On the counterfactual problem of welfare state research: How can we measure redistribution?

By Andreas Bergh. 2005

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Finance, General Health Professions, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb9e16084a8da4c1a23f3d4095e83f71201b7e56

How researchers see this paper

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

In Finance

1. Andrew S. Fullerton
2. J. Cross
3. David J. Brady
4. Henning Lohmann
5. V. Mahler
6. Amie Bostic

In General Health Professions

1. Andrew S. Fullerton
2. Henning Lohmann
3. David J. Brady

In Political Science and International Relations

1. David J. Brady
2. Andrew S. Fullerton
3. J. Cross
4. Henning Lohmann
5. Amie Bostic

Citations in the corpus

• Putting Poverty in Political Context: A Multi-Level Analysis of Adult Poverty across 18 Affluent Democracies (2009, background): “But, imagery of such a two-step process is artificial (Bergh 2005; Esping-Andersen 2003; Wright 2004).”
• Welfare States, Labour Market Institutions and the Working Poor: A Comparative Analysis of 20 European Countries (2009, background): “4 An inherent feature of the approach to comparing poverty rates based on pre-transfer and post-transfer poverty rates is that it makes the counterfactual assumption that the pre-transfer distribution would be the same if no transfers were available (Ringen, 1987; Bergh, 2005).”
• Inequality and Happiness: When Perceived Social Mobility and Economic Reality do not Match (2010, unknown): “However, Bergh (2005) shows for 11 OECD countries with high quality national statistics systems that the difference between pre-transfer and post-transfer Gini coefficients is not a reliable measure of actual government redistribution.”