COMPARATIVE SOCIAL PROTECTION SYSTEMS

L. Merla – Y. Vanderborght
Université catholique de Louvain
2016-2017

EXAM INSTRUCTIONS

Note that you are not allowed to use a translation dictionary at the exam. Please do not forget to bring
your student’s ID. Also make sure that your mobile phone is switched off and placed in your bag/coat. All
bags, books, coats etc. should be placed at the front desk.

FOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS (4*2,5 points) – NO MATERIAL ALLOWED

These four questions (two on the Chaire Jacques Leclercq, and two on Y. Vanderborght’s part of the
course) are “specific” in the sense that they focus on specific elements of the course, and are aimed at
testing your ability to briefly explain crucial concepts and/or to briefly discuss key data (for instance a
graph or table). Your answers to these questions will be worth 2,5 points each. The length of your
answers should not exceed 5 lines each.
Here is one example: “The concept of “de-commodification” is central in G. Esping-Andersen’s
comparative work on developed welfare states. Please briefly explain it, and give one reason why it is a
key concept in contemporary welfare research”.
Typically, the answer to such question should include a clear definition of de-commodification, perhaps
mentioning one example of a de-commodifying programme. It should refer to its centrality in Esping-
Andersen’s comparative work (i.e. how it allows him to distinguish between different categories of
welfare capitalism).

TWO QUESTIONS ‘OF REFLECTION’ (10 points = 2*5) – OPEN BOOK QUESTIONS
Once you have replied to the above questions, you are allowed to start with the open book questions.
These two questions (one on the Chaire Jacques Leclercq, one on Y. Vanderborght’s part) are based on a
short opinion piece, press article, press release… Your answer to these questions will be worth 5 points
each. The length of your answers should not exceed 25 lines for each question (1 page). These questions
offer an opportunity to show the breadth as well as the depth of your knowledge in comparative social
protection systems. Your grade will depend on the four following components:

Université catholique de Louvain – LTRAV2720 1

• Academic Year 2016-2017 •
 1) Your ability to demonstrate command of the major theoretical issues in welfare state research,
including references (if appropriate) to specific authors (Esping-Andersen, Marx) or actors (be
they individuals – like Bismarck and Beveridge – or collective – like trade unions).
2) Your ability to demonstrate command of the empirical issues at stake (inequality, Gini coefficient,
poverty, index of health and social problems, etc.).
3) Your ability to develop your argument in a clear and analytical fashion, including your personal
reflection if you consider it appropriate. Your answer should be based on sound and explicit
arguments, not on vague claims. A good way to proceed consists in trying to imagine that the
reader of your answer did not follow the course. Answers that simply offer a disparate set of
arguments will be graded less favourably.
4) The extent to which you tackle the issues raised by the text itself in a comparative way. The latter
sounds self-evident, but all too often students do not really address the issues discussed in the
paper in a comparative fashion.

Note that references to readings might be required for these two questions.

Here is one example: “In December 2011, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development) published a report entitled “Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising”. At this
occasion, it published a short press release. Please read this press release (pages 6-7) carefully, and
comment on it. Try to focus especially on (some of) the comparative aspects of the topics and facts being
discussed, and to show how social policies may have an impact on the issue at stake.”

See next page for the text of the press release.

Université catholique de Louvain – LTRAV2720 2

• Academic Year 2016-2017 •
 OECD Press Release

‘Governments must tackle record gap

between rich and poor, says OECD’

05/12/2011 - The gap between rich and poor in OECD countries has reached its highest level for over
over 30 years, and governments must act quickly to tackle inequality, according to a new OECD report.

“Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising” finds that the average income of the richest 10% is now
about nine times that of the poorest 10 % across the OECD.

The income gap has risen even in traditionally egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and
Sweden, from 5 to 1 in the 1980s to 6 to 1 today. The gap is 10 to 1 in Italy, Japan, Korea and the United
Kingdom, and higher still, at 14 to 1 in Israel, Turkey and the United States.

In Chile and Mexico, the incomes of the richest are still more than 25 times those of the poorest, the
highest in the OECD, but have finally started dropping.

Income inequality is much higher in some major emerging economies outside the OECD area. At 50 to 1,
Brazil's income gap remains much higher than in many other countries, although it has been falling
significantly over the past decade.

Launching the report in Paris, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said “The social contract is starting
to unravel in many countries. This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth
will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that greater inequality fosters greater social
mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, inequality will continue to rise.”

The main driver behind rising income gaps has been greater inequality in wages and salaries, as the
high-skilled have benefitted more from technological progress than the low-skilled. Reforms to boost
competition and to make labour markets more adaptable, for example by promoting part-time work or
more flexible hours, have promoted productivity and brought more people into work, especially women
and low-paid workers. But the rise in part-time and low-paid work also extended the wage gap.

Tax and benefit systems play a major role in reducing market-driven inequality, but have become less
effective at redistributing income since the mid-1990s. The main reason lies on the benefits side: benefits

Université catholique de Louvain – LTRAV2720 3

• Academic Year 2016-2017 •
levels fell in nearly all OECD countries, eligibility rules were tightened to contain spending on social
protection, and transfers to the poorest failed to keep pace with earnings growth.

As a result, the benefit system in most countries has become less effective in reducing inequalities over
the past 15 years.

Another factor has been a cut in top tax rates for high-earners.

“There is nothing inevitable about high and growing inequalities,” said Mr Gurría. “Our report clearly
indicates that upskilling of the workforce is by far the most powerful instrument to counter rising
income inequality. The investment in people must begin in early childhood and be followed through
into formal education and work.”

The OECD underlines the need for governments to review their tax systems to ensure that wealthier
individuals contribute their fair share of the tax burden. This can be achieved by raising marginal tax
rates on the rich but also improving tax compliance, eliminating tax deductions, and reassessing the role
of taxes in all forms of property and wealth, the report says.

Université catholique de Louvain – LTRAV2720 4

• Academic Year 2016-2017 •