Redistribution revisited: The impact of family membership on rights over resources
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20377/jfr-1203Keywords:
Europe, family membership, redistribution, rights over resources, unit of redistributionAbstract
Objective: This study investigates the impact of family membership on redistribution. It addresses social inequality in terms of different rights over resources by clarifying how far public redistribution financially advantages or disadvantages families over individuals without recognised family members, as well as particular family forms over others.
Background: Understanding redistribution has been a core issue in the social sciences since their very beginning. This study argues and shows that family-related redistribution has been largely neglected but is indispensable to refining our understanding of redistribution.
Method: The research question was answered using a three-step procedure: first by focusing on whether family is a redistributive principle of European countries; second, by focusing on differences in redistributive logics by differentiating family forms; and third, by contrasting redistributive regulations and their implementation. The study leverages two techniques of regulation analysis, using regulation data from the European databases MISSOC and EUROMOD, and confronts these results with outcome data drawn from EU-SILC. It covers all relevant forms of public redistribution in relation to the family (i.e. taxes, benefits and financial obligations).
Results: The most impactful finding is that, while countries differ in the degree of family-related redistribution (different from established country clusters), the redistributive logics are rather similar (i.e. the family forms that are more or less supported do not differ much among the European countries, here the EU plus the UK). Redistribution in part strongly varies with the family form one lives in, resulting in mostly more, sometimes fewer, resources for families in comparison to individuals without family. In addition, the study of the implementation of redistribution reflects a ‘Matthew effect’ that has not been found in redistribution as regulated.
Conclusion: This study shows that when analysis of redistribution and its international variation is limited to the individual, neither redistribution nor country differences can be adequately understood. Consequently, it emphasises the need for more comprehensive analyses in redistribution studies and welfare state analysis.
References
Bradshaw, J., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2021). Poverty and the family in Europe. In N.F. Schneider & M. Kreyenfeld (Eds.), Research handbook on the sociology of the family (pp. 400–416). Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975544.00038
Clasen, J., & Clegg, D. (2007). Levels and levers of conditionality: Measuring change within welfare states. In J. Clasen & N. Siegel (Eds), Investigating welfare state change: The “dependent variable problem” in comparative analysis (pp. 166–197). Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847206916.00018
Daly, M. (2020). Gender inequality and welfare states in Europe. Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788111263
Dingeldey, I. (2001). European tax systems and their impact on family employment patterns. Journal of Social Policy, 30(4), 653–672. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279401006420
Eismann, M., Henkens, K., & Kalmijn, M. (2019). Origins and mechanisms of social influences in couples: The case of retirement decisions. European Sociological Review, 35(6), 790–806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz037
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/095892879100100108
EUROMOD. (2025). Joint Research Centre & Eurostat. (2025). European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model (EUROMOD).
Eurostat. (2024). Social protection statistics - family and children benefits. Luxembourg.
Ferragina, E., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2014). Determinants of a silent (r)evolution: Understanding the expansion of family policy in rich OECD countries. Social Politics, 22(1), 1–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxu027
Frericks, P. (2013). Strengthening market principles in welfare institutions: How hybrid pension systems impact on social-risk spreading. Journal of Social Policy, 42(4), 665–683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279413000500
Frericks, P. (2021). How to quantify qualitative characteristics of societal differences: A method for systematic comparison of qualitative data (SCQual). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(3), 311–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1883537
Frericks, P. (2022). Family Care Work Coverage in Pensions: Mapping and Contextualizing International Variations and Developments. Social Politics, 29(4): 1360–1378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxac010
Frericks, P. (2023). Family in societal redistribution: A theoretical inquiry. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 43(13/14), 212–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-05-2023-0119
Frericks, P., & Gurín, M. (2024). Redistribution policies towards poor families in Europe. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 40(1), 75–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2024.12
Frericks, P., & Höppner, J. (2024). The unequal conversion of intended redistribution into factual redistribution in Europe and its impact on social inequalities between families. Acta Sociologica, 67(4), 446-462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993231224223
Frericks, P., & Höppner, J. (2025). Matthew, Robin and Co: Re-examining welfare state redistributive logics for the family. Social Policy and Society, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746425000181
Frericks, P., Gurín, M., & Höppner, J. (2023). Mapping redistribution in terms of family: A European comparison. International Sociology, 38(3), 269–289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02685809231168135
Frericks, P., Höppner, J., & Och, R. (2016). Institutional individualisation? The family in European social security institutions. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 747–764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000404
Gal, J. (1998). Formulating the Matthew principle: On the role of the middle classes in the welfare state. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 7(1), 42–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.1998.tb00274.x
Gugushvili, D., & Laenen, T. (2021). Two decades after Korpi and Palme’s “paradox of redistribution”: What have we learned so far and where do we take it from here? Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 37(2), 112–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ics.2020.24
Harvey, M., & Maier, R. (2004). Rights over resources. In B. Clasquin, N. Moncel, M. Harvey, & B. Friot (Eds.), Wage and welfare: New perspectives on employment and social rights in Europe (pp. 25–48). Peter Lang.
Hufkens, T., Leventi, C., Rastrigina, O., Manios, K., Van Mechelen, N., Verbist, G., Sutherland, H., & Goedemé, T. (2016). HHoT: A new flexible Hypothetical Household Tool for tax-benefit simulations in EUROMOD (Deliverable 22.2). Leuven, FP7 InGRID project.
Janssens, J., & Van Mechelen, N. (2022). To take or not to take? An overview of the factors contributing to the non-take-up of public provisions. European Journal of Social Security, 24(2), 95–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13882627221106800
Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2657333
Leitner, S. (2003). Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461669032000127642
Lister, R. (2003). Citizenship: Feminist perspectives. New York University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80253-7
Lohmann, H., & Zagel, H. (2016). Family policy in comparative perspective: The concepts and measurement of familization and defamilization. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(1), 48–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928715621712
Mahon, R., Anttonen, A., Bergqvist, C., Brennan, D., & Hobson, B. (2012). Convergent care regimes? Childcare arrangements in Australia, Canada, Finland and Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4), 419–431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928712449776
Marshall, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge University Press.
Millar, J., & Warman, A. (1996). Family obligations in Europe. Family Policy Studies Centre London.
MISSOC. (2025). Mutual Information System on Social Protection.
Moen, P. (2003). Linked lives: Dual careers, gender, and the contingent life course. In W. Heinz & V. Marshall (Eds.), Social dynamics of the life course (pp. 237–258). De Gruyter.
Montanari, I. (2000). From family wage to marriage subsidy and child benefits: Controversy and consensus in the development of family support. Journal of European Social Policy, 10(4), 307–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/a013494
Myles, J. (2002). “A new social contract for the elderly?” In G. Esping-Andersen, A. Hemerijck, J. Myles, & D. Gallie (Eds.), Why we need a new welfare state (pp. 130–172). Oxford University. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199256438.003.0005
Pavolini, E., & Van Lancker, W. (2018). The Matthew effect in childcare use: A matter of policies or preferences? Journal of European Public Policy, 25(6), 878–893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1401108
Pfau-Effinger, B. (1998). Gender cultures and the gender arrangement: A theoretical framework for cross-national gender research. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 11(2), 147–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.1998.9968559
Saraceno, C. (2006). Means-testing family benefits in Europe: Explicit and implicit goals and contemporary trends. In Herrmann, P. (Ed.), Human beings – Between the individual and the social (pp. 71–97). Nova Science Publishers.
Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies, 12(5), 675–696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2010.483006
Saxonberg, S. (2013). From defamilialization to degenderization: Toward a new welfare typology. Social Policy & Administration, 47(1), 26–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2012.00836.x
Titmuss, R. M. (1965). The role of redistribution in social policy. Social Security Bulletin, 39, 14–20.
Törmälehto, V. M., Jäntti, M., & Marlier, E. (2017). The use of registers in the context of EU SILC. In A.B. Atkinson, A.-C. Guio, & E. Marlier (Eds.), Monitoring social inclusion in Europe (2017 ed.). Publications Office of the European Union.
Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520325760
Van Lancker, W., & Van Mechelen, N. (2015). Universalism under siege? Exploring the association between targeting, child benefits and child poverty across 26 countries. Social Science Research, 50, 60–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.11.012
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Funding data
-
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Grant numbers FR 2687/14-1
