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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of social policy 2020-01, Vol.49 (1), p.189-211
1. Verfasser: CHANG, YU-LING
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 &amp; 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 &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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