Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  322 / 138 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 322 / 138 Next Page
Page Background

322

E

UR

A

MERICA

Table 4 Decomposition of Household Composition, BTST Income

Poverty, and Welfare Effectiveness

Country

Poverty

Household BTST Income Welfare

Difference Composition

Poverty

Effectiveness

Social Democratic

Denmark

13.49

8.07

14.79

-9.37

Finland

8.66

4.91

12.02

-8.26

Iceland

6.47

4.64

9.43

-7.60

Norway

17.65

9.32

15.50

-7.17

Liberal

Australia

0.69

1.24

4.47

-5.02

Canada

9.48

3.18

10.36

-4.05

Ireland

6.44

1.86

13.41

-8.82

UK

8.97

2.42

13.11

-6.56

US

13.75

4.04

12.71

-3.00

Conservative

Austria

5.19

2.44

7.40

-4.65

France

9.71

2.10

12.41

-4.79

Germany

10.08

5.03

11.97

-6.92

Luxembourg

0.95

0.17

5.86

-5.08

Netherlands

6.67

4.15

10.55

-8.02

Switzerland

1.27

0.28

3.55

-2.56

Post-socialist

Czech Republic

0.93

0.51

3.12

-2.69

Poland

3.77

0.33

6.92

-3.48

Slovenia

3.75

0.11

6.76

-3.11

East Asian

Japan

3.49

0.48

2.96

0.05

South Korea

3.59

0.02

3.63

-0.05

Taiwan

--

--

--

--

Southern European

Spain

10.05

0.00

12.49

-2.44

welfare programs in liberal countries reduce youth poverty relative

to Taiwan (if limited, in the US), this falls far short of reversing the

youth poverty in Canada, Ireland, the US, and the UK due to

higher BTST income poverty levels across households. These

results indicate that if Taiwan

s BTST income poverty rate were

replaced

with that of the US (without other factors changing),

Taiwan’s youth poverty rate would increase by at least 12.71