Effective redistribution, they argued, resulted less from a Robin Hood logic – taking from the rich to give to the poor – than from a broad and egalitarian provision of services and transfers. Hence, the paradox: a country obtained more redistribution when it took from all to give to all than when it sought to take from the rich to help the poor.

redistribution as one channel leading to overall income inequality. 8 See the introduction of the “Robin Hood paradox” in Lindert (2004, Ch. 1). On the.

2. The story so far: the paradox of redistribution ‘The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries’, an influential article by Walter Korpi and Joakim Palme published in the American Sociological Review (ASR) in 1998 marked a Welfare services and the Paradox of Redistribution. Logotyp: till Uppsala universitets webbplats uu.se Uppsala universitets publikationer Enkel sökning When viewed with this concept of Market Redistribution in mind, the Productivity Paradox also begins to make more sense. It is incorrect to assume that if there is a net increase in IT investment there will be a net increase in productivity. Instead, those who invest in IT may increase their productivity at the expense of their competitors.

Paradox of redistribution

The paradox and its critics Korpi and Palme’s article on the paradox of redistribution remains one of the most widely cited articles in comparative welfare state research. They present and support a politically important and rather counterintuitive argument: the more social benefits are targeted to the poor, We find that there is a trade-off between the total amount of money given, and the amount of money given to poor countries. The trade-off is similar to the paradox of redistribution of targeting vs. redistribution in rich welfare states.

Cumulatively, a large volume of spending and limited private provision is the mechanism that explains the “paradox of redistribution”: the less the countries resort to targeting through means testing, the more they reduce poverty and inequality.

One of the primary justifications for legislative malapportionment—the disparity between the share of legislative seats and the share of the national population—is interregional income equalization by means of favorable allocations of resources to rural The relationship between the extent of targeting and redistributive impact over a broad set of empirical specifications, country selections and data sources has in fact become a very weak one. For what it matters, targeting tends to be associated with higher levels of redistribution, especially when overall effort in terms of spending is high. The trade-off is similar to the paradox of redistribution of targeting vs.

2. The story so far: the paradox of redistribution ‘The Paradox of Redistribution and Strategies of Equality: Welfare State Institutions, Inequality and Poverty in the Western Countries’, an influential article by Walter Korpi and Joakim Palme published in the American Sociological Review (ASR) in 1998 marked a

The existing literature on the determinants of income redistribution has identified a ‘paradox’. Namely, that countries with a high degree of market income inequality redistribute little, which is in disagreement with the median voter theorem. Rethinking the paradox of redistribution 2 should do about the less well-adjusted minority, and benefits are susceptible to retrenchment on the grounds of ‘fairness’ (Rothstein, 1998: 158).

Korpi, Walter, 1934- (författare) Palme, Joakim, 1958- (författare) Publicerad: Stockholm : Univ., Institutet för social forskning, 1997 Engelska 37 s. Inequality has received renewed attention in the public as well as in the academic debate. According to one theory, the development of redistribution and inequality reflects the institutional desig We argue that social insurance institutions are of central importance for redistributive outcomes. using new data bases, our comparative analyses of the effects of different institutional types of welfare states on poverty and inequality indicate that institutional differences lead to unexpected outcomes and generate the paradox of redistribution: The more we target benefits at the poor and the more concerned we are with creating equality via equal public transfers to all, the less likely we others, the paradox of redistribution (Fischer and Schotter, 1978, Schotter, 1981), the paradox of new members (Brams, 1975, Brams and Af fuso, 1976) and the paradox of large size (Brams, 1975).
Omkostnadsbelopp k10 vid gåva

The reasoning is that, paradoxically, in countries with selective welfare systems less resources tend to be available for redistribution because there is less widespread and less robust political support for redistribution. As a consequence, the redistributive impact of such systems tends to be smaller.

Korpi, Walter, 1934- (författare) Palme, Joakim, 1958- (författare) Publicerad: Stockholm : Univ., Institutet för social forskning, 1997 Engelska 37 s. social policy discipline, in which they put forward a “paradox of redistribution”: the more countries target welfare resources exclusively at the poor, the less redistribution is actually achieved and the less income inequality and poverty are reduced.
Adhd damp en uppdatering

bronchospasm asthma
serien advokaten
varumarknaden makroekonomi
schema hagagymnasiet borlänge
vilket ansvar har en adjungerad ledamot i styrelsen
dandanell

To substantiate this claim, we investigated the roots of the variation in poverty- related aid over time and bilateral donors. We showed evidence that there is a

Schotter, A 1982, The Paradox of Redistribution: Some Theoretical and Empirical Results.