· web viewpeople may for example gap-year travel and work abroad (salonen, 2003). young...

Social background and life-course risks as determinants of social assistance receipt among young adults in Sweden, Norway and Finland

Timo M. Kauppinen, Anna Angelin, Thomas Lorentzen, Olof Bäckman, Tapio Salonen, Pasi Moisio, Espen Dahl

Introduction

Youth is a life stage that is often presented as a specifically risky phase when failures or setbacks may result in trajectories towards long-term marginalization (Sharland, 2006; Kieselbach, 2004). The development towards an unpredictable and more flexible labor market has contributed to a situation where young adults must cope with living in a "risk society" where they often lack stable employment and income (Cieslik & Pollock, 2002; Heggen, 2000). Though most young adults manage to negotiate successful transitions in accordance to established norms on routes to adulthood, there is also a widening academic as well as public debate on youths who remain in a dependent state, lacking education, income and employment. This category has been referred to as "Status zer0 youth", "NEET" (Not in Employment, Education or Training) or young outsiders (Bynner & Parsons, 2002; Furlong, 2006, SOU 2003:92).

One of the major risks during young adulthood is experiencing poverty or precarious financial circumstances. The transition towards adulthood typically contains multiple transitions and several major life-course events simultaneously which results in increasing vulnerability to poverty (Moore, 2005). Poverty is most central in understanding how and if young people can manage functioning transitions into adulthood but despite this, youth poverty has attracted quite limited academic attention (France, 2008). Iacovou (2009) claims that youth poverty is an under-researched area that is lacking recognition even though it is a profound welfare issue. There is extensive research focusing on youth vulnerability but few studies on youth poverty itself (ibid.). This can be compared to for instance the extensive body of research focusing on child poverty (Aasve et al, 2006).

The risk of poverty during youth or young adulthood can be expected to depend on the prevailing kind of "transition regime" that impacts the trajectories of young people (Vogel, 2002). The context of economical, institutional as well as cultural norms and patterns certainly affects and structures this life-phase (Walther, 2006). The Nordic countries have been considered to belong to a "universalistic transition regime" based on a comprehensive school system and social rights, such as social assistance, linked to citizenship status regardless of family situation (Walther, 2006). However, there is a pronounced and surprisingly high occurrence of youth poverty (Iacovou & Aasve, 2007), even though the Nordic countries often are clustered as universal welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Mkandawire, 2005; Lister, 2009) characterized by low general poverty rates. Young adults also comprise one of the major categories of social assistance recipients in the Nordic countries. In Sweden, for example, as many as 40 per cent of all adult social assistance recipients were in the ages from 18 to 29 years old (Socialstyrelsen, 2011).

Precise measurements of poverty among young people through income data contain several pitfalls. In the process of transition to adulthood, incomes often fluctuate considerably and rapidly. Young

people may for example gap-year travel and work abroad (Salonen, 2003). Young adults also often receive financial support from their parents (Latta, 2007; Julkunen, 2002; Angelin, 2009). Additionally, in the Nordic countries, low income during youth is not sufficient to predict future precarious income development as an extensive share of the youth cohorts are enrolled in tertiary education (Halleröd & Westberg, 2006). The consequence is that income data can be quite unreliable, especially cross-sectional income data (Mendola et al., 2009; Moore, 2005).

Given the pitfalls in measuring youth poverty with income data, social assistance receipt can be used as an indicator of actual experiences of financial deprivation. The lives and trajectories of young social assistance recipients are differentiated and heterogeneous and so is the length and extent of their need for public financial support. What they do share though are experiences of poverty. As their applications for benefits have been approved after means-testing we can be quite convinced that receipt of social assistance actually works as an indicator of considerable financial difficulty.1 This is even further relevant in relation to those who have remained in long-term receipt and experienced recurring spells with considerable permanence of poverty (Mendola et al., 2009).

In this article we aim to shed light on occurrence of poverty among young adults in the Nordic countries by analyzing longitudinal register-based data on social assistance receipt during young adulthood in Norway, Finland and Sweden. We look at the determinants of the receipt of social assistance, focusing on the effects of social background and life-course risks. Secondly, we assess, whether different explanations are needed for short- versus long-term receipt. The research questions are:

1) How do social background and life-course risk factors predict the receipt of social assistance?2) Do the same factors explain both long-term and short-term receipt?

When answering these questions, we will look at differences between the three countries in the answers.

Theoretical framework: social background versus life-course risk factors as determinants of social assistance receipt

Social background

If we consider the determinants of social assistance receipt among young adults from a social stratification viewpoint, intergenerational reproduction of disadvantage comes to fore as a possibly important explanation (Roberts, 2009a). In accordance to this perspective, long-term receipt of social assistance can be predicted to occur more likely among young adults from less favorable socio-economic backgrounds. Even though transitions have become more individual they still occur in the context of social inequality (Roberts, 2009b). Opportunity structures and social risks are not equally distributed among the population, not even in the reputed decommodified and egalitarian Nordic welfare states. Intergenerational poverty is relevant in understanding youth poverty as it is often transmitted from childhood deprivation that continues when entering young adulthood (Moore,

1 However, not all persons with considerable financial difficulties are detected with this indicator, such as students during the study terms.

2005). Previous Nordic research clearly indicates patterns of intergenerational transmission of social assistance receipt from parents to their adult children (Stenberg, 2000; Moisio & Kauppinen, 2009; Lorentzen & Nielsen, 2008, Salonen, 2002).

Disadvantaged young people often lack crucial resources to navigate transitions or exercise choice in managing their lives (Furlong, 2006). In understanding lacking resources it is central to stress that in addition to monetary capital youths’ navigations are also assisted by disposal of human, social and cultural capital that can be gained or enhanced from factors such as having educated parents (Bourdieu, 1986; Bynner & Parsons, 2002; Hyggen, 2006). Family and parental help have been found to be hugely important in Nordic youths' protection against deprivation, even as central as the nature and generosity of the welfare systems in the Nordic countries (Julkunen 2002, Latta 2007). As the degree that parents can support their children is unevenly distributed it obviously affects risks for reproduction of disadvantage. Young and unskilled individuals are particularly vulnerable on today’s labor markets (Taylor-Gooby, 2004), which can be considered as a major explanation to why youths from less favorable socio-economic conditions lacking education can be expected to be most likely to remain as long-term recipients of social assistance.

Life-course risk factors

Youth is recognized as a stage of 'becoming' where a move from being dependent on others to living as an autonomous and independent citizen takes place (France, 2008, Mizen, 2004). Economic independence is an important indicator of the transition to adulthood (Smeeding & Philips, 2002). This autonomy is quite difficult to obtain for many youths in the Nordic countries as either continued financial support from parents or applying for social assistance is a reality for many.

There are several reasons why youths are economically vulnerable in the Nordic as well as other European countries. The process of entering the labor market during young adulthood is a key life stage where several, and costly, central transitions like establishing partnership, parenthood and an independent household often take place concurrently (Anxo et al 2010; Müller & Gangl, 2003). These transitions have also become non-linear, protracted and increasingly reversible as stable employment occurs at a higher age (duBois-Reymond, 2003). Some scholars have used the term “new social risks” – as compared to the “old” social risks such as a lower social background – to refer to these increased individual risks associated with the labor market such as finding stable employment and managing to fulfill the increased demands on skills and formal education. The term has also been related to the private sphere where destabilization of the family as a welfare provider has resulted from increase in dissolved marriages and single parenthood, and difficulties in meeting responsibility for care of children and elderly poses challenges in relation to growing female employment rates. Many welfare states, including the Nordic, also have a challenge in including increasing numbers of non-western immigrants who often encounter major difficulties in finding employment and obtaining self-sufficiency.

New social risks have been claimed to affect people more strongly at certain life stages, youth being one of them, and low-skilled young people have been suggested to be particularly vulnerable (Taylor-Gooby, 2004). The protracted and more winding road during the school-to-work transition in the Nordic countries increases risks of poverty and exclusion from social insurance and unemployment benefits (Lorentzen et al., forthcoming). This also includes risks related to for instance illness or childbearing during periods of education (therefore non-included in general social insurances), or

brief financial crises between spells of temporary work or travelling that is resolved through social assistance.

Poverty often peaks in the Nordic countries around the age of 20. Previous comparative research reveals that the main explanatory factor for the high poverty in this age group in the Nordic countries is the pattern of very early home-leaving (Mendola et al., 2009; Aassve et al. 2006). Nordic young people frequently leave their parental home before they have finished their education or are established on the labor market, and therefore they lack the sufficient income (Vogel, 2002). The major risk of poverty in early adulthood is thus living away from the parental home (Iacovou, 2009).

The social-democratic redistributive welfare states have been perceived as superior in both meeting old social risks (through policies for general retirement rights, sickness and unemployment compensation) as well as implementing bulwarks to combat new social risks like providing public child-care and promotion of labor market inclusion (Timonen, 2004). Despite this, a considerable amount of Nordic youths are unemployed and in need of social assistance. From a theoretical perspective that emphasizes the importance of new social risks, one would predict that the short-term social assistance can predominantly be understood as a temporary relief for risk exposure in the prolonged transition between adolescence and adulthood when young adults are in the process of entering an increasingly flexible, unstable and demanding labor market (Andrén & Gustafsson, 2004; Taylor-Gooby, 2004).

Different explanations for short- and long-term receipt?

It is necessary to empirically distinguish those who encounter temporal and limited spells and those who remain in a long term marginalized position. The relevance of social background and life-course risk factors as determinants of social assistance receipt might differ between short- and long-term recipients.

The risk for short-term receipt might be less determined by social background than the risk for long-term receipt, as short-term receipt might result mainly from a generally unstable life phase. Therefore, we ask, does short-term social assistance receipt in these Nordic countries primarily represent a dynamic and "rocky" period of life that is common to substantial share of young adults and not strongly associated with the social background? On the other hand, is a less favorable social background mostly related to more grave and permanent marginalization, with a continued need and receipt of long-term social assistance? Or is social background the ultimate determinant of all social assistance receipt, with life-course risk factors only mediating the effects of social background? A Swedish study on long term exclusion among the “young outsiders” in the 1990s (SOU 2003:92) concluded that immigrant background, low parental income and education, and high benefit receipt characterized the group that experienced lasting difficulties.

Earlier research on the determinants of social assistance receipt among young adults

In Rowntree's (1901) classical studies of poverty over the life cycle, youth was classified one of the less vulnerable stages. Today the situation is quite the opposite as young people are one of the

categories in the Nordic countries that are most likely to be poor and receive social assistance (Social Rapport, 2010). As the Nordic welfare regimes require previous work experience as a condition for full inclusion in social insurances, many young people are not yet entitled to the so called "universal" benefits (Lorentzen et al, forthcoming). The loose connection to the labour market can thus be understood as a central risk for poverty and as a consequence of this, increased social assistance uptake among youth. However, the risk for becoming a long-term social assistance recipient is not evenly distributed among youth, as less favourable socioeconomic or non-Nordic ethnic background is a prominent determinant of this (Hammer, 2001; Angelin, 2009).

There are not many studies simultaneously analyzing the risk of becoming a social assistance recipient and the duration of the receipt. These questions have often been analyzed separately, and studies on the duration have been more common. Andrén and Gustafsson (2004) analyzed – separately – both the entry and duration in Sweden, but they did not focus on young adults. However, they found that young adults (18-26 years old) were the age group particularly prone to become recipients, especially during times of high unemployment. Younger age also predicted longer-term receipt. Andrén and Gustafsson (ibid.) saw social assistance as having a function in Sweden missing in many other European countries, namely helping young people to bridge the period from being supported by their parents to becoming wage earners.

Regarding findings concerning the risk of receipt of SA, Hyggen (2006) found that growing up in other type of family than an intact nuclear family, father’s low educational level, parental social assistance receipt and school dropout predicted the risk of receiving social assistance when 18-28 years old in Norway. He did not analyze the duration of the receipt, however. Neither did Lorentzen et al. (2011) in their study on determinants of first-time social assistance receipt of young adults (aged 18-29 years) in Norway, but unlike the studies by Andrén and Gustafsson (2004) and Hyggen (2006), they used explanatory variables measured during the young adulthood in addition to the family-background variables. They found that several “critical” life events increased the likelihood of becoming a social assistance recipient: marital breakdown, becoming a single provider, establishing a family, leaving school and leaving the parental home all increased this likelihood. Also parental education and income (measured when the cases were 16 and 18 years old, respectively) had effects that were independent from the effects of the life events, with lower parental education and income increasing the probability of becoming a social assistance recipient. Also non-Western immigrants had significantly higher risk of being social assistance recipients. Because both the life events and the socio-economic background had independent effects on social assistance receipt, Lorentzen et al. (2011) concluded that these are supplementary instead of alternative explanations.

There is a large amount of research on the duration of social assistance receipt or on the exit from social assistance. Bäckman and Bergmark (2011, p. 488) summarize the commonly found predictors of low exit rates to include “such factors as a weak labour market, male sex, high age, being a single adult, ethnic minority status, low educational achievement, substance abuse, low employability, and poor physical and mental health.”

A number of Nordic studies have looked at the relationship between early receipt of social assistance and later receipt. Angelin’s (2009) analyses of Swedish youths during the welfare crisis of the 1990s revealed that those who became long-term unemployed or received social assistance at an early age (age 19-21) had a 6-7 times higher risk to be in that situation when they were older (27-29 years)

compared to those who did not have these problems at the early age. This shows that there is a connection between early marginalisation and later marginalisation. In addition to early debuts as SA recipients the group with more permanent problems was characterized by higher prevalence of lower socio-economic status of the family of origin and other ethnic background than Swedish. Hammer’s (2009) Norwegian analyses of the life trajectories of young SA recipients also indicated that they often came from families with low income and education. The majority of the group continued to receive it several times during the transition to adulthood but it was often short periods but in addition to this, as many as 20-25 per cent lived by various public support in adulthood. Bäckman and Bergmark (2011) found a negative duration dependency in SA receipt in Sweden in the 2000s, meaning that SA receipt in itself predicts later receipt.

We are not aware of a previous study studying simultaneously the determinants of both entry to social assistance receipt and the duration of the receipt among young adults.

Similarities and differences between the three Nordic countries

The level of uptake and need of social assistance must always be understood as an interplay between structural and individual factors (Byberg 2002). The analyses in this article captures several of the most central determinants of social assistance but in the text below we aim to contextualize the analyses in this article through an overview of the basic structure of the countries´ social assistance schemes and conditions that are relevant in relation to financially troubled youths in the three Nordic welfare states.

Studies looking longitudinally at country-level determinants of social assistance receipt in individual countries (Bergmark and Bäckman 2004; Cappellari and Jenkins 2009) have found the development of the labour market and changes in the income maintenance system to be important determinants. Similarly, our own analyses, comparing the development in Sweden, Norway and Finland (Lorentzen et al., forthcoming), highlighted the role of these factors. Therefore, we concentrate on the developments of labour markets and the income maintenance systems here.

One difference between the countries is that the 1990s economic recession posed severe challenges to the welfare states in Finland and Sweden, but to a lesser extent in Norway. In all three countries, though, it was the young groups that were the most sensitive to the economic downturn in terms of social assistance receipt (Lorentzen et al., forthcoming). The severe economic downturn in the beginning of the 1990s had a profound effect on the development of the welfare states in Finland and Sweden and moved them towards a direction of a more residual system (Kuivalainen 2004). This crisis affected Norway to a much lesser extent due to oil revenues (Jonung et al. 2009). The country did not experience the extraordinary increase of youth unemployment and social assistance recipients as Finland and Sweden leading them to implement substantial retrenchments and tightening in their welfare states. During the late 1990s, all three countries experienced strong economic development. Despite this, social assistance among youths remained at rather high levels in both Finland and Sweden. One explanation for this is that eligibility conditions for unemployment benefits had been altered in ways that often excluded young adults lacking extensive or stable work experience. Social assistance often was the only available income protection for unemployed young adults in all these three countries (Lorentzen et al., forthcoming).

Finland and even more so Sweden still struggles with high youth unemployment rates exceeding 20 percent which is substantially higher than the average unemployment in the total population and more than twice as high as the youth unemployment rate in Norway (Nordic statistical yearbook, 2011). Another category that is exposed to welfare related risks are students as none of the three countries has policies where students are generally eligible for rights to social assistance (exceptions are occasionally made predominantly during summer leaves). Lorentzen et al. (2011) actually found that young adults from more privileged backgrounds had elevated risks to certain social risks probably related to more frequently being uninsured in relation to social insurances and therefore encountering risks or incidences of financial hardship for a more extended period (as they were often students) in comparison to young adults from lower social strata. Those had shorter transition periods and thus were better protected by entitlement to social security (for instance maternity benefits).

Sweden differs from Norway and Finland in the development of employment rate of young adults since the beginning of the 1990s (Lorentzen et al., forthcoming). In the other two countries it seems to mirror the more general economic situation, but in . Sweden, the employment rate of young people below the age of 25 seems to have decreased more permanently. This is a significant difference regarding earned rights to unemployment benefits.

When we look at how policy and eligibility for unemployment protection have evolved since the 1990s, we see that young people are especially vulnerable as the reputed comprehensive social protection of the Nordic universal welfare services has left large shares of unemployed young adults excluded from the rights based social insurance schemes during the last two decades (Timonen, 2003, Lorentzen et al. 2011). This can to some extent be explained by the unstable transition phase towards adulthood, when youths’ relationship to the labour market is more reversible and unstable, where as earnings- related unemployment security has progressively become more and more conditioned on stable and more extensive work records in both Finland, Sweden and Norway. This has resulted in a development where means- tested benefits have, at least partially, replaced earnings-related unemployment benefits and other social insurances (Lorentzen et al., forthcoming).

In both Finland, Sweden and Norway, social assistance is a last-resort form of means-tested economic support only available when all other support options are exhausted. The rate is set with the intention of providing a minimum level of subsistence but enough to provide a reasonable standard of living. Municipalities are responsible for both administration, provision and financing . The grounds for granting social assistance is located to the discretion and assessment of case workers at municipal authorities, even if they have to consider and comply with state-level guidelines. The countries share many common institutional settings but despite the obvious mutual traits the three countries also have substantial differences. Finland and Sweden’s social assistance systems were categorized by Gough et al. (1997) as citizenship-based but residual assistance regimes characterised by a substantial degree of codified rights to the recipients and relatively generous benefits. The Norwegian social assistance system was instead classified as a decentralised, discretionary relief regime with lower remunerations and of a more discretionary character. Finland is the Nordic country with the highest number of social assistance recipients, above 6 per cent of the population over 18 years. The corresponding level in Sweden is just below 4 per cent. Norway generally has fewer social assistance recipients with a level around 3, 5 per cent in 2010 (Nordic Statistical

yearbook 2011). In all the countries young adults have a higher uptake of social assistance than the general population.

Study design

Data

We use register-based data ordered from the statistical authorities of Sweden, Norway and Finland. Our population consists of persons belonging to the birth cohorts of 1978-1984, living in a family in the respective country in a child’s position when 16 years old, and living in the country for all years when 18 to 24 years old. In Sweden (N=669,027) and Norway (N=362,959) we have the whole population, but in Finland we use a 25% sample of the population (N=109,374). Altogether, we have over 1.1 million observations, which enables us to do detailed analyses that would not be possible with smaller data sets.

Our design for the measurement of the social assistance receipt and the explanatory variables is based on the hypothesis that long-term receipt of social assistance might be related especially to the social background of the young adult, whereas short-term receipt might be more related to life-course events. Therefore, we measure the duration – or, more accurately, the incidence – of social assistance receipt instead of only a dichotomous indicator of receipt of social assistance, and while we measure also demographic and contextual explanatory variables, we only control for them in the statistical analyses instead of focusing on their associations with the social assistance receipt.

Our dependent variable is the total number of months of social assistance receipt when 18 to 24 years old, varying between 0 and 84 months.2 In Sweden and Norway this refers to the assistance received by the person her- or himself. In Finland, family is the unit receiving social assistance, so the variable measures the number of months the person has been living in a family receiving social assistance. However, social assistance received by the parents of a young person living with her or his parents is not included, as an adult child is considered a separate family. We use this variable as a categorical outcome, with categories defined as follows: 0 months / 1-6 months / 7-18 months / 19-36 months / 37-84 months. We refer especially to the “1-6 months” category as “short-term” receipt and to the “37-84 months” category as “long-term” receipt (or the “longest-term” receipt, as at least the “19-36 months” category may also be considered long-term receipt).

We use three kinds of explanatory variables when analyzing the determinants of social assistance receipt. The first group of variables includes the demographic and contextual variables measured before the follow-up: sex, year of birth, country of birth, family type when 16 years old, unemployment rate in the municipality when 16 years old and the labour market region when 16 years old (or a coarse municipality classification in Finland). We control for these characteristics in the statistical models, but they are not in the focus in this paper. The measurement of these variables is shown in Appendix 1 (which will be added to a later version of this paper).

2 Construction of continuous spells of social assistance receipt was not possible, so we used this simple cumulative measure. We are also theoretically interested in the cumulative outcome instead of single spells. Although we refer to this variable as the “duration” of social assistance receipt, it is influenced by the age of first receipt (if any), duration of that spell, the number of further spells and their durations.

The second group consists of the social background variables. These include highest parental education when 16, parental unemployment when 17 (whether parents received unemployment benefits), parental income per consumption unit when 17, and parental receipt of social assistance when 17. These variables are in the focus in this paper, and we are interested in their effects as compared to the effects of the life-course variables, which are the third group of explanatory variables. They measure things happening during the follow-up, i.e. when the person is between 18 and 24 years old. They include 1) migration variables: the age of leaving the parental home, whether the person moved between labour-market regions during the follow-up (or, in Finland, whether the person moved to an urban municipality), 2) a student status variable: number of years as a student during the follow-up, 3) health-related variables: whether the person was a disability pensioner in the start of the follow-up or became such during the follow-up, number of years with at least 16 days of sickness allowance during the follow-up (at least 15 in Sweden), and 4) a variable measuring establishment of a family: number of children living with the person in the end of the follow-up. We also measure the number of months of unemployment during the follow-up, but it is used only in separate analyses, as it may be “too close” to the dependent variable, i.e. it may be simultaneously determined with the receipt of social assistance.

Methods

In addition descriptive cross-tabulations of social assistance (SA) receipt by the explanatory variables, we apply ordinal logistic regression as the main statistical method, using the gologit2 program in Stata (Williams 2006). As in binary logistic regression with a dichotomous outcome, we can analyze, whether the explanatory variables are related to the receipt of social assistance generally. However, in addition to that, the method allows us to analyze, whether the explanatory variables are also related to the number of months of SA receipt (we call this the “duration” of receipt), and whether some variables are especially related to long-term receipt. In other words, we want to see, if a variable affects whether a person receives 1) no SA at all or at least some, 2) only a small amount of months of SA or a large amount of months.

In the case of the social background variables and other variables referring to the circumstances of the person before the follow-up, these explanatory variables are measured and determined before the dependent variable (number of months of SA receipt). Therefore, we can rather safely call them determinants of SA receipt. However, the life-course variables are cumulative measures measured during the same age span (when 18-24 years old) as the SA receipt. We have not checked the temporal order of life-course events as compared to the months of SA receipt3, so social assistance may have been received before the life-course events happened. Although we assume that these events trigger social assistance receipt and not the other way round, this is not sure, so strictly speaking the life-course variables should only be called correlates of SA receipt.

Results

Descriptive results

3 This is mainly due to our interest in the cumulative SA receipt during the ages 18-24 instead of yearly numbers of SA months. Exact information on timing in the precision of a month was not available, either.

Table 1 shows, how common it has been to receive social assistance (SA) in the study cohorts in each country when 18-24 years old. It has been most common in Finland, where 35% have received social assistance during the follow-up, and least common in Norway, with 16% receiving social assistance. If we look at the distributions of months only among those who have received SA for at least one month (these percentages can be calculated from the table), we see that the countries resemble each other more: around half of the recipients in each country have received SA for less than seven months during the 84 months’ follow-up, and 8-10% of the recipients have at least 37 assistance months.

Table 1. Distribution of the months of social assistance receipt by country.

0 1-6 7-18 19-36 37+ Total, % NSweden 77.3 9.9 6.3 4.2 2.3 100.0 669,027Norway 83.7 8.4 4.3 2.3 1.3 100.0 362,959Finland 64.8 18.1 8.9 4.8 3.4 100.0 109,374

Social assistance months during the follow-up

Social assistance receipt by social background

Next we look at the basic bivariate associations between the social background variables and the number of social assistance months during the follow-up. Table 2 shows these associations in each country as cross-tabulations. The purpose is to look whether the social background variables are associated with social assistance receipt, whether some types of a social background are associated especially with long-term receipt, and what kind of differences we can observe between the countries.

In all three countries, all the four social background variables have been associated with social assistance receipt: lower parental education, parental unemployment, lower parental income and parental social assistance receipt all predict a higher probability to receive social assistance when 18-24 years old. Therefore, the “old social risks” do predict social assistance receipt of young adults. Differences by social background in the probability to receive SA have otherwise been smaller in Sweden than in Norway and Finland, but differences by parental income have been the largest in Sweden. When comparing the variables, we see that the largest differences are related to parental receipt of social assistance, and also in the Finnish case to parental unemployment.

Table 2. Social assistance receipt by social background variables in each country.

0 1-6 7-18 19-36 37+ Total n

SwedenHighest parental education when 16

Primary or unknown 70 11 8 7 4 100 183,926Secondary 75 11 7 4 2 100 264,264Tertiary 86 7 4 2 1 100 220,837

Parental unemployment when 17Neither parent unemployed 78 9 6 4 2 100 567,619One of two parents unemployed 75 12 7 4 2 100 89,553Both parents or the single parent unemployed 59 18 12 7 3 100 11,855

Parental income per consumption unit when 17Lowest decile 59 13 12 10 6 100 72,3032nd decile 58 15 12 9 5 100 77,4352nd quintile 71 14 8 5 3 100 144,4843rd quintile 82 10 5 3 1 100 129,5894th quintile 88 7 3 2 1 100 123,829Highest quintile 93 4 2 1 0 100 121,387

Parent(s) received social assistance when 17No MISSINGYes

NorwayHighest parental education when 16




Parent(s) received social assistance when 17No 86 7 3 2 1 100 337,528Yes 47 21 15 10 7 100 25,431

FinlandHighest parental education when 16




Parent(s) received social assistance when 17No 69 17 8 4 2 100 99,149Yes 23 25 22 15 15 100 10,225

Months of social assistance

None of the categories of the social background variables has predicted only long-term receipt. Additionally, in all countries, short-term receipt (1-6 months) has been more common than the longest-term receipt (37+ months) in all categories of the social background variables. If we define long-term receipt as more than 18 months, we see that long-term receipt has been more common than short-term receipt in the lowest parental income decile in Sweden and among those Finnish recipients whose parents have received SA, and as common as short-term receipt among those Swedish recipients with low parental education and those Finnish recipients whose both parents have been unemployed. All in all, we do not find evidence of any single category of the social background variables alone leading to especially long-term receipt. Therefore, the assumption of “old social risks” predicting mainly long-term receipt does not seem valid.4 However, the Finnish results are partly in accordance with such assumptions: there are no large differences between the social background categories in the probability of short-term SA receipt. This is related to the fact observable in Table 1 that especially short-term receipt has been more common in Finland than in the other countries, making the short-term recipients a less select group.

We also looked at other background variables in the data besides the “social” background variables shown in Table 2. Of these, country of birth and family type had the strongest associations with SA receipt. Country of birth had the strongest association with SA receipt in Sweden, where those born in Eastern Europe had the highest risk to receive SA (60%), with emphasis on longer-term receipt, while natives (those born in Sweden) had a 20% risk. In Norway, those born in Eastern Europe also had the highest risk (38%, no emphasis on long-term receipt) while the natives had a 16% risk. In Finland, those born in Eastern Europe or outside Europe and America had the highest risk (61%, with some emphasis on longer-term receipt), while the natives’ risk was 35%. The natives’ risk was the lowest in all countries. Considering the family type, in Finland, it had a clear association with SA receipt, with 29% of cases from families with two married parents having received SA, while the risk was 54% among cases from single-parent families. Similar difference was observed in Sweden (17% vs. 39%) and Norway (12% vs. 31%). In Finland and Norway, cases from families with two co-habiting unmarried parents had almost as high risk as cases from single-parent families, but in Sweden their risk was closer to that of families with two married parents.

Social assistance receipt by life-course risks

Table 3 shows, how much social assistance receipt has been related to certain risk factors during the young adulthood. Only those life-course risk factors are shown in the table that had strong associations with social assistance receipt in at least two of the three countries.

4 Also if we calculate column percentages instead of row percentages in Table 2, showing the composition of each SA receipt group, we do not find radically different compositions of social background variables in the short-term group as compared to the longest-term group. For example, in Sweden, the percentage of recipients with parental income in the lowest decile was 14% in the short-term group and 30% in the longest-term group, and the corresponding percentages were 16% and 28% in Norway and 10% and 18% in Finland. Perhaps the clearest difference was in the percentage with parental social assistance in Finland (13% and 42%).

Table 3. Social assistance receipt by selected life-course variables in each country.

0 1-6 7-18 19-36 37+ Total n

SwedenAge of leaving the parental home

Before 18 31 13 16 20 19 100 4,56318 33 12 17 20 17 100 10,28219 56 15 13 9 6 100 28,47220 62 15 11 7 4 100 25,97921-22 79 10 6 4 2 100 382,50823-24 83 8 5 3 1 100 105,765None 83 8 5 3 1 100 111,458

Disability pensionerNo 78 10 6 4 2 100 652,988Already when 18 years old 83 11 4 2 0 100 6,746Later during the follow-up 41 15 16 18 11 100 9,293

Number of children <18 years old when 24 years old0 80 9 6 3 2 100 571,0621 64 13 10 8 5 100 72,6282 55 14 12 11 8 100 21,6573+ 44 14 14 15 13 100 3,680

NorwayAge of leaving the parental home

Before 18 45 17 15 12 11 100 2,78318 43 22 16 11 8 100 3,58419 51 19 14 10 6 100 13,13620 63 16 10 6 4 100 25,41621-22 77 12 6 3 2 100 69,79423-24 86 8 4 2 1 100 53,735None 92 5 2 1 0 100 194,511

Disability pensionerNo 84 8 4 2 1 100 358,789Already when 18 years old 74 22 3 1 0 100 730Later during the follow-up 53 21 14 9 4 100 3,440


FinlandAge of leaving the parental home

Before 18 33 21 20 13 14 100 4,06718 35 24 18 12 10 100 10,24019 55 22 12 6 5 100 18,83720 65 20 9 4 2 100 21,18921-22 72 18 7 3 1 100 27,87823-24 78 14 5 2 1 100 12,598None 81 10 4 3 2 100 14,565

Disability pensionerNo 65 18 9 5 3 100 107,460Already when 18 years old 79 13 4 3 1 100 729Later during the follow-up 27 19 21 20 13 100 1,185


Months of social assistance

When we look at the Swedish results on Table 3, we see that all three variables have been strongly associated with the risk of receiving social assistance. Early leaving of the parental home has been a particularly strong predictor: 69% of those leaving when less than 18 years old have received social assistance, while only 17% of those still staying with their parents when 24 years old were recipients. Early home-leaving has also been related especially with long-term receipt, more strongly than any category of the social background variables. Also becoming a disability pensioner during the follow-up and having children during the follow-up have been strongly associated with SA receipt with pronounced long-term receipt. These associations are stronger than those of the social background variables.5

Early leaving of the parental home and becoming a disability pensioner have been strong predictors of SA receipt also in Norway, but having children has had a much weaker association. On the other hand, the number of student-years during the follow-up has had a strong association with SA receipt in Norway (not shown in the table), only 3% of those studying during all years receiving SA, but 44% of those having no student years being recipients. This kind of an association is not observed in the other countries.

Finnish results are quite similar to the Swedish results, with all three variables having strong associations with SA receipt and some emphasis on longer-term receipt in the “disadvantaged” categories of the variables. These emphases are, however, slightly weaker in Finland in the case of early home-leaving and having children, perhaps because leaving the parental home before 18 or before 19 or having several children by the age of 24 is not as exceptional in Finland as in Sweden. Finland differs from the other countries by having a stronger association between years with some sickness leave and SA receipt (not shown in the table): 33% of those without such years received SA, while 69% with three or more such years were recipients, with some emphasis on long-term receipt. A similar but weaker association was observed in Sweden and Norway, without emphasis on long-term receipt.

As the age of leaving the parental home has been very strongly associated with SA receipt in all countries, it is worth noting that the distribution of this variable varies considerably between the countries, as can be seen from the frequencies shown in Table 3. In Sweden, over half of the cases left while being 21-22 years old and 17% had not left by the age of 24. In contrast, in Norway, over half of the cases still had not left when 24, and in Finland a larger share of the cases left at younger ages such as 19 or 20 and only 13% had not left by the age of 24.

Taken together, the results concerning the life-course variables indicate that these clearly are relevant variables in the prediction of social assistance receipt and they help us in understanding why one young adult receives SA and another does not. However, the question remains, whether these life-course factors just mediate the effects of the social background variables. Alternatively, one may ask, are social background variables any more necessary in the explanation of SA receipt once the life-course factors are known? These questions are addressed in the next section.

5 Of the life-course variables used in the study, months of unemployment while 18-24 years old had the strongest association with months of SA receipt in all countries, but it was not used in the main analyses because it is such an obvious explanation for SA receipt among young people. This variable had the same categories as the SA receipt variable, and the percentage receiving SA varied in Sweden between 6% in the “0 months” category and 78% in the “37+” category. In Norway, the corresponding percentages were 4% and 85% and in Finland 15% and 84%.

Multivariate results

Sweden

Table 4 shows the results from the ordinal logit model for Sweden. As all the variables are in the model simultaneously, the coefficients show effects of each variable, when all the other variables are controlled for. The coefficients on the 'b' columns are logit-scale regression coefficients, so positive coefficients indicate higher probability of belonging to the explained category than in the reference group of the explanatory variable.

The first column of coefficients ('>0 months?') shows, how each variable predicts that a person has received at least some social assistance (SA) during the follow-up (instead of receiving none). If the absolute values of the coefficients are larger on this column than in the next columns, this indicates, that the variable (or a category of a variable) matters especially when explaining social assistance receipt generally, and not so much when explaining the differences between the duration categories. The second column ('>6 months?') shows, how the variables are related to having more than six months of SA receipt instead of zero to six months during the follow-up and so forth. If the absolute values of the coefficients become larger when moving to the right, this indicates, that the variable (or a category) matters especially when explaining the long-term receipt.

When we look at the effects of the socioeconomic variables characterizing the parental home, we see that parental SA receipt has been a particularly strong predictor of own receipt even with the other variables of the model controlled for, with an effect on the duration, too, but without emphasis on long-term receipt. Higher parental education and income have decreased later own SA receipt, with some emphasis on reduction of long-term receipt. The independent effect of parental unemployment has been weaker, and it is mostly related to short-term receipt.

Also the life-course variables have independent effects, not reducible to mediation of the social background effects. Early move out from the parental home has been a very strong predictor of SA. This effect is stronger in the case of long-term receipt. Also not moving between labour-market regions and having children have been associated with increased SA receipt with slight emphasis on longer-term receipt, but their effects are much weaker. Being a student for one or more years has been associated rather strongly with increased SA receipt, particularly being a student for three to four years. This association is stronger for the duration than for the receipt per se, but without emphasis on the longest-term receipt. Those having been disability pensioners already in the start of the follow-up have received less long-term SA, while those becoming disability pensioners during the follow-up have been much more probable recipients of SA than those without disability pension, with no clear emphasis on long- or short-term receipt. Receiving sickness allowance has been associated with increased SA receipt, but with less long-term receipt, so temporary sickness has only increased SA receipt temporarily.

Table 4. Effects of the social background and life-course risk variables on the number of months of social assistance receipt, ordinal logit model, Sweden.

b b b bHighest parental education when 16 (ref.=Primary or unknown)

Secondary -0.25 -0.27 -0.23 -0.31 -0.33 -0.29 -0.33 -0.35 -0.30 -0.31 -0.35 -0.27Tertiary -0.64 -0.66 -0.62 -0.76 -0.79 -0.73 -0.84 -0.88 -0.81 -0.90 -0.95 -0.84

Parental unemployment when 17 (ref.=Neither parent)One of two parents unemployed 0.28 0.26 0.30 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.00 -0.06 0.05Both parents or the single parent unemployed 0.41 0.37 0.46 0.18 0.13 0.23 -0.01 -0.08 0.06 -0.14 -0.26 -0.03

Parental income per consumption unit when 17 (ref.=Lowest decile)2nd decile 0.07 0.04 0.09 -0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.06 -0.09 -0.03 -0.11 -0.16 -0.062nd quintile -0.09 -0.12 -0.07 -0.21 -0.24 -0.19 -0.26 -0.29 -0.23 -0.27 -0.32 -0.223rd quintile -0.36 -0.39 -0.34 -0.48 -0.51 -0.45 -0.51 -0.55 -0.47 -0.51 -0.58 -0.454th quintile -0.63 -0.66 -0.61 -0.76 -0.80 -0.73 -0.83 -0.88 -0.78 -0.87 -0.95 -0.79Highest quintile -1.15 -1.18 -1.11 -1.25 -1.29 -1.21 -1.29 -1.35 -1.23 -1.37 -1.48 -1.26

Parent(s) received social assistance when 17 (ref.=No) 1.88 1.85 1.90 1.76 1.74 1.79 1.62 1.59 1.64 1.55 1.51 1.59

Age of leaving the parental home (ref.=None)Before 18 2.03 1.96 2.11 2.38 2.31 2.46 2.68 2.60 2.76 2.77 2.67 2.8718 2.05 2.00 2.10 2.47 2.42 2.53 2.71 2.65 2.77 2.73 2.64 2.8119 1.33 1.30 1.37 1.59 1.55 1.63 1.74 1.69 1.80 1.89 1.81 1.9720 1.01 0.97 1.05 1.15 1.10 1.19 1.29 1.23 1.34 1.41 1.33 1.5021-22 0.51 0.49 0.53 0.56 0.53 0.58 0.67 0.63 0.70 0.77 0.71 0.8323-24 0.24 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.31 0.27 0.19 0.35

Moved between labour-market regions (ref.=No) -0.13 -0.15 -0.11 -0.24 -0.26 -0.22 -0.31 -0.34 -0.29 -0.39 -0.43 -0.35

Number of years as a student (ref.=0)1 0.45 0.43 0.47 0.52 0.49 0.55 0.50 0.46 0.55 0.35 0.28 0.422 0.91 0.88 0.93 1.10 1.07 1.13 1.09 1.05 1.13 0.87 0.80 0.933 1.10 1.08 1.13 1.39 1.36 1.42 1.47 1.43 1.52 1.25 1.18 1.314 1.00 0.97 1.03 1.31 1.27 1.35 1.43 1.39 1.48 1.24 1.17 1.325 0.85 0.82 0.89 1.16 1.12 1.20 1.24 1.19 1.29 0.92 0.84 1.006 0.75 0.72 0.79 1.01 0.96 1.06 0.97 0.90 1.03 0.56 0.46 0.677 0.64 0.60 0.69 0.82 0.76 0.88 0.75 0.67 0.83 0.22 0.08 0.37

Disability pensioner (ref.=No)Already when 18 years old -0.04 -0.12 0.03 -0.53 -0.64 -0.42 -0.81 -0.99 -0.63 -1.31 -1.69 -0.94Later during the follow-up 1.66 1.62 1.71 1.86 1.82 1.91 1.93 1.88 1.98 1.61 1.53 1.69

Years with >=15 days of sickness allowance (ref.=0)1 0.28 0.26 0.30 0.14 0.12 0.17 -0.12 -0.16 -0.09 -0.66 -0.72 -0.602 0.50 0.47 0.53 0.32 0.29 0.36 -0.04 -0.09 0.01 -0.71 -0.80 -0.623+ 0.68 0.64 0.71 0.40 0.36 0.45 -0.10 -0.16 -0.04 -0.87 -0.98 -0.75

Number of children <18 years old when 24 years old (ref.=0)1 0.45 0.43 0.47 0.52 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.54 0.60 0.59 0.54 0.632 0.53 0.49 0.56 0.60 0.56 0.64 0.65 0.60 0.69 0.66 0.60 0.733+ 0.80 0.72 0.88 0.81 0.73 0.89 0.87 0.78 0.96 0.85 0.74 0.97

Constant -2.75 -2.80 -2.71 -3.84 -3.90 -3.78 -4.92 -5.00 -4.85 -5.92 -6.04 -5.80Note: In addition to these variables, sex, year of birth, country of birth, family type when 16, unemployment rate in themunicipality when 16 and labour market region when 16 are controlled for in the model.

>0 months? >6 months? >18 months? >36 months?

95% C.I. 95% C.I. 95% C.I. 95% C.I.

Norway

While there are some similarities in the Swedish and the Norwegian results, there are also differences. Table 5 shows the Norwegian results.

As in Sweden, parental social assistance receipt has been the strongest social-background predictor of own receipt, with a duration effect, too, but without emphasis on long-term receipt. Also the effects of parental education and income resemble those in Sweden, but in Norway, parental unemployment has had a stronger association with own SA receipt than parental education, and it has affected the duration of the receipt, too.

Early move out from the parental home has been a strong predictor of SA receipt also in Norway, with similar effects as in Sweden. However, the number of student-years has been an even stronger predictor, the strongest of the life-course variables. Being a student has not increased but decreased SA receipt, the more the more student-years, and especially long-term receipt has been decreased. There are differences also in the effects of the other life-course variables. Moving between labour-market regions has been associated with more SA receipt, although this is related mostly to short-term receipt. Similarly, being a disability pensioner already when 18 has been associated with more SA receipt, but only short-term, and starting to receive disability pension during the follow-up is associated mostly with shorter-term receipt. Also receiving sickness allowance has been even more clearly than in Sweden related only to increased short-term receipt, and having children in the end of the follow-up is associated with only a somewhat increased risk of SA receipt and only with short-term receipt.

Table 5. Effects of the social background and life-course risk variables on the number of months of social assistance receipt, ordinal logit model, Norway.



Parental unemployment when 17 (ref.=Neither parent)One of two parents unemployed 0.44 0.41 0.47 0.47 0.43 0.51 0.54 0.48 0.59 0.51 0.42 0.60Both parents or the single parent unemployed 0.44 0.41 0.48 0.45 0.40 0.49 0.47 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.45 0.60

Parental income per consumption unit when 17 (ref.=Lowest decile)2nd decile -0.08 -0.12 -0.04 -0.14 -0.19 -0.09 -0.17 -0.23 -0.11 -0.18 -0.27 -0.092nd quintile -0.17 -0.21 -0.14 -0.24 -0.29 -0.20 -0.28 -0.34 -0.23 -0.25 -0.34 -0.163rd quintile -0.31 -0.35 -0.27 -0.36 -0.40 -0.31 -0.40 -0.46 -0.33 -0.43 -0.53 -0.334th quintile -0.42 -0.46 -0.38 -0.48 -0.53 -0.43 -0.52 -0.58 -0.45 -0.56 -0.67 -0.45Highest quintile -0.66 -0.70 -0.61 -0.73 -0.79 -0.67 -0.78 -0.86 -0.70 -0.82 -0.95 -0.69


Age of leaving the parental home (ref.=None)Before 18 1.47 1.78 2.09 2.3818 1.70 1.83 2.05 2.3619 1.51 1.72 1.94 2.2020 1.16 1.37 1.61 1.8921-22 0.69 0.88 1.09 1.3723-24 0.27 0.39 0.52 0.63

Moved between labour-market regions (ref.=No) 0.31 0.29 0.33 0.20 0.17 0.23 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.01 -0.06 0.08

Number of years as a student (ref.=0)1 -0.34 -0.37 -0.30 -0.36 -0.41 -0.32 -0.41 -0.46 -0.36 -0.52 -0.60 -0.452 -0.77 -0.81 -0.74 -0.82 -0.87 -0.78 -0.91 -0.96 -0.85 -1.10 -1.18 -1.023 -0.85 -0.89 -0.81 -0.97 -1.02 -0.93 -1.17 -1.23 -1.10 -1.49 -1.59 -1.384 -1.21 -1.26 -1.17 -1.44 -1.50 -1.39 -1.77 -1.85 -1.69 -2.28 -2.43 -2.125 -1.63 -1.68 -1.58 -2.01 -2.08 -1.94 -2.41 -2.52 -2.30 -2.91 -3.12 -2.696 -2.08 -2.14 -2.02 -2.62 -2.71 -2.52 -3.20 -3.38 -3.02 -3.98 -4.40 -3.567 -2.41 -2.49 -2.32 -3.18 -3.35 -3.01 -3.90 -4.27 -3.54 -5.30 -6.42 -4.17

Disability pensioner (ref.=No)Already when 18 years old 0.57 0.38 0.76 -0.89 -1.27 -0.50 -1.76 -2.56 -0.95 -19.86 #### ####Later during the follow-up 1.31 1.23 1.38 0.99 0.90 1.07 0.60 0.49 0.72 0.15 -0.03 0.33

Years with >=16 days of sickness allowance (ref.=0)1 0.07 0.04 0.10 -0.17 -0.21 -0.14 -0.48 -0.53 -0.42 -0.78 -0.86 -0.692 0.31 0.28 0.35 0.02 -0.02 0.06 -0.37 -0.43 -0.31 -0.93 -1.04 -0.823+ 0.23 0.19 0.26 -0.25 -0.30 -0.20 -0.83 -0.91 -0.75 -1.79 -1.97 -1.60

Number of children <18 years old when 24 years old (ref.=0)1 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.02 -0.02 0.05 -0.22 -0.27 -0.17 -0.54 -0.63 -0.462 0.03 -0.01 0.08 -0.17 -0.23 -0.11 -0.59 -0.67 -0.50 -1.06 -1.21 -0.903+ 0.14 0.03 0.24 -0.02 -0.15 0.11 -0.36 -0.55 -0.18 -0.67 -0.97 -0.36

ConstantNote: In addition to these variables, sex, year of birth, country of birth, family type when 16, unemployment rate in themunicipality when 16 and labour market region when 16 are controlled for in the model.


95% C.I. 95% C.I. 95% C.I. 95% C.I.

Finland

There are some differences between the Finnish results, too, when compared with the results for the other two countries. The results are shown in Table 6.

As in Sweden and Norway, the strongest social-background predictor is the parental receipt of social assistance, with a duration effect, too, but without emphasis on long-term receipt. Also parental education has similar effects than in the other countries. However, Finland is a little different in the case of parental income: its effect does not seem to be as strong as in the other countries, and the lowest decile is not related to the highest rate of SA receipt – as was seen already in the descriptive results. The effect of parental unemployment is somewhere between the Swedish and the Norwegian results: weaker effects than those of parental education, but without clear emphasis on short- or long-term receipt.

Early leaving of the parental home is the strongest life-course predictor as in Sweden, and it is related to the duration of the receipt as well, but there is no such emphasis on long-term recipiency as in the other countries. Also the health-related variables have strong effects. Effects of being a disability pensioner resemble the Swedish results otherwise, but the effect of becoming a disability pensioner on the duration of SA receipt is less pronounced. Effect of receiving sickness allowance differs more from the results of the other countries: when compared to the other life-course variables, its effect has been stronger than in the other countries, and it has been associated with both short- and long-term SA receipt. This difference was seen already in the descriptive results.

Results concerning the other life-course variables are more similar to the Swedish results than to the Norwegian results. Moves to urban municipalities had similar effects as migration between labour-market regions in Sweden: less SA receipt, especially less long-term receipt. The effect of the number of student-years resembles that of Sweden: increased SA receipt especially if 2-4 student-years with an effect on the duration as well but without emphasis on the longest-term receipt, but the effect seems to be weaker than in Sweden. Having children in the end of the follow-up has similar effects as in Sweden: increased receipt and an effect on the duration, too, although without emphasis on the longest-term receipt.

Table 6. Effects of the social background and life-course risk variables on the number of months of social assistance receipt, ordinal logit model, Finland.



Parental unemployment when 17 (ref.=Neither parent)One of two parents unemployed 0.27 0.24 0.31 0.25 0.20 0.29 0.21 0.15 0.28 0.14 0.04 0.24Both parents or the single parent unemployed 0.46 0.40 0.51 0.40 0.34 0.46 0.39 0.33 0.46 0.43 0.34 0.52

Parental income per consumption unit when 17 (ref.=Lowest decile)2nd decile 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.05 -0.03 0.14 -0.06 -0.18 0.052nd quintile 0.15 0.10 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.13 0.03 -0.05 0.11 -0.06 -0.17 0.053rd quintile 0.08 0.03 0.14 -0.02 -0.09 0.04 -0.05 -0.13 0.04 -0.13 -0.25 -0.014th quintile -0.03 -0.09 0.02 -0.13 -0.20 -0.06 -0.19 -0.28 -0.09 -0.33 -0.47 -0.19Highest quintile -0.28 -0.34 -0.22 -0.39 -0.46 -0.31 -0.40 -0.51 -0.29 -0.40 -0.56 -0.24


Age of leaving the parental home (ref.=None)Before 18 1.95 1.86 2.04 2.03 1.93 2.12 1.82 1.70 1.93 1.79 1.63 1.9518 1.92 1.85 1.99 1.83 1.75 1.91 1.63 1.53 1.73 1.51 1.37 1.6519 1.34 1.28 1.40 1.25 1.18 1.33 1.05 0.95 1.15 0.93 0.79 1.0720 0.95 0.90 1.01 0.78 0.70 0.85 0.51 0.41 0.61 0.33 0.18 0.4721-22 0.62 0.56 0.67 0.35 0.27 0.42 0.00 -0.10 0.10 -0.33 -0.48 -0.1723-24 0.25 0.19 0.32 -0.01 -0.10 0.09 -0.36 -0.49 -0.22 -0.66 -0.88 -0.45

Moved to an urban municipality (ref.=No) -0.03 -0.06 0.00 -0.16 -0.20 -0.12 -0.27 -0.32 -0.22 -0.36 -0.44 -0.29

Number of years as a student (ref.=0)1 0.16 0.11 0.21 0.15 0.10 0.21 -0.03 -0.11 0.04 -0.22 -0.32 -0.122 0.37 0.33 0.42 0.47 0.41 0.53 0.33 0.25 0.41 0.03 -0.08 0.133 0.44 0.39 0.50 0.56 0.50 0.63 0.42 0.33 0.50 0.10 -0.02 0.224 0.40 0.34 0.45 0.50 0.43 0.57 0.37 0.28 0.46 0.06 -0.07 0.205 0.26 0.20 0.32 0.37 0.29 0.44 0.15 0.04 0.26 -0.24 -0.41 -0.086 0.09 0.01 0.16 0.13 0.03 0.23 -0.08 -0.22 0.07 -0.34 -0.57 -0.127 -0.03 -0.15 0.09 0.15 -0.02 0.31 -0.05 -0.29 0.20 -0.37 -0.76 0.02

Disability pensioner (ref.=No)Already when 18 years old -0.41 -0.61 -0.20 -0.56 -0.86 -0.27 -0.59 -1.00 -0.18 -1.21 -2.02 -0.39Later during the follow-up 1.46 1.31 1.61 1.50 1.36 1.64 1.32 1.16 1.47 0.97 0.75 1.18

Years with >=16 days of sickness allowance (ref.=0)1 0.45 0.41 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.50 0.43 0.36 0.49 0.25 0.15 0.352 0.80 0.71 0.88 0.83 0.74 0.92 0.86 0.75 0.97 0.70 0.55 0.853+ 1.15 0.98 1.31 1.37 1.21 1.53 1.32 1.14 1.49 1.25 1.02 1.49

Number of children <18 years old when 24 years old (ref.=0)1 0.50 0.45 0.55 0.52 0.46 0.57 0.50 0.43 0.57 0.48 0.38 0.582 0.58 0.51 0.65 0.64 0.57 0.71 0.67 0.58 0.76 0.59 0.47 0.713+ 0.66 0.53 0.80 0.76 0.63 0.89 0.83 0.67 0.98 0.80 0.59 1.01

Constant -2.38 -2.49 -2.28 -3.14 -3.27 -3.01 -3.60 -3.76 -3.43 -4.20 -4.43 -3.96Note: In addition to these variables, sex, year of birth, country of birth, family type when 16, unemployment rate in themunicipality when 16 and labour market region when 16 are controlled for in the model.


95% C.I. 95% C.I. 95% C.I. 95% C.I.

Adding unemployment as a life-course variable

If we add the number of unemployment months during the follow-up as an explanatory variable, the pseudo R squared value jumps from 0.194 to 0.262 in Sweden, from 0.189 to 0.267 in Norway and from 0.146 to 0.224 in Finland. In this model (not shown here), nothing else has as strong effects as unemployment. Unemployment during the follow-up increases both the risk of receipt and the duration in each country: the more months of unemployment, the more months of SA receipt. However, it is most clearly related to long-term receipt in Finland, while the duration effect is weakest in Norway, as compared to the effect on the overall risk of receipt. In Sweden, there is otherwise a clear effect on duration, but a small amount of unemployment (1-6 months) has not increased longer-term SA receipt.

Preliminary findings regarding the other variables suggest that some social background and life-course variables retain their effects even when unemployment is added to the model. However, we have to do more robust comparisons between models before presenting more detailed findings on this matter.

Conclusions

At this point, we can only present some preliminary conclusions. It is quite clear that information on both the social background and the life-course risk factors is needed in an explanation of social assistance receipt of young adults in Sweden, Norway and Finland, as was already concluded by Lorentzen et al. (2011) in the case of Norway. Own unemployment is a particularly strong predictor, but as it can often automatically lead to social assistance receipt in the case of young adults, we focused more on other predictors. We found early leaving of the parental home and parental receipt of social assistance to be especially strong predictors. Especially in Sweden and Finland, severe health problems – as measured by becoming a disability pensioner – were a strong predictor as well.

Studying simultaneously the overall risk of social assistance receipt and the amount of months of receipt has shown that some variables affecting the risk of receipt do not particularly increase the amount of months. This is not clearly related to the distinction between social background variables and life-course variables, however, and we still need to assess these findings more, before arriving to more detailed conclusions.

Regarding the differences in the results between the three countries, at the moment we can say that the determinants of social assistance receipt – and its duration – are not exactly the same in these countries. The strongest social background and life-course predictors are the same except for the strong negative relationship between been a student and receiving social assistance in Norway. More differences are found in the details and in the effects of other predictors. Final conclusions regarding these are yet to be done.

References

Aassve, A., Iacovou, M. & Mencarini, L. (2006). Youth poverty and transition to adulthood in Europe. Demographic Research 15, 21-49.

Andrén, T., & Gustafsson, B. (2004). Patterns of social assistance receipt in Sweden. International journal of social welfare 55-68.

Angelin, A. (2009). Den dubbla vanmaktens logik. En studie om langvarig arbetsloshet och socialbidragstagande bland unga vuxna. Lund Dissertations in Social Work 38, Lund: Socialhögskolan.

Anxo, D. (ed.) (2010). The Welfare State and Life Transitions: A European Perspective Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bäckman, O, Bergmark, Å. (2011). Escaping welfare? Social assistance dynamics in Sweden. Journal of European Social Policy 21: 486-500.

Bergmark, Å, Bäckman, O. (2004). Stuck with Welfare? Long-term Social Assistance Recipiency in Sweden. European Sociological Review 20: 425-443.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgements of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Byberg, I. (2002). Kontroll eller handlingsfrihet? En studie av organiseringens betydelse i socialbidragsarbetet. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.

Bynner, J. and Parsons, S. (2002). Social Exclusion and the transition from School to Work: The Case of Young people Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET), Journal of Vocational Behaviour 60: 289-309.

Cappellari, L. & Jenkins, S.P. (2009) The Dynamics of Social Assistance Benefit Receipt in Britain. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4457. Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Bonn.

Cieslik, M., & Pollock, G. (2002). Introduction: Studying Young People in Late Modernity. i M. Cieslik, & M. Pollock, Young People in Risk Society. The restructuring of youth identitites and transitions in late modernity. (ss. 1-21). Hampshire & Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited & Ashgate Publicing Company.

du Bois-Reymond, M., & López Blasco, A. (2003). Yo-yo Transitions and Misleading Trajectories: Towards Integrated Transition Policies for Young Adults in Europe. i A. López Blasco, W. McNeish, & A. Walther, Young people and contradictions of inclusion. Towards Integrated Transition Policies in Europe (ss. 19-41). Bristol: The Policy Press.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

France, A. (2008). From Being to Becoming: The Importance of Tackling Youth Poverty in Transitions To Adulthood Social Policy & Society 7:4, 495-505.

Furlong, A. (2006). Not a very NEET solution: representing problematic labour market transitions among early school-leavers Work, Employment and Society Volume 20(3): 553–569.

Gough, I., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Eardley, T. & Whiteford, P. (1997). Social assistance in OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy 7, 17-43.

Halleröd, B., & Westberg, A. (2006). Youth Problem: What´s the problem? A Longitudinal Study of Incomes and Economic Hardship Among Swedish Youth Acta Sociologica , 83-102.

Hammer, T. (2001). Arbeidsledige sosialklienter i de nordiske land. En komparativ undersökelse av arbeidsledige unge Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning , 120-134.

Hammer, T. (2009). Unge sosialklienter fra ungdom til voksen alder Oslo: Nova.

Heggen, K. (2000). Marginalisation: on the fringe of the periphery - Youth as a risky life stage? Young nr 8 45-62.

Hyggen, C. (2006). Risks and Resources: Social Capital among Social Assistance Recipients in Norway Social Policy and Administration, 40: 493–508.

Iacovou, M. & Aaasve, A. (2007). Youth Poverty in Europe Joseph Rowntree Foundation University of Essex.

Iacovou, M. (2009). Cross-national comparative research with longitudinal data: research into youth poverty 21st Century Society Vol. , No 2, 149-160.

Jonung, L., Kiander, J. & Vartia, P. (2009). The great financial crisis in Finland and Sweden : the Nordic experience of financial liberalization Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Julkunen, I. (2002). Social and Material Deprivation among Unemployed Youth in Northern Europe. Social Policy and Administration Vol. 36, No 3:235-253.

Kieselbach, T. (2004). Psychology of Unemployment and Social Exclusion: Youth Unemployment and the Risk of Social Exclusion. i D. Gallie, Resisting Marginalization Unemployment Experience and Social Policy in the European Union (ss. 54-80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kuivalainen, S. (2004). A Comparative Study on Last Resort Social Assistance Schemes in Six European Countries. Research Report 146. Helsinki: Stakes.

Latta, M. (2007). Public transfers and private help support networks of marginalised and poor individuals in Swden in the 1990s. Göteborg: Sociologiska institutionen Göteborgs Universitet.

Lister, R. (2009). A Nordic Nirvana? Gender, Citizenship, and Social Justice in the Nordic Welfare States Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 242-278.

Lorentzen, T. and Nielsen, A. R. (2008). Gar fattigdom i arv? Langtidseffekter av a vokse opp i familier som mottar sosialhjelp, (Is poverty hereditary? Long-term effects from growing up in social assistance families) Oslo: Fafo-rapport.

Lorentzen T., Dahl E. & Harsløf I. (2011). Welfare risks in early adulthood: a longitudinal analysis of social assistance transitions in Norway. International Journal of Social Welfare. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00841.x

Mendola, D., Busetta, A. & Aasve, A. (2009). What keeps adults in permanent poverty? A comparative analysis using ECHP Social Science Research 38: 840-857.

Mizen, P. (2004) The changing state of youth Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mkandawire, T (2005). Targeting and Universalism in Poverty Reduction Social Policy and Development Programme Paper Number 23 United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Moisio, P. & Kauppinen T. M. (2011). The intergenerational correlation of social assistance and selection bias in the Finnish population data. Research on Finnish Society 4:2011.

Moore, K. (2005). Thinking about youth poverty through the lenses of chronic poverty, life-course poverty and intergenerational poverty CPRC Working Paper 57 Manchester: The University of Manchester Chronic Poverty Research Centre.

Müller, W & Gangl, M. (Eds) (2003).Transitions from Education to Work in Europe. The Integration of Youth in EU Labour Markets Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nordic Statistical Yearbook 2011 (ed Haagensen, K. M.) (2011). Nord 2011:001 Volume 49 Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Roberts, K. et al. (2009a). Young people's education to work transitions and inter-generational social mobility in post-soviet Asia Young 2009 17: 59.

Roberts, K. (2009b). Opportunity structures then and now Journal of Education and Work Vol 22, No 5:355-368.

Rowntree, B S (1901). Poverty: A study of town life. London: MacMillan.

Salonen, T. (2002). Kunskapsluckor kring ekonomisk utsatthet bland barn och ungdomar. Fattigdom i välfärdsstaten. Socialtjänstforum 2002 (ss. 53-62). Stockholm: FAS.

Salonen, T. (2003). Ungas ekonomi och etablering - En studie om forändrade villkor fran 1970-talet till 2000-talets inledning. Ungdomsstyrelsens skrifter 2003:9. Stockholm: Ungdomsstyrelsen.

Sharland E (2006). Young People, Risk Taking and Risk Making: Some Thoughts for Social Work British Journal of Social Work 36:247–265.

Smeeding, T.M. and Ross Phillips K., (2002). Cross-National Differences in Employment and Economic Sufficiency, Annals of the American Association of Political Science, vol. 580, 103-133.

Stenberg, S. Å. (2000). Inheritance of welfare recipiency: An intergenerational study of social assistance recipiency in postwar Sweden Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 228-239.

Socialstyrelsen (2011). Ekonomiskt bistånd årsstatistik 2010 Utbetalda belopp samt antal biståndsmottagare och antal biståndshushåll. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.

SOU 2003:92 (2003). Unga Utanfor Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer.

Taylor-Gooby, P. (Ed) (2004). New Risks, New Welfare, The Transformation of the European Welfare State Oxford: Oxford University Press

Timonen, V. (2003). Restructuring the welfare state: globalization and social policy reform in Finland and Sweden Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Timonen, V. (2004). New risks Are They Still New for the Nordic Welfare States in Taylor-Gooby, P. (Ed) (2004) New Risks, New Welfare, The Transformation of the European Welfare State Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walther A. (2006). Regimes of youth transitions Choice, flexibility and security in young people’s experiences across different European contexts Young Nordic Journal of Youth Research Vol 14(2): 119–139.

Williams R (2006). Generalized Ordered Logit/Partial Proportional Odds Models for Ordinal Dependent Variables. The Stata Journal 6: 58-82.

Vogel, J. (2002). European Welfare regimes and the transition to adulthood: A comparative and longitudinal perspective. Social Indicators Research, 59, 275-299.

· web viewpeople may for example gap-year travel and work abroad (salonen, 2003). young...

Documents