Joachim R. Frick

The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) - Evolution, Scope and Enhancements

After the introduction in Section 2, we very briefly sketch out current theoretical and empirical developments in the social sciences. In our view, they all point in the same direction: toward the acute and increasing need for multidisciplinary longitudinal data covering a wide range of living conditions and based on a multitude of variables from the social sciences for both theoretical investigation and the evaluation of policy measures. Cohort and panel studies are therefore called upon to become truly interdisciplinary tools. In Section 3, we describe the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), in which we discuss recent improvements of that study which approach this ideal and point out existing shortcomings. Section 4 concludes with a discussion of potential future issues and developments for SOEP and other household panel studies.

Individual Well-Being in a Dynamic Perspective

This paper explores the determinants of individual well-being as measured by self-reported levels of satisfaction with income. Making full use of the panel data nature of the German Socio-Economic Panel, we provide empirical evidence for well-being depending on absolute and on relative levels of income in a dynamic framework. This finding holds after controlling for other influential factors in a multivariate setting. The main novelty of the paper is the consideration of dynamic aspects: individual’s own history as well as the relative income performance with respect to the others living in the society under analysis do play a major role in the assessment of well-being.

A Comparison of the Main Household Income Surveys for Germany: EVS and SOEP

Description and analysis of the personal income distribution in Germany rely heavily on two major surveys, the EVS (Income and Consumption Survey) and the SOEP (Socio-Economic Panel Study). These surveys, however, do not deliver exactly the same results in terms of income levels and structure, as well as on inequality and poverty. Some of the discrepancies have led to confusions in the political debate following the first official Poverty and Wealth Report in Germany.1 Thus, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the methodological differences between EVS and SOEP against the background of the recommendations of the “Canberra Group” (Expert Group on Household Income Statistics) and to give a comparison of some substantive results on the basis of both surveys. In describing and discussing systematically the features of the two major inquiries on household income, we aim to improve the understanding of differences in fmdings when measuring the German income distribution using SOEP and EVS, respectively.

Immigrants, Natives and Social Assistance: Comparable Take-Up Under Comparable Circumstances

Are immigrants on welfare because they are more likely to be eligible or because they are more likely to claim benefits for which they are eligible? The answer is politically important, but because most current research on immigration and welfare is based on data from the United States, the answer is difficult due to the complexities of the transfer system which make eligibility determinations difficult. In Germany, by contrast, eligibility for the main cash transfer program, Sozialhilfe (Social Assistance), is determined by a comparatively simple nationwide formula. We use data from the German Socio-Economic Panel to test whether immigrants to Germany are more likely than natives to claim welfare benefits for which they are eligible. We find that immigrants are more likely than native Germans to receive welfare, both because immigrants are more likely to be eligible and because they are more likely, when eligible, to claim their benefits. However, we also find that this greater propensity to take-up benefits is not related to immigrant status per se: when other sociodemographic factors are accounted for in an appropriate manner, immigrant households are no more likely to take-up benefits than native households.

The institutional framework of ethnic employment disadvantage: A comparison of Germany and Canada

Abstract Foreigners in Germany differ from immigrants in Canada in the patterns, more than the overall extent, of employment disadvantage. Conventional earnings decomposition analysis is extended cross‐nationally to highlight differences in ethnic disadvantages within labour markets, and also differences in effects of the structure of educational and labour market institutions themselves, using the German Socio‐Econ‐omic Panel (GSOEP) first wave for 1984, and the 1986 Canadian Census. German education and labour market institutions benefit low‐skill migrants, but generate less earnings assimilation. Such assimilation in Canada is greater but varies more by ethnic and racial origins. Migrant women in Germany receive a boost from the lower educational levels of mainstream German women, and from greater German labour market equity. These cross‐national differences support some of the expectations based on characterisations of ‘immigrant societies’, or differences in national policies of citizenship, equity o...

Measuring Income in Household Panel Surveys for Germany: A Comparison of EU-SILC and SOEP

Empirical analyses of economic inequality, poverty, and mobility in Germany are, to an increas-ing extent, using microdata from the German Federal Statistical Offices contribution to the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) as well as data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). In addition to their significance for national reporting, the EU-SILC data are of great international significance for comparative EU-wide measurement, description, and analysis in support of the European Commissions stated objective of fighting poverty and reducing social inequality through the European social cohesion process. It is therefore crucial to assess the quality of the German contribution to EU-SILC, particularly in view of evidence in the literature of methodological problems in this still relatively young survey with respect to the representation of specific social groups and the distri-bution of key educational characteristics that can have a considerable impact on the degree and structure of inequality and poverty (see Hauser 2008, Causa et al. 2009, Nolan et al. 2009). While previous papers have critically examined the German EU-SILC contribution in comparison to the cross-sectional data from the German Survey of Income and Expenditure (EVS), the present paper compares EU-SILC-based results about income trends, inequality, and mobility with results based on SOEP, a widely used alternate panel survey of private households in Germany. The - in some cases severe - differences identified are discussed in the context of the surveying and interviewing methods, post-data-collection treatment of the micro-data as well as sample characteristics of the two studies, all of which exert a major influence on the substantive results and thus on the core findings regarding the social situation of Germany in EU-wide comparison.

The Immigrant Welfare Effect: Take-Up or Eligibility?

Are immigrants on welfare because they are more likely to be eligible or because they are more likely to claim benefits for which they are eligible? The answer is politically important, but because most current research on immigration and welfare is based on data from the U.S., the answer is difficult due to the complexities of the transfer system which make eligibility determinations difficult. In Germany, by contrast, eligibility for the main cash transfer program, Sozialhilfe (Social Assistance), is determined by a comparatively simple nation-wide formula. We use data from the German Socio-Economic Panel to test whether immigrants to Germany are more likely than natives to claim welfare benefits for which they are eligible. We find that immigrants are more likely than native Germans to receive welfare, both because immigrants are more likely to be eligible, and because they are more likely, when eligible, to claim their benefits. However, we also find that this greater propensity to take-up benefits is not related to immigrant status per se: when other socio-demographic factors are accounted for in an appropriate manner, immigrant households are no more likely to take up benefits than native households.

Welfare-related health inequality: does the choice of measure matter?

Using representative microdata from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), we show that the welfare measure choice has a substantial impact on the degree of welfare-related health inequality. To assess the sensitivity of welfare-related health inequality measures, we combine a unique set of income and wealth measures with different subjective, cardinalized, and (quasi-)objective health measures. The influence of the welfare measure is more pronounced when using subjective health measures than when using (quasi-)objective health measures.

Dealing with Incomplete Household Panel Data in Inequality Research

In trying to capture complete within-household heterogeneity, household panel surveys typically try to interview all adult household members. Following from this, such surveys tend to suffer from partial unit nonresponse (PUNR), that is, the nonresponse of at least one member of an otherwise participating household, most likely yielding an underestimation of aggregate household income. Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), the authors evaluate four different strategies to deal with this phenomenon: (a) ignorance, that is, assuming the missing individual’s income to be zero; (b) adjustment of the equivalence scale to account for differences in household size and composition; (c) elimination of all households observed to suffer PUNR and reweighting of households observed to be at risk of but not affected by PUNR; and (d) longitudinal imputation of the missing income components. The aim of this article is to show how the choice of technique affects substantive results in inequality research. The authors find indications of substantial bias on income inequality and poverty as well as on income mobility.

Examining the Gender Wealth Gap in Germany

Welfare-oriented analyses of economic outcome measures such as income and wealth generally rest on the assumption of pooled and equally shared resources among all household members. Yet the lack of individual-level data hampers the distribution of income and wealth within the household context. Based on unique individual-level wealth data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), this paper challenges the implicit assumption of internal redistribution by considering an alternative definition of the aggregation unit and by controlling its effect on distribution and inequality analysis. We find empirical evidence for a significant gender wealth gap of about 30,000 euros in Germany, which amounts to almost 50,000 euros for married partners. Decomposition analyses reveal that this gap is mostly driven by differences in characteristics between men and women, the most important factor being the individuals own income and labor market experience, and particularly so at the bottom and top of the wealth distribution. However, this finding can only be shown with non-parametric decomposition techniques. Differences for those in the middle of the distribution appear to be mostly driven by the wealth function, i.e., the way in which women transform their characteristics into wealth.