IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/elsaab/135-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Money or Kindergarten? Distributive Effects of Cash Versus In-Kind Family Transfers for Young Children

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Förster

    (OECD)

  • Gerlinde Verbist

    (University of Antwerp)

Abstract

Public support to families with pre-school children can be in the form of cash benefits (e.g. child allowances) or of “in-kind” support (e.g. care services such as kindergartens). The mix of these support measures varies greatly across OECD countries, from a cash / in-kind composition of 10%/90% to 80%/20%. This paper imputes the value of services into an “extended” household income and compares the resulting distributive patterns and the redistributive effect of these two strands of family policies. On average, cash and in-kind transfers each constitute 7 – 8% of the incomes of families with young children. Both instruments are redistributive. Cash transfers reduce child poverty by one third, with the estimated impacts in Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Hungary and Finland performing above average. When services are accounted for, child poverty falls by one quarter and poverty among children enrolled in childcare is more than halved. This reduction is highest in Belgium, France, Hungary, Iceland and Sweden. L’aide publique aux familles ayant des enfants en âge préscolaire peut prendre la forme de prestations monétaires (allocations familiales, par exemple) ou en «nature» (par exemple les services de garde tels que les jardins d'enfants). La combinaison de ces mesures de soutien varie considérablement selon les pays de l'OCDE, d’une composition monétaire / ou en « nature » allant de 10%/90% à 80%/20%. Ce document attribue la valeur des services à un revenu « élargi » des ménages et compare les facteurs distributifs résultant et l’effet redistributif de ces deux volets de la politique familiale. En moyenne, les transferts monétaires et en nature constituent chacun 7- 8% des revenus des familles ayant des enfants en bas âge. Les deux instruments sont redistributifs. Les transferts monétaires réduisent la pauvreté infantile d'un tiers, et les effets estimés sont en-dessus de la moyenne en Autriche, Irlande, Suède, Hongrie et en Finlande. Lorsque les services sont pris en compte, la pauvreté infantile chute d'un quart et la pauvreté chez les enfants inscrits dans les services de garde est divisée par deux. Cette réduction est la plus élevée en Belgique, en France, en Hongrie, en Islande et en Suède.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Förster & Gerlinde Verbist, 2012. "Money or Kindergarten? Distributive Effects of Cash Versus In-Kind Family Transfers for Young Children," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 135, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:elsaab:135-en
    DOI: 10.1787/5k92vxbgpmnt-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/5k92vxbgpmnt-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/5k92vxbgpmnt-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaberge, Rolf & Langørgen, Audun & Mogstad, Magne & Østensen, Marit, 2008. "The Impact of Local Public Services and Geographical Cost of Living Differences on Poverty Estimates," IZA Discussion Papers 3686, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Jonah B. Gelbach, 2002. "Public Schooling for Young Children and Maternal Labor Supply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 307-322, March.
    3. Morawski, Leszek & Levy, Horacio & Myck, Michal, 2008. "Alternative tax-benefit strategies to support children in Poland," EUROMOD Working Papers EM3/08, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    4. François Marical & Marco Mira d’Ercole & Maria Vaalavuo & Gerlinde Verbist, 2008. "Publicly provided services and the distribution of households' economic resources," OECD Journal: Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2008(1), pages 1-38.
    5. Immervoll, Herwig & Richardson, Linda, 2011. "Redistribution Policy and Inequality Reduction in OECD Countries: What Has Changed in Two Decades?," IZA Discussion Papers 6030, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Sheila B. Kamerman & Michelle Neuman & Jane Waldfogel & Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 2003. "Social Policies, Family Types and Child Outcomes in Selected OECD Countries," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 6, OECD Publishing.
    7. Figari, Francesco & Paulus, Alari & Sutherland, Holly, 2009. "Measuring the size and impact of public cash support for children in cross-national perspective," ISER Working Paper Series 2009-24, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Irwin Garfinkel & Lee Rainwater & Timothy M. Smeeding, 2006. "A re-examination of welfare states and inequality in rich nations: How in-kind transfers and indirect taxes change the story," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 897-919.
    9. Aaberge, Rolf & Bhuller, Manudeep & Langørgen, Audun & Mogstad, Magne, 2010. "The distributional impact of public services when needs differ," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 549-562, October.
    10. Kakwani, Nanok C, 1977. "Measurement of Tax Progressivity: An International Comparison," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 87(345), pages 71-80, March.
    11. Andrea Bassanini & Romain Duval, 2006. "Employment Patterns in OECD Countries: Reassessing the Role of Policies and Institutions," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 35, OECD Publishing.
    12. Blau, David & Currie, Janet, 2006. "Pre-School, Day Care, and After-School Care: Who's Minding the Kids?," Handbook of the Economics of Education, in: Erik Hanushek & F. Welch (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 20, pages 1163-1278, Elsevier.
    13. Janet Currie & Firouz Gahvari, 2008. "Transfers in Cash and In-Kind: Theory Meets the Data," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(2), pages 333-383, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Volker Ziemann, 2015. "Towards more gender equality in Austria," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1273, OECD Publishing.
    2. Rense Nieuwenhuis & Teresa Munzi & J rg Neugschwender & Heba Omar & Flaviana Palmisano, 2019. "Gender Equality and Poverty are Intrinsically Linked," LIS Working papers 759, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Verbist, G. (Gerlinde) & Matsaganis, M. (Manos), 2012. "GINI DP 53: The Redistributive Capacity of Services in the EU," GINI Discussion Papers 53, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    2. Luca Giangregorio, 2024. "Welfare type and income inequality: an income source decomposition including in-kind benefits and cash-transfers entitlement," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 31(2), pages 367-403, April.
    3. Tess Penne & Irene Cussó Parcerisas & Lauri Mäkinen & Bérénice Storms & Tim Goedemé, 2016. "Can reference budgets be used as a poverty line?," ImPRovE Working Papers 16/05, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    4. Marx, Ive & Nolan, Brian & Olivera, Javier, 2014. "The Welfare State and Anti-Poverty Policy in Rich Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 8154, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Rolf Aaberge & Audun Langørgen & Petter Lindgren, 2013. "The distributional impact of public services in," Discussion Papers 746, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Carta, Francesca & Rizzica, Lucia, 2018. "Early kindergarten, maternal labor supply and children's outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 79-102.
    7. Aaberge, Rolf & Eika, Lasse & Langørgen, Audun & Mogstad, Magne, 2019. "Local governments, in-kind transfers, and economic inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. Gerlinde Verbist & Michael Föster & Vaalavou, M., 2013. "GINI DP 74: The Impact of Publicly Provided Services on the Distribution of Resources: Review of New Results and Methods," GINI Discussion Papers 74, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    10. Isabelle Joumard & Mauro Pisu & Debra Bloch, 2012. "Less Income Inequality and More Growth – Are They Compatible? Part 3. Income Redistribution via Taxes and Transfers Across OECD Countries," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 926, OECD Publishing.
    11. Bérénice Storms & Tim Goedemé & Karel Van den Bosch & Kristof Devuyst, 2013. "Towards a common framework for developing cross-nationally comparable reference budgets in Europe," ImPRovE Working Papers 13/02, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    12. Francesco Andreoli & Giorgia Casalone & Daniela Sonedda, 2018. "Public education provision, private schooling and income redistribution," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 16(4), pages 553-582, December.
    13. Francesco Figari & Alari Paulus, 2015. "The Distributional Effects of Taxes and Transfers Under Alternative Income Concepts," Public Finance Review, , vol. 43(3), pages 347-372, May.
    14. Markus M. Grabka & Gerlinde Verbist, 2015. "Non-cash benefits from social housing in Europe: a comparative perspective," ImPRovE Working Papers 15/07, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    15. Maximilian Stockhausen, 2017. "The Distribution of Economic Resources to Children in Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 901, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    16. Francesco Andreoli & Giorgia Casalone & Daniela Sonedda, 2015. "An empirical assessment of households sorting into private schooling under public education provision," Working Papers 356, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    17. Julio López Laborda & Carmen Marín González & Jorge Onrubia, 2020. "Observatorio sobre el reparto de los impuestos y las prestaciones entre los hogares españoles. Quinto informe – Sanidad y educación, 2013 - 2017," Studies on the Spanish Economy eee2020-28, FEDEA.
    18. Isabelle Joumard & Mauro Pisu & Debbie Bloch, 2012. "Tackling income inequality: The role of taxes and transfers," OECD Journal: Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2012(1), pages 37-70.
    19. Stockhausen, Maximilian, 2016. "The Impact of Private and Public Childcare Provision on the Distribution of Children's Incomes in Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145638, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Lukas Riedel & Holger Stichnoth, 2024. "Government consumption in the DINA framework: allocation methods and consequences for post-tax income inequality," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 31(3), pages 736-779, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cash and in-kind transfers; child poverty; family policy; income distribution;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:elsaab:135-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eloecfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.