Poverty rates among single parents vary considerably across countries, in part reflecting differences in the generosity and design of minimum income protections. We ask what the optimal ways are to target income support to single parents, if the prime objective of policy is to shelter those households from poverty. We map minimum income provisions for working and nonworking single-parent households across Europe and the United States, showing that three things matter for adequate minimum income protection. First, minimum wage levels matter, obviously for working single parents, but also for jobless ones since they effectively set the ‘glass ceiling’ for out-of-work benefits. Second, the overall generosity of the child benefit package is crucial to shelter both working and jobless single parents from poverty. Third, countries that employ a strategy of “targeting within universalism” (that is directing extra support to vulnerable groups such as single parents within the context of a universal benefit program) tend to do best.
AlmSusanneNelsonKennethNieuwenhuisRense. 2019. The diminishing power of one? Welfare state retrenchment and rising poverty of single-adult households in Sweden 1988–2011. European Sociological Review36 (2): 198–217. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz053.
2.
BradshawJonathan.2012. The case for family benefits. Children and Youth Services Review34 (3): 590–96. Available from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.009.
3.
BradshawJonathanKeungAntoniaChzhenYekaterina. 2018. Cash benefits and poverty in single-parent families. In The triple bind of single-parent families: Resources, employment and policies to improve wellbeing, eds. NieuwenhuisRenseMaldonadoLaurie C., 337–58. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
4.
BradyDavidBurrowayRebekah. 2012. Targeting, universalism, and single-mother poverty: A multilevel analysis across 18 affluent democracies. Demography49 (2): 719–46. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0094-z.
5.
CantillonBeaParolinZacharyColladoDiego. 2020. A glass ceiling on poverty reduction? An empirical investigation into the structural constraints on minimum income protections. Journal of European Social Policy30 (2): 129–43. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928719880500.
6.
ChzhenYekaterinaBradshawJonathan. 2012. Lone parents, poverty and policy in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy22 (5): 487–506. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928712456578.
7.
GarneroAndrea. 2020. The impact of collective bargaining on employment and wage inequality: Evidence from a new taxonomy of bargaining systems. European Journal of Industrial Relations27 (2): 185–202. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0959680120920771.
8.
GornickJanet C.2004. Women’s economic outcomes, gender inequality and public policy: Findings from the Luxembourg Income Study. Socio-Economic Review2 (2): 213–38. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/soceco/2.2.213.
9.
HärkönenJuhoManzoniAnnaBihagenErik. 2016. Gender inequalities in occupational prestige across the working life: An analysis of the careers of West Germans and Swedes born from the 1920s to the 1970s. Advances in Life Course Research29:41–51. Available from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2016.01.001.
10.
HufkensTineFigariFrancescoVandelannooteDieterVerbistGerlinde. 2020. Investing in subsidized childcare to reduce poverty. Journal of European Social Policy30 (3): 306–19. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928719868448.
11.
ImmervollHerwig. 2012. Minimum-income benefits in OECD countries. In Counting the poor: New thinking about European poverty measures and lessons for the United States, ed. BesharovDouglas J.CouchKenneth A., 171–209. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
JacquesOlivierNoëlAlain. 2018. The case for welfare state universalism, or the lasting relevance of the paradox of redistribution. Journal of European Social Policy28 (1): 70–85. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928717700564.
13.
JepsenMariaMeuldersDanièle. 2002. The individualization of rights in social protection systems. In Labour market and social protection reforms in international perspective, eds. SarfatiHedvaBonoliGiuliano, 97–116. London: Routledge.
14.
KenworthyLane. 2011. Progress for the poor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
KorpiWalterPalmeJoakim. 1998. The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review63 (5): 661–87. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/2657333.
16.
LacourMistyTissingtonLaura D.2011. The effects of poverty on academic achievement. Educational Research and Reviews6 (7): 522–27. Available from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR.9000349.
17.
LeventiChrysaSutherlandHollyTassevaIva Valentinova. 2019. Improving poverty reduction in Europe: What works best where?Journal of European Social Policy29 (1): 29–43. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928718792130.
18.
MarchalSarahVan LanckerWim. 2019. The measurement of targeting design in complex welfare states: A proposal and empirical applications. Social Indicators Research143 (2): 693–726. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1995-z.
19.
MarxIveSalanauskaiteLinaVerbistGerlinde. 2016. For the poor, but not only the poor: On optimal pro-poorness in redistributive policies. Social Forces95 (1): 1–24. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow058.
20.
MorissensAnn. 2018. The role of universal and targeted family benefits in reducing poverty in single-parent families in different employment situations. In The triple bind of single-parent families: Resources, employment and policies to improve wellbeing, eds. NieuwenhuisRenseMaldonadoLaurie C., 359–82. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
21.
MurrayCharles. 1984. Losing ground: American social policy, 1950–1980. New York, NY: Basic Books.
22.
NajmanJake M.HayatbakhshMohammad R.HeronMichelle A.BorWilliamO’CallaghanMichael J.WilliamsGail M.2009. The impact of episodic and chronic poverty on child cognitive development. Journal of Pediatrics154 (2): 284–89. Available from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.08.052.
23.
NelsonKenneth. 2013. Social assistance and EU poverty thresholds 1990–2008. Are European welfare systems providing just and fair protection against low income?European Sociological Review29 (2): 386–401. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr080.
24.
NieuwenhuisRenseMaldonadoLaurie C.2018. The triple bind of single-parent families: Resources, employment and policies to improve well-being. In The triple bind of single-parent families: Resources, employment and policies to improve wellbeing, eds. NieuwenhuisRenseMaldonadoLaurie C., 1–30. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
25.
PavoliniEmmanueleVan LanckerWim. 2018. The Matthew effect in childcare use: A matter of policies or preferences?Journal of European Public Policy25 (6): 878–93. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1401108.
26.
SalanauskaiteLinaVerbistGerline. 2013. Is the neighbour’s grass greener? Comparing family support in Lithuania and four other new member states. Journal of European Social Policy23 (3): 315–31. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928713480066.
27.
Van LanckerWimGhyselsJoris. 2012. Who benefits? The social distribution of subsidized childcare in Sweden and Flanders. Acta Sociologica55 (2): 125–42. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699311433428.
28.
Van LanckerWimGhyselsJorisCantillonBea. 2015. The impact of child benefits on single mother poverty: Exploring the role of targeting in 15 European countries. International Journal of Social Welfare24 (3): 210–22. Available from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12140.
29.
Van LanckerWimVan MechelenNatascha. 2015. Universalism under siege? Exploring the association between targeting, child benefits and child poverty across 26 countries. Social Science Research50:60–75. Available from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.11.012.
30.
Van MechelenNataschaMarchalSarah. 2013. Struggle for life: Social assistance benefits, 1992–2009. In Minimum Income protection in flux, eds. MarxIveNelsonKenneth, 28–53. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
31.
van OorschotWim. 2002. Targeting welfare: On the functions and dysfunctions of means-testing in social policy. In World poverty: New policies to defeat an old enemy, eds. TownsendPeterGordenDavid, 171–93. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
