Sök

Is the Swedish Welfare State a Free Lunch?

PublikationArtikel (med peer review)
Andreas Bergh, Företagandets villkor, Välfärd

Sammanfattning

In his book Growing Public (Cambridge University Press), Peter H. Lindert argues that the welfare state is a “free lunch”, i.e. has no negative effect on growth, and he uses Sweden to explain this finding, which he calls the free lunch puzzle. In this comment, I claim that Lindert misrepresents Sweden when it comes to work incentives for the poor, employment of women, and employment of the elderly, and that he does not pay sufficient attention to the many reforms undertaken in Sweden since the late 1980s. I conclude by suggesting that the surprising resilience of the Swedish welfare state can be explained by increasing economic freedom.

Bergh, A. (2006). ”Is the Swedish Welfare State a Free Lunch? A comment on Peter H. Lindert’s book Growing Public.Econ Journal Watch, 3(2): 210-235.

Baserat på innehåll

A Critical Note on the Theory of Inequity Aversion
Artikel (med peer review)Publikation
Bergh, A.
Publiceringsår

2008

Sammanfattning

The impact of the paper “A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation” by Ernst Fehr and Klaus Schmidt (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1999), has been tremendous, and the theory of inequity aversion has been widely used in varying fields of economics. Here, the merits of inequity aversion as a theory of fairness and as an explanation of human behavior are critically examined. I argue that the theory has weak points in both areas. First, it provides no deeper understanding of why and when people exhibit other-regarding preferences. Second, the outcome-based nature of the theory ignores the fundamental role of procedures, both in the theoretical literature on fairness, and in experiments regarding actual human behavior. Finally, I suggest an alternative way of understanding the puzzling behavior of humans in economic experiments, based on the potentially conflicting norms of individual property rights and social sharing. Many modern theories of fairness essentially amount to promoting an efficient mix of these two norms.

On Inter- and Intra-Individual Redistribution of the Welfare State
Artikel (med peer review)Publikation
Bergh, A.
Publiceringsår

2005

Sammanfattning

Objective. The redistributive effect of the welfare state is traditionally measured by comparing the gross and net distribution of annual income among adults. This standard approach does not account for the fact that a large share of the taxes paid by adults are paid back to the very same individuals later in life. The objective of this article is to examine the factors that determine the difference between redistribution according to the standard approach and redistribution of lifetime incomes. I also discuss under what circumstances intra-individual redistribution is beneficial for low-income earners.

Methods. A formal model of a simple welfare state in a society with low- and high-income earners is used to describe inequality of gross and net income among adults and for complete lifetime incomes. The model is calibrated with data describing the Swedish welfare state.

Results. Theoretically, the redistribution of lifetime income can be bigger or smaller than the redistribution indicated by the standard approach. Swedish data suggest that most welfare states are more redistributive when a lifetime perspective is used compared to the standard approach.

Conclusions. Most of the redistribution carried out by modern welfare states is so-called intra-individual redistribution. Compared to the situation that would arise without the welfare state, intra-individual redistribution is likely to be favorable for low-income earners because it compensates for inequalities in the distribution of assets and access to capital markets.

On the Counterfactual Problem of Welfare State Research: How Can We Measure Redistribution
Artikel (med peer review)Publikation
Bergh, A.
Publiceringsår

2005

Sammanfattning

To measure welfare state redistribution, it is standard to compare the income distributions before and after taxes and transfers. This approach incorrectly assumes that the pre fisc distribution is independent of the welfare state. This paper identifies four sources of bias in the pre/post-approach: 1) Welfare states redistribute both between individuals and between generations, 2) Labor supply responses vary between socio-economic groups and depend on taxes and transfers, 3) The redistribution within social insurance schemes depends on the correlation between risk and income, and 4) Welfare states use public education to influence the distribution of earnings capabilities. I combine theoretical models, numeric simulations and empirics to examine the bias caused by these factors. Results indicate that the pre/post approach is more biased for welfare states with flat rate benefits and proportional taxation, that positively income-related benefits have a redistributive effect, and that public expenditure on primary and secondary education reduces inequality.

Visa fler

Ratio är ett fristående forskningsinstitut som forskar om hur företagandets villkor kan utvecklas och förbättras.

Sveavägen 59 4trp

Box 3203

103 64 Stockholm

Postgiro: 382621-1

|

Bankgiro: 512-6578