How does globalization affect the tax burden on labour income, capital income and consumption in different welfare regimes? The case of Western and Eastern EU Member States

This article analyzes the effects of globalization on implicit tax rates (ITRs) on labor income, capital income, and consumption in the EU15 and Central and Eastern European New Member States (CEE NMS). We find supportive evidence for an increase in the ITR on labor income in the EU15, but no effect on the ITR on capital income. There is evidence of convergence in terms of the ITR on consumption, as countries with higher than average ITR on consumption respond to globalization by decreasing their tax rates. There are important differences among the welfare regimes within the EU15. Social-democratic countries have decreased the tax burden on capital, but increased that on labor due to globalization. Globalization exerts a pressure to increase taxes on labor income in the conservative and liberal regimes as well. Taxes on consumption decrease in response to globalization in the conservative and social-democratic regimes. In the CEE NMS, there is no effect of globalization on the ITR on labor and capital income, but we find a negative impact on the ITR on consumption in the CEE NMS with higher than average ITR on consumption. (JEL H23, H24, H25, F19, F21)

The Big Society and the conjunction of crises: Justifying welfare reform and undermining social housing

This article considers the idea of the ‘Big Society’ as part of a long-standing debate about the regulation of housing. Situating the concept within governance theory, the article considers how the idea of the Big Society was used by the UK coalition government to justify a radical restructuring of welfare provision. The fundamental rationale for this transformation was that the UK was forced to respond to a conjunction of crises in morality, the state, ideology and economics. Representing a fundamental departure from earlier attempts at welfare reform, the government has undertaken a reform programme which has had a severe effect on the social housing sector. The article argues that the result has been a combination of libertarianism and authoritarianism, alongside an intentionally more destructive combination of stigmatization and fatalism. The consequence is to undermine the principle of social housing which will not only prove detrimental for residents but raises significant dilemmas for those working in the housing sector.