The Research Brief is available for download on the website of the LIS Research Center.

Our key findings include:

• Poverty rates of single-parent families based on market in- come are high in most countries.
• Redistribution is an effective strategy to reduce poverty among single-parent families.
• Single-parent employment rates are high.
• Single-parent employment rates are higher in countries with policies that facilitate parental employment.
• Employment significantly reduces the poverty rate among single-parent families.
• The Working Poor: even with employment, many single- parent families are poor.
• Many countries have child-related transfers that significantly reduce poverty among single-parent families.

Bottomline: Our findings suggest that, to reduce poverty among single-parent families, policy solutions should aim to both bolster their market income and to increase the effectiveness of redistribution.

If you happen to be in New York and are interested in attending this talk, please contact me. There might be some ‘tickets’ available.

From the announcement:

Women’s employment rates have risen markedly across OECD countries in recent decades, although evidence is mounting that this trend is stagnating. Rense Nieuwenhuis will discuss how these trends have affected earnings inequality within and among coupled households, as well as poverty rates. His research is based on LIS data to cover OECD countries for about 3 decades. In his talk, he will also relate his findings to current policy developments in Europe.

Rense is a sociologist interested in how the interplay between social policies and demographic trends gives rise to economic inequalities. His publications appeared in the Journal of Marriage and Family and the European Sociological Review, among other journals. In 2014 he obtained a Phd (‘Cum Laude’) from the University of Twente in the Netherlands, and currently he is an assistant professor at the Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI).

Light refreshments will be provided. After the talk, all are welcome to join us for a social gathering at Bryant Park. 

Personally, I think doing a good PhD means:

Doing a PhD represents several years of supervised training, developing oneself to become a researcher capable of independently contributing to, and participating in, a scientific discipline.

Contributing to a scientific discipline means that a PhD candidate is supervised to create scientific products of the highest possible quality, and does so in an increasingly independent manner. Participating in a scientific discipline entails presenting these scientific products to others, frequently discussing these with colleagues, and collaborating with representatives of that discipline.

The core of that statement is being trained to independently contributing to a scientific discipline.

Based on my (clearly limited and selective) experiences, I learned that in New York (US?) PhD students really are … students. This by no means is a negative comments, but it is clear that the PhDs I met have a different set of skills. Generally, my impression is that their course load results in them being familiar with a wide overview of the literature on several topics, but (at least during the first few years) are less experienced in doing research with some level of independence. It’s a trade-off: some of the exams seem to be gruesome, with students faced with the taks of familiarizing themselves with a whole field of research. This is well beyond the relatively simple exams we have in the Netherlands, but getting your hands ‘in the dirt’ while doing some actual research yourself also is quite the experience.

Also, I noticed that it is much more of a struggle to do your PhD in the US. In New York life is expensive, and most PhDs are not employed by their universities as in the Netherlands. This means you have to find yourself some funding, but also that it really is a disappointment if your proposal is rejected. Not getting those funds really means you have to rethink your options. Many PhDs also need to have a job – besides writing their thesis, that is. Many teach or assist a professor, tasks that we do in the Netherlands as well. The difference, I think, is that the workload (again, besides writing a thesis which is a pretty decent workload by itself) is much higher in the US.

If every individual is under quite a lot of pressure, I wonder how that works out in terms of being able to form an academic group. I learned of one example of a PhD only providing to help to others when being paid on an hourly rate. I understand where that’s coming from, but also wonder how it affects the livelihood of an academic community of shared ideas, discussion, and collective interest.

The premise of my project was something that is commonly believed amongst sociologists – and something I took for granted for many years. I even remember when I first learned about it during a first-year course on inequality. Simply put: because spouses’ earnings are positively correlated, the earnings inequality between households is thought to be bigger than the earnings inequality between individuals. Intuitively, this makes sense: it is easy to imagine how the earnings gap between households with two top-earners and households with two low-income spouses is quite big. Recently, a new book by Esping-Andersen (The incomplete revolution) is getting quite some attention, and is reporting on how increased women’s earnings have contributed to income inequalities between households in several countries.

I thought it would be very interesting to delve into this issue more, and try to analyze differences between countries in the degree to which women’s earnings affects the inequality between households in these countries. Interestingly, though, once I started working seriously on the project, it quickly became clear that women’s earnings attenuate – rather than increase – inequalities between households. Virtually all authors analyzing the contribution of women’s earnings to household inequalities report this attenuating affect, and do so for various countries and for different points in time. So, the common conception that women’s earnings generally increase inequalities, turned out to be a misconception. No need to be concerned of this unintended consequence of women’s increased labour force participation.

So, I had to revise my plan. I turned my attention to a systematic review of the literature with a special focus on how it is possible that spouses’ earnings are positively correlated (which, indeed, they are), but that when women’s earnings are high the inequalities between households tend to be reduced. I won’t spoil the anticipation by disclosing my results here (but please, do contact me if you want to be informed when these results become available), but I figured it out. Also, I am still working on a systematic analysis comparing countries with very interesting preliminary results (again, no spoilers).

This concludes the most technical part of this series of blogs on my New York experiences. Tomorrow some notes on how PhD students are trained in New York.

As said, the main reason I was in New York was to do research. Since my thesis is about the effectiveness of family policies, I wanted to work with an expert on this topic. It is difficult to think of someone who is more knowledgeable on this topic, and more experienced in doing high quality empirical studies, than prof. Janet Gornick. I was very enthusiastic that she agreed with me visiting her in New York for a couple of months, and that she was willing to supervise me, as well as to co-author a paper. Moreover, Janet Gornick is also the director of LIS (formerly known as the Luxembourg Income Studies).

LIS is a cross-national data center, located in Luxembourg.
LIS is home to the Luxembourg Income Study Database and the Luxembourg Wealth Study Database. These databases contain harmonised microdata from high- and middle-income countries around the world.

Their mission is to

… to enable, facilitate, promote, and conduct cross-national comparative research on socio-economic outcomes and on the institutional factors that shape those outcomes.

Basically, this means that the LIS is a remarkably valuable source of data for my thesis, which is inherently country-comparative in design. And, indeed, the LIS proved to be a very detailed, well documented, and very carefully harmonized source of data. To work with these data, together with the director of LIS, was an inspiring experience. Moreover, the graduate center of the City University of New York (CUNY) invited me over as an Advanced Research Collaborative (ARC) Fellow, which was a great honor.