be a comparison of the twelve

27I
countnes of the EC but the United States was added in

order to mclude a more liberal welfare state. Austraha was mcluded because one of the authors is an
Austrahan and Norway because we have close academic links with the Institute of Applied Social
Research in Oslo and they offered to fund their own
participation m the study. National respondents were
recruited for each country, with the research team
bemg directly responsible for Australia, the United
Kingdom and Ireland. The respondents met with the
research team on two occasions in York to validate
the research mstruments and the results. We acknowledge the contribution of our collaboration.
The Department of Social Secunty funded the study.
We are grateful for the comments from the Journals
referees. Final tesponsibility for errors of commission
and omission is ours.
Trend in 1989-90
, Brussels, European Observatory
National Family Policies, Commission of the European Communities.
Dumon, W. (1992) National Family Policies in EC
Countries in 1991, Brussels, European Observatory of
National Family Policies, Commission of the European Communities.
Espmg-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of
on
Welfare Capitalism
, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gefam, (Gesellschaft fur Familienforschung e. V) (1992)
Twelve Ways of Family Policy in Europe — National
Policy Designs for a Common Challenge, Bonn, Federal Ministry for Family Affairs and Senior Citizens.
Jones, C. (1985) Patterns of Social Policy: An Introduction to Comparative Analysis
, London, Tavistock.
Land, H. (1975) The Introduction of Family Allowances:
An Act of Historic Justice?, in Hall, P., Land, H.,
Parker, R., Webb, A. (eds) Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy
, Heinemann, London, pp. 157230.
References
Ashford, D. E. (1986) The Emergence of Welfare States,
Basil Blackwell.
Baldwin, P. (1990) The Politics of Social Solidarity: Class

Bases ofthe European Welfare State 1875-1975
,
Cambridge University Press.
Barbier, J-C. (1990) Comparing family policies m Europe:
methodological problems,
International Social
Security Review 3: 326-341.

Bevendge, Report (1942) Social Insurance and Allied
, Cmd 6404, London, HMSO.
Services
Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Holmes, H. and Whiteford, P.
(1992) Comparing child support, Paper presented to
the Conference on Social Security 50 Years after
, University of York, 27-30 September.
Beveridge
Bradshaw, J. and Piachaud, D. (1980) Child Support in
the European Community
, London. Bedford Square
Press.
Bradshaw, J. (1993) Developments in Social Security

Policy, in C. Jones (ed.) New perspectives on the
Welfare State, London, Routledge.
,
Brown, J. C. (1990) Child Benefit. Options for the 1990s
London, Save Child Benefit.
COM (89) 363 final. Communication from the Commission on Family Policies, Brussels, 8 August 1989.
57pp.
COM (91) 29 final. Final Report on the Second European
Poverty Programme 1985-1989, Brussels, 13 February 1991, 31pp + appendices.
Department of Social Security (1990) Households Below
,
Average Income: A Statistical Analysis, 1981-87
London, Government Statistical Office.
Ditch, J., Pickles, S. and Whiteford, P. (1992) The New
Structure of Child Benefit: A Review
, London, Coalition for Child Benefit.
Dumon, W. (1991) Families and Policies: Evolutions and
Macnicol, J. (1980) The Movement for Family Allowances, 1918-45

, London, Heinemann.
MISSOC (1991) Social Protection in the Member States
of the European Community, Situation on July 1st
1990 and Evolution
, Brussels, Directorate-General of
Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs.

Mitchell, D. (1991a) Income Transfers in Ten Welfare
States, Aldershot, Avebury.
Mochell, D. (1991b) Comparing Income Transfer
, WalferSystems. Is Australia the Poor Relation?
dange, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper
No. 56.
D. and Bradshaw, J. (1991) Lone Parents and
their Incomes
: A Comparative Study of Ten Coun, Interim Report, University of York.
tries
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1980), (1987), (1988a), (1990), The Tax/Benefit Position of Production Workers, Paris, OECD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1992a) Main Economic Indicators
, Paris,
OECD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (1992b) Country Studies
, Paris, OECD.
Rainwater, L., Rein, M. and Schwartz (1986) Income
Packaging in the Welfare State: A Comparative Study
of Family Income, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Rimlmger, G. V. (1971) Welfare Policy and Industrialisation in Europe, America, and Russia
, Wiley, New
York.
Saunders, P. (1992) Recent Trends in the Size and
Growth of Government in OECD Countries
, Sydney
Social Policy Research Centre, Discussion Paper No.
34, University of New South Wales.
Mochell,
Smeeding, T., Saunders, P., Coder, J., Jenkins, S., Fritzell,

J., Hagenaars, A., Hauser, R. and Wolfson, M. (1992)
Noncash Income, Living Standards, and Inequality:
Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study, Luxembourg, LIS Working Paper, Walferdange.


Bradshaw Et Al - 1993 - A Comparative Study of Child Support in Fifteen Countries

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Bradshaw Et Al - 1993 - A Comparative Study of Child Support in Fifteen Countries

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of European Social Policy

A Comparative Study of Child Support in Fifteen Countries

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

spread-sheet for analysis.

The UK package overall is ranked towards

PRESTATIONS POUR ENFANTS DANS

Cet article prisente une tude effectue sur

en Norvge et aux Etats-Unis

enfants en dge scolaire et prscolatre.

parer la structure et le niveau des prestations

&copy; Crown Copyright

1993. Published by permission of

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

le mots de mai 1992. Ces donnes

interrog6es dans chaque pays puis

fait loblet dune analyse.

period in the life cycle when

and live in poverty. Sometimes benefits in

non means-tested family

arrangements in the income tax system that

benefits or services that reduce the

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

that reduce the

It is recognized that there are a number of

Why comparative research?

example, firstly, despite

the European Community

increasingly intergeneral and family

one hand there is a stream of

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

produces a description of the way the

choices have to be made about the nature

general practitioner, a visit to a

with education were deducted or benefits such

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

satisfactory. Purchasing power

the 1989 Tax-Benefit Position of Production

starting from the same base in all the countries

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

and fourth and second after

Variation in the child benefit package

shows how much redistributive effort is being

The first, which is relative, is the extra that a

family with children gets as a proportion of the

uses the first measure to compare the

compared to 45 per cent in Germany.

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

Figure 2 Horizontal redistribution couple plus two at primary school: additional

disposable income before housing costs

Belgium, Luxembourg and France

By the age of the children

By the number of children

4 shows the extent to which the child

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

and the UK has higher benefits for the older

1.5 average male

Benefits for lone parents

Part of the pre-school child care costs for lone

Downloaded from http://esp.sagepub.com by Haragus Paul Teodor on November 10, 2007

Denmark, France and Norway there is very

was asserted at the beginning of the article

0.5 average male

exists for low-income families. Lone parent

© Crown Copyright