2012International Journal of Social WelfareRequires access

Feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states: Consolidating cross‐regime variations?

Jin‐Wook Kim, Young Jun Choi

Open publisher page 11 citations

Abstract

Kim JW, Choi YJ. Feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states: consolidating cross‐regime variations? According to some theorists, the feminisation of poverty has become a common feature in the majority of advanced welfare states, but there have been very few attempts to provide a detailed picture from a comparative perspective. Considering this background, the aim of present study was to illuminate the feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states between the 1980s and the 2000s and to analyse whether there has been any convergence or divergence between these welfare states. The scope and depth of the feminisation of poverty and the changing role of welfare states were assessed via an analysis of the antipoverty role of public transfers in each country. Using the Luxembourg Income Study dataset, this article argues that while the feminisation of poverty has been slowed down and even reversed in certain cases, cross‐regime differences have become increasingly visible.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Kim JW, Choi YJ. Feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states: consolidating cross‐regime variations? According to some theorists, the feminisation of poverty has become a common feature in the majority of advanced welfare states, but there have been very few attempts to provide a detailed picture from a comparative perspective. Considering this background, the aim of present study was to illuminate the feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states between the 1980s and the 2000s and to analyse whether there has been any convergence or divergence between these welfare states. The scope and depth of the feminisation of poverty and the changing role of welfare states were assessed via an analysis of the antipoverty role of public transfers in each country. Using the Luxembourg Income Study dataset, this article argues that while the feminisation of poverty has been slowed down and even reversed in certain cases, cross‐regime differences have become increasingly visible.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Kim JW, Choi YJ. Feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states: consolidating cross‐regime variations? According to some theorists, the feminisation of poverty has become a common feature in the majority of advanced welfare states, but there have been very few attempts to provide a detailed picture from a comparative perspective. Considering this background, the aim of present study was to illuminate the feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states between the 1980s and the 2000s and to analyse whether there has been any convergence or divergence between these welfare states. The scope and depth of the feminisation of poverty and the changing role of welfare states were assessed via an analysis of the antipoverty role of public transfers in each country. Using the Luxembourg Income Study dataset, this article argues that while the feminisation of poverty has been slowed down and even reversed in certain cases, cross‐regime differences have become increasingly visible.

Key concepts: Poverty, Welfare, Convergence (economics), Welfare state, Scope (computer science), Development economics, Divergence (linguistics), Demographic economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Feminisation of poverty in 12 welfare states: Consolidating cross‐regime variations? — Research Paper | ScholarLens