Regional differences in welfare and well-being in the European Union

E. Nedelka
{"title":"Regional differences in welfare and well-being in the European Union","authors":"E. Nedelka","doi":"10.21637/gt.2019.1.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": In the study, it is analysed whether the groups of countries formed in the 1990s and 2000s still fit well to the model represented at that time, and whether the countries of the Mediterranean, Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe still separate from each other based on the welfare and well-being indicators. Factor analysis and a new indicator, the welfare factor together with well-being indicators were used in cluster analyses. The three years data and the clusters based on them were analysed. It was pointed out that before the crisis the states representing the Northern model were indeed separate, and liberal and conservative states appeared in a group but at the same time still separately, and the Mediterranean countries were mixed with the post-socialist countries. After the crisis, the northern states merged with the liberal and conservative welfare states, and the Mediterranean countries formed a mixed group with the post-so-cialist states. Greece was separated from each group of countries. 2018 brought even greater changes. Not only Greece but also Slovenia and Czech Republic isolated, and a more composite category was formed from the other Mediterranean countries and post-socialist countries. Taking income and poverty indicators out, it was examined whether the states ranked in each model separated from each other according to them. The result was, however, again a diverse group. Therefore, based on the indicators, it was not possible to clearly prove the Esping-Andersen, Sapir and Baltic theory in today’s economic environment (Esping-Andersen, 1991; Sapir, 2006; Baltic, 2011).","PeriodicalId":232456,"journal":{"name":"Gazdaság és Társadalom","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gazdaság és Társadalom","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21637/gt.2019.1.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: In the study, it is analysed whether the groups of countries formed in the 1990s and 2000s still fit well to the model represented at that time, and whether the countries of the Mediterranean, Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe still separate from each other based on the welfare and well-being indicators. Factor analysis and a new indicator, the welfare factor together with well-being indicators were used in cluster analyses. The three years data and the clusters based on them were analysed. It was pointed out that before the crisis the states representing the Northern model were indeed separate, and liberal and conservative states appeared in a group but at the same time still separately, and the Mediterranean countries were mixed with the post-socialist countries. After the crisis, the northern states merged with the liberal and conservative welfare states, and the Mediterranean countries formed a mixed group with the post-so-cialist states. Greece was separated from each group of countries. 2018 brought even greater changes. Not only Greece but also Slovenia and Czech Republic isolated, and a more composite category was formed from the other Mediterranean countries and post-socialist countries. Taking income and poverty indicators out, it was examined whether the states ranked in each model separated from each other according to them. The result was, however, again a diverse group. Therefore, based on the indicators, it was not possible to clearly prove the Esping-Andersen, Sapir and Baltic theory in today’s economic environment (Esping-Andersen, 1991; Sapir, 2006; Baltic, 2011).
欧盟福利和福利的地区差异
在这项研究中,分析了在20世纪90年代和21世纪初形成的国家群体是否仍然很好地符合当时所代表的模型,以及地中海、西欧、中欧和东欧的国家是否仍然根据福利和福祉指标彼此分开。聚类分析采用因子分析法和福利因子与幸福指数相结合的新指标。对3年的数据及其聚类进行了分析。有人指出,在危机之前,代表北方模式的国家确实是分开的,自由主义和保守主义国家出现在一个群体中,但同时也是分开的,地中海国家与后社会主义国家混合在一起。危机后,北部国家与自由和保守的福利国家合并,地中海国家与后社会主义国家形成混合集团。希腊从每一组国家中分离出来。2018年带来了更大的变化。不仅是希腊,斯洛文尼亚和捷克共和国也被孤立,其他地中海国家和后社会主义国家形成了一个更为复杂的类别。将收入和贫困指标剔除后,研究人员检查了每个模型中各州的排名是否根据这些指标相互分离。然而,结果又是一个多样化的群体。因此,基于这些指标,不可能在今天的经济环境中清楚地证明埃斯平-安德森、萨皮尔和波罗的海理论(埃斯平-安德森,1991;萨丕尔,2006;波罗的海,2011)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信