Unequal Social Protection under the Federalist System: Three Unemployment Insurance Approaches in the United States, 2007–2015
Despite the increased attention paid to federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) schemes after the Great Recession (2007–2009), research examining the policy characteristics and the underlying logic shaping the social protection provided by a federal-state UI system is limited. Integrating the pers...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of social policy 2020-01, Vol.49 (1), p.189-211 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 211 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 189 |
container_title | Journal of social policy |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | CHANG, YU-LING |
description | Despite the increased attention paid to federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) schemes after the Great Recession (2007–2009), research examining the policy characteristics and the underlying logic shaping the social protection provided by a federal-state UI system is limited. Integrating the perspectives of policy design theory, comparative welfare politics, and fiscal welfare, this paper examines the unequal social protection under the American UI system during and after the Great Recession. By using model-based cluster analysis and fixed-effect panel regression models, this paper identifies three distinct UI approaches, i.e. the limited social protection approach, the unbalanced social protection approach, and the balanced social protection approach. The policy choices made by those states that follow the three approaches reflect different mixtures of policy logic, including social protection, economic stabilization, work disincentives, and interstate competition. The overall downward trend in social protection signals that the American UI system is under-prepared for the next economic recession, thereby exposing unemployed workers to the risk of economic insecurity. These findings provide implications for future policy designs aiming to strengthen the social protection of the federal-state UI system. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0047279419000217 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2327872228</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2327872228</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-11a83536512693e6bac2ffec0730f90d1eea87f0bc7ab77cd2342d8646c474613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkE1OwzAQhS0EEqVwAHaW2BLwX-yEXVVRqFQJpDTryHUmaqrESW1n0V3vwA05CSllx-qN9L55M3oI3VPyRAlVzxkhQjGVCpoSQhhVF2hChUwjlTB-iSYnOzr51-jG-93ISJHEE3TMLewH3eCsM_Uon64LYELdWTzYEhwOW8ALGCfd1D7g7OADtC94vXUAeFxu-6Y7tGADXlo_OG0N4Fnfu06bLXhc29-E3NYBSpwFHcA_YkaI-j5-MULjW3RV6cbD3Z9OUb54Xc_fo9XH23I-W0WGUxkiSnXCYy5jymTKQW60YVUFhihOqpSUFEAnqiIbo_RGKVMyLliZSCGNUEJSPkUP59zxtf0APhS7bnB2PFkwzlSiGGPJSNEzZVznvYOq6F3dancoKClORRf_iuY_d5dwtw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2327872228</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Unequal Social Protection under the Federalist System: Three Unemployment Insurance Approaches in the United States, 2007–2015</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>CHANG, YU-LING</creator><creatorcontrib>CHANG, YU-LING</creatorcontrib><description>Despite the increased attention paid to federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) schemes after the Great Recession (2007–2009), research examining the policy characteristics and the underlying logic shaping the social protection provided by a federal-state UI system is limited. Integrating the perspectives of policy design theory, comparative welfare politics, and fiscal welfare, this paper examines the unequal social protection under the American UI system during and after the Great Recession. By using model-based cluster analysis and fixed-effect panel regression models, this paper identifies three distinct UI approaches, i.e. the limited social protection approach, the unbalanced social protection approach, and the balanced social protection approach. The policy choices made by those states that follow the three approaches reflect different mixtures of policy logic, including social protection, economic stabilization, work disincentives, and interstate competition. The overall downward trend in social protection signals that the American UI system is under-prepared for the next economic recession, thereby exposing unemployed workers to the risk of economic insecurity. These findings provide implications for future policy designs aiming to strengthen the social protection of the federal-state UI system.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0047-2794</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-7823</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0047279419000217</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Business cycles ; Cluster analysis ; Comparative studies ; Competition ; Design ; Design theory ; Disincentives ; Economic conditions ; Economic models ; Economic stabilization ; Great Recession ; Job insecurity ; Macroeconomics ; Mixtures ; Politics ; Protection ; Recessions ; Security ; Social policy ; Social protection ; Tax rates ; Trust funds ; Unemployed people ; Unemployment ; Unemployment benefits ; Unemployment insurance ; Variance analysis ; Welfare ; Welfare state</subject><ispartof>Journal of social policy, 2020-01, Vol.49 (1), p.189-211</ispartof><rights>2019 This article is published under (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-11a83536512693e6bac2ffec0730f90d1eea87f0bc7ab77cd2342d8646c474613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-11a83536512693e6bac2ffec0730f90d1eea87f0bc7ab77cd2342d8646c474613</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2072-3225</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,12824,12825,27321,27843,27901,27902,30976,33751</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>CHANG, YU-LING</creatorcontrib><title>Unequal Social Protection under the Federalist System: Three Unemployment Insurance Approaches in the United States, 2007–2015</title><title>Journal of social policy</title><description>Despite the increased attention paid to federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) schemes after the Great Recession (2007–2009), research examining the policy characteristics and the underlying logic shaping the social protection provided by a federal-state UI system is limited. Integrating the perspectives of policy design theory, comparative welfare politics, and fiscal welfare, this paper examines the unequal social protection under the American UI system during and after the Great Recession. By using model-based cluster analysis and fixed-effect panel regression models, this paper identifies three distinct UI approaches, i.e. the limited social protection approach, the unbalanced social protection approach, and the balanced social protection approach. The policy choices made by those states that follow the three approaches reflect different mixtures of policy logic, including social protection, economic stabilization, work disincentives, and interstate competition. The overall downward trend in social protection signals that the American UI system is under-prepared for the next economic recession, thereby exposing unemployed workers to the risk of economic insecurity. These findings provide implications for future policy designs aiming to strengthen the social protection of the federal-state UI system.</description><subject>Business cycles</subject><subject>Cluster analysis</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Design theory</subject><subject>Disincentives</subject><subject>Economic conditions</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economic stabilization</subject><subject>Great Recession</subject><subject>Job insecurity</subject><subject>Macroeconomics</subject><subject>Mixtures</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Protection</subject><subject>Recessions</subject><subject>Security</subject><subject>Social policy</subject><subject>Social protection</subject><subject>Tax rates</subject><subject>Trust funds</subject><subject>Unemployed people</subject><subject>Unemployment</subject><subject>Unemployment benefits</subject><subject>Unemployment insurance</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><subject>Welfare</subject><subject>Welfare state</subject><issn>0047-2794</issn><issn>1469-7823</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNplkE1OwzAQhS0EEqVwAHaW2BLwX-yEXVVRqFQJpDTryHUmaqrESW1n0V3vwA05CSllx-qN9L55M3oI3VPyRAlVzxkhQjGVCpoSQhhVF2hChUwjlTB-iSYnOzr51-jG-93ISJHEE3TMLewH3eCsM_Uon64LYELdWTzYEhwOW8ALGCfd1D7g7OADtC94vXUAeFxu-6Y7tGADXlo_OG0N4Fnfu06bLXhc29-E3NYBSpwFHcA_YkaI-j5-MULjW3RV6cbD3Z9OUb54Xc_fo9XH23I-W0WGUxkiSnXCYy5jymTKQW60YVUFhihOqpSUFEAnqiIbo_RGKVMyLliZSCGNUEJSPkUP59zxtf0APhS7bnB2PFkwzlSiGGPJSNEzZVznvYOq6F3dancoKClORRf_iuY_d5dwtw</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>CHANG, YU-LING</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BF</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AXJJW</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FREBS</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0Q</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2072-3225</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>Unequal Social Protection under the Federalist System: Three Unemployment Insurance Approaches in the United States, 2007–2015</title><author>CHANG, YU-LING</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c316t-11a83536512693e6bac2ffec0730f90d1eea87f0bc7ab77cd2342d8646c474613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Business cycles</topic><topic>Cluster analysis</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Design theory</topic><topic>Disincentives</topic><topic>Economic conditions</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economic stabilization</topic><topic>Great Recession</topic><topic>Job insecurity</topic><topic>Macroeconomics</topic><topic>Mixtures</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Protection</topic><topic>Recessions</topic><topic>Security</topic><topic>Social policy</topic><topic>Social protection</topic><topic>Tax rates</topic><topic>Trust funds</topic><topic>Unemployed people</topic><topic>Unemployment</topic><topic>Unemployment benefits</topic><topic>Unemployment insurance</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><topic>Welfare</topic><topic>Welfare state</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CHANG, YU-LING</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>European Business Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Asian & European Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Asian & European Business Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>European Business Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of social policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CHANG, YU-LING</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Unequal Social Protection under the Federalist System: Three Unemployment Insurance Approaches in the United States, 2007–2015</atitle><jtitle>Journal of social policy</jtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>189</spage><epage>211</epage><pages>189-211</pages><issn>0047-2794</issn><eissn>1469-7823</eissn><abstract>Despite the increased attention paid to federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) schemes after the Great Recession (2007–2009), research examining the policy characteristics and the underlying logic shaping the social protection provided by a federal-state UI system is limited. Integrating the perspectives of policy design theory, comparative welfare politics, and fiscal welfare, this paper examines the unequal social protection under the American UI system during and after the Great Recession. By using model-based cluster analysis and fixed-effect panel regression models, this paper identifies three distinct UI approaches, i.e. the limited social protection approach, the unbalanced social protection approach, and the balanced social protection approach. The policy choices made by those states that follow the three approaches reflect different mixtures of policy logic, including social protection, economic stabilization, work disincentives, and interstate competition. The overall downward trend in social protection signals that the American UI system is under-prepared for the next economic recession, thereby exposing unemployed workers to the risk of economic insecurity. These findings provide implications for future policy designs aiming to strengthen the social protection of the federal-state UI system.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0047279419000217</doi><tpages>23</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2072-3225</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0047-2794 |
ispartof | Journal of social policy, 2020-01, Vol.49 (1), p.189-211 |
issn | 0047-2794 1469-7823 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2327872228 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Business cycles Cluster analysis Comparative studies Competition Design Design theory Disincentives Economic conditions Economic models Economic stabilization Great Recession Job insecurity Macroeconomics Mixtures Politics Protection Recessions Security Social policy Social protection Tax rates Trust funds Unemployed people Unemployment Unemployment benefits Unemployment insurance Variance analysis Welfare Welfare state |
title | Unequal Social Protection under the Federalist System: Three Unemployment Insurance Approaches in the United States, 2007–2015 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T22%3A11%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Unequal%20Social%20Protection%20under%20the%20Federalist%20System:%20Three%20Unemployment%20Insurance%20Approaches%20in%20the%20United%20States,%202007%E2%80%932015&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20social%20policy&rft.au=CHANG,%20YU-LING&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=189&rft.epage=211&rft.pages=189-211&rft.issn=0047-2794&rft.eissn=1469-7823&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0047279419000217&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2327872228%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2327872228&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |