Determinants of Relative Poverty in Advanced Capitalist Democracies

By Stephanie Moller, D. Bradley, E. Huber, F. Nielsen, John Stephens. American Sociological Review, 2003

377 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Using relative poverty measures based on micro-level data from the Luxembourg Income Study, in conjunction with pooled time-series data for 14 advanced capitalist democracies between 1970 and 1997, the authors analyze separately the rate of pretax/transfer poverty and the reduction in poverty achieved by systems of taxes and transfers. Socioeconomic factors, including de-industrialization and unemployment, largely explain pre-tax/transfer poverty rates of the working-age population in these advanced capitalist democracies. The extent of redistribution (measured as poverty reduction via taxes and transfers) is explained directly by welfare state generosity and constitutional structure (number of veto points) and the strength of the political left, both in unions and in government.

Subfields: Finance, Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/083da5f37205ed35761b3db4239b4589e6412e7b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Finance

In Political Science and International Relations

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Rise of the Super-Rich (2012, background): “…politics and public policy as important determinants of poverty and inequality (Bradley et al. 2003; Brady 2009; Brady and Leicht 2008; Hacker and Pierson 2010; Hibbs and Dennis 1988; Hicks 1999; Kelly and Witko 2012; Kenworthy 2004; Moller, Alderson, and Nielsen 2009; Moller et al. 2003).”
Politics and Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean (2006, methodology): “Pooled time series data on income distribution and wage dispersion recently made available, respectively, by the Luxembourg Income Study and OECD have stimulated a number of studies demonstrating that these features of the polity exert a strong influence on inequality, poverty, and wage dispersion i”
The Material Consequences of Welfare States (2006, background): “…(re-) turned to treating features of the welfare state as independent variables, focusing on the impact of welfare states on distributive outcomes (Bradley et al. 2003; Kenworthy 1999, 2004; Goodin, et al. 1999; Moller et al.2003; Smeeding and Rainwater 2002; Smeeding Rainwater and Burtless 2001).”
Good Times, Bad Times (2010, background): “Previous studies demonstrate that social-democratic parties use their cumulative power to redistribute income among workers through progressive taxes and social transfer payments (Brady 2003; Moller et al. 2003).”
Economic Globalization and the Welfare State in Affluent Democracies, 1975–2001 (2005, background): “24 Moreover, research suggests that among welfare state measures, government expenditures and social security transfers have some of the most powerful effects on inequality and poverty (Bradley et al. 2003; Brady 2003; Moller et al. 2003).”
Social Policy Responsiveness in Developed Democracies (2006, methodology): “Effort-related measures have a critical property, as it is social spending relative to GDP that has been found to capture the policy dimension of welfare states that affect patterns of inequality and poverty within democracies (e.g., Kenworthy 1999; Brady 2003; Moller et al. 2003).”
Why Do Welfare States Persist? (2006, background): “Effort-related measures have a further relevant property: overall welfare state spending relative to GDP has been found to predict patterns of inequality and poverty within democracies (Brady 2003; Kenworthy 2004; Moller et al. 2003).”
The Politics of Poverty: Left Political Institutions, the Welfare State, and Poverty (2003, background): “This result 572 / Social Forces 82:2, December 2003 contradicts past research that concluded that this measure of “Left Cabinet” combines with the welfare state to reduce poverty (Huber & Stephens 2001; Moller et al. 2003).”
Putting Poverty in Political Context: A Multi-Level Analysis of Adult Poverty across 18 Affluent Democracies (2009, background): “While broader American ideology is not simply mirrored in the social sciences, there has always been a strong undercurrent of individualism in poverty research as well (O’Connor 2001; Rank 2005).”
Paradoxes of Social Policy (2015, background): “Future research could index transfers to taxation based on tax rates for other income sources (Ferrarini and Nelson 2003).”
European Integration and Income Inequality (2006, background): “The welfare state shapes stratification directly through income transfers (Korpi and Palme 1998), and ample research shows that the welfare state reduces inequality and poverty (Alderson and Nielsen 2002; Brady 2005; Kenworthy 1999; Moller et al. 2003).”
Decommodification and activation in social democratic policy: resolving the paradox (2008, background): “Meanwhile, evidence from pooled time series analyses of related concepts such as spending generosity, public employment, redistribution, and poverty reduction appeared to support his view that the aim of social democracy was to supplant “markets” with “politics” (to paraphrase the title of his 1985 ”
The Welfare State and Relative Poverty in Rich Western Democracies, 1967-1997 (2005, methodology): “By contrast, some scholars examine poverty before taxes and transfers – what I call market-generated (MG) poverty (Brady 2003b, 2003c; Christopher et al. 2002; Moller et al. 2003).”