Public policies supporting families with children differ among countries but with the same goal of improving the well-being of children. Using a microsimulation model, this article assesses the cash support which families receive for their children in Croatia, Greece, Germany, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The impact of policies across the income distribution on different family sizes, child-rearing cost compensation and child poverty is estimated. A method for the calculation of child-contingent payments for each child by order of birth in the family is proposed as a complementary indicator of policy design. The results confirm that a combination of universal and targeted support (either from family or social assistance benefits) is the most effective in poverty reduction and cost compensation. While high support for larger families greatly reduces poverty, generous universal or even lower support for large families has proved to be at least equally effective.
AddaJDustmannCStevensK (2017) The career costs of children. Journal of Political Economy125(2): 293–337.
2.
AidukaiteJ (2009) Old welfare state theories and new welfare regimes in Eastern Europe: challenges and implications. Communist and Post-Communist Studies42(1): 23–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.postcomstud.2009.02.004.
3.
AvramS (2018) Who benefits from the ‘hidden welfare state’? The distributional effects of personal income tax expenditure in six countries. Journal of European Social Policy28(3): 271–293. DOI: 10.1177/0958928717735061.
4.
AvramSMilitaruE (2016) Interactions between policy effects, population characteristics and the tax-benefit system: an illustration using child poverty and child related policies in Romania and the Czech Republic. Social Indicators Research128(3): 1365–1385. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-015-1083-6.
5.
BabićZ (2008) Redistribucijski učinci socijalnih transfera u Republici Hrvatskoj. Revija Za Socijalnu Politiku15(2): 151–170. DOI: 10.3935/rsp.v15i2.766.
6.
BambraC (2007) Defamilisation and welfare state regimes: a cluster analysis. International Journal of Social Welfare16(4): 326–338. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2007.00486.x.
BeckerGS (1960) An economic analysis of fertility. In: Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries Universities-National Bureau (ed), New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 209–240. DOI: 10.1007/BF01856705.
9.
BradshawJDitchJHolmesH, et al. (1993) A comparative study of child support in fifteen countries. Journal of European Social Policy3(4): 255–271. DOI: 10.1177/095892879300300402.
CorakMLietzCSutherlandH (2005) The Impact of Tax and Transfer Systems on Children in the European Union. InnocentiWorking Paper No. 2005-04. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
12.
DobrotićIVučković JurošT (2016) Who should finance childcare? Multilevel analysis of 24 countries. Revija Za Socijalnu Politiku23(3): 323–357. DOI: 10.3935/rsp.v23i3.1392.
13.
EnglandPFolbreN (1999) Who should pay for the kids?The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science563: 194–207.
14.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The three political economies of the welfare state. International Journal of Sociology20(3): 92–123.
15.
Esping-AndersenG (1999) Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. OxfordOxford University Press.
Eurostat (2021) Eurostat Database: Social protection expenditure – Family function (% of GDP; code: SPR_EXP_GDP), Total fertility rate (code: DEMO_FIND). At-risk-of-poverty-rate (code: TESSI120). Brussels, Belgium: Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
20.
FigariFPaulusASutherlandH (2007) Supporting Families with Children through Taxes and benefits. SSO Research Note. Brussels, Belgium: European Observatory on the Social Situation and Demography.
21.
FigariFPaulusASutherlandH (2011) Measuring the size and impact of public cash support for children in cross-national perspective. Social Science Computer Review29(1): 85–102. DOI: 10.1177/0894439310370104.
22.
FosterJGreerJThorbeckeE (1984) A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica52(3): 761–766. DOI: 10.2307/1913475.
23.
GauthierAH (2002) Family policies in industrialized countries: is there convergence?Population (English Edition)57(3): 447–474. DOI: 10.2307/3246635.
24.
GauthierAH (2007) The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review26(3): 323–346. DOI: 10.1007/s11113-007-9033-x.
25.
GauthierAHHatziusJ (1997) Population studies family benefits and fertility: an econometric analysis. Population Studies51: 295–306. DOI: 10.1080/0032472031000150066.
26.
GrayMStantonD (2010) Costs of children and equivalence scales : a review of methodological issues and Australian estimates. Australian Journal of Labour Economics13(1): 99–115.
27.
HiilamoH (2004) Changing family policy in Sweden and Finland during the 1990s. Social Policy and Administration38(1): 21–40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00374.x.
28.
ImmervollHSutherlandHde VosK (2000) EUROMOD Child poverty and child benefits in the European Union. Working Papers EM1/00. Colchester, England: Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.
29.
LeeRMillerT (1990) Population policy and externalities to childbearing. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science510: 17–32.
30.
LeitnerS (2003) Varieties of familialism: the caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies5(4): 353–375. DOI: 10.1080/1461669032000127642.
31.
LetablierM-TLuciAMathA, et al. (2009) The Costs of Raising Children and the Effectiveness of Policies to Support Parenthood in European Countries: A Literature Review. A Report to the European Commission. Brussels, Belgium: Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2268&langId=en
32.
LevyHLietzCSutherlandH (2007) Swapping policies: alternative tax-benefit strategies to support children in Austria, Spain and the UK. Journal of Social Policy36(4): 625–647. DOI: 10.1017/S0047279407001213.
33.
McDonaldP (2006) An assessment of policies that support having children from the perspectives of equity, efficiency and efficacy. In Vienna Yearbook of Population Research. Vienna, AT: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, pp. 213–234.
34.
MischkeM (2011) Types of public family support: a cluster analysis of 15 European countries. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice13(4): 443–456. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2011.583111.
PaulusASutherlandHTsakloglouP (2010) The distributional impact of in-kind public benefits in European countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management29(2): 243–266. DOI: 10.1002/pam.20490.
37.
PezerM (2018) Maternity support policies: a cluster analysis of 22 European Union countries. In Proceedings of the ISCCRO - International Statistical Conference in Croatia. Opatija, Croatia, pp. 117–124.
38.
PopovaD (2016) Distributional impacts of cash allowances for children: a microsimulation analysis for Russia and Europe. Journal of European Social Policy26(3): 248–267. DOI: 10.1177/0958928716645074.
39.
SutherlandH (2006) Can child poverty be abolished? Promises and policies in the UK. The Economic and Labour Relations Review17(1): 7–31. DOI: 10.1177/103530460601700102.
40.
SutherlandHFigariF (2013) EUROMOD: the European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model. International Journal of Microsimulation6(1): 4–26.
41.
ThévenonO (2011) Family policies in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Population and Development Review37(1): 57–87.
UrbanIPezerM (2020) Compensation for households with children in Croatia, Slovenia and Austria. Social Indicators Research147(1): 203–235. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-019-02150-8.
45.
VerbistGVan LanckerW (2016) Horizontal and vertical equity objectives of child benefit systems: an empirical assessment for European countries. Social Indicators Research128(3): 1299–1318. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-015-1080-9.
46.
World Bank (2014) Croatia Public Finance Review: Restructuring Spending for Stability and Growth. Report No. 78320-HR. Washington, DC: World Bank.
ZiomasDBouzasNCapellaA, et al. (2018) New Reform of the Family Benefits Scheme in Greece. ESPN Flash Report 2018/28. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333421414
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.
