Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  326 / 138 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 326 / 138 Next Page
Page Background

326

E

UR

A

MERICA

not add much to the poverty differences between Taiwan and these

countries (

p

>.1, df=99). The higher levels of BTST income

poverty significantly add 4 to 17 percentage points to the

poverty of Taiwanese young adults. Finally, the social provisions of

most social democratic, liberal, and conservative countries (except

for Australia, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland) could

substantially reduce of the poverty of Taiwanese young adults

whereas the welfare systems of Spain, Japan, South Korea, and

post-socialist countries do not lead to significant differences in

youth poverty.

V. Conclusion

While the economic well-being of youth continues to

deteriorate, rates of youth poverty differ substantially across

countries. Variations in family composition, the market,

and social

welfare contribute to cross-national differences in poverty risks.

Although generous social provisions are consistently found to

alleviate child and elderly poverty, contrary to expectations, high

youth poverty has been found in advanced welfare states and low

youth poverty in less developed welfare states. This raises the

question of why high social expenditures do not translate into low

youth poverty and how each structural factor helps shape the

economic prospects of young adults. This research decomposes the

contributions of these three structural factors to the cross-national

disparities in youth poverty. The decomposition analyses confirm

that social welfare is critical to the economic well-being of youth.

Consistent with previous studies (Tai & Treas, 2009), Western

welfare systems, particularly the Scandinavian welfare states, are

much more effective in reducing youth poverty than the Taiwanese

welfare system. According to these analyses, adopting social

democratic welfare systems could reduce youth poverty rates in

Taiwan by 7-9 percentage points (or 8-11 percentage points

according to the results based on the resamples).