Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kevin Dick's avatar

For what it's worth, here's how Claude summarizes the two cited papers.

Both Papers Agree on the Core Empirical Finding

Both papers conclude that the original Korpi-Palme paradox no longer holds as a robust empirical generalization.

Gugushvili (2021): "Recent studies have failed to confirm the existence of this paradox"

Marx et al. (2013): "This no longer holds as a robust empirical generalisation"

The Apparent Contradiction is About Interpretation, Not Facts

Gugushvili (2021) takes a more theoretically conservative stance:

Argues the theory was sound but measurement was flawed

Suggests we need better ways to study universalism vs. targeting

Maintains that universalism is still theoretically superior

Focuses on preserving the original theoretical framework

Marx et al. (2013) takes a more empirically driven stance:

Shows that when methodology is improved, targeting often performs better

Demonstrates this across multiple datasets and specifications

Argues the relationship has genuinely changed, not just measurement issues

Focuses on what the data actually shows now

They're Examining Different Time Periods and Scope

Gugushvili: Reviews 20+ years of studies testing the original theory, synthesizing contradictory findings

Marx et al.: Conducts original empirical analysis on mid-2000s data with expanded country coverage

The Resolution: Both Support a Nuanced View

The real conclusion from both papers combined is:

The simple universalism > targeting rule no longer works

Context and design matter more than universal vs. targeted labels

Modern targeted programs are different from the old-style means testing that Korpi-Palme criticized

"Targeting within universalism" may be optimal - generous systems that focus resources effectively

Bottom line: Both papers actually support the same practical conclusion - well-designed, adequately funded means testing can work effectively. The difference is that Gugushvili wants to preserve the theoretical framework while Marx et al. are more willing to abandon it based on the empirical evidence.

Neither paper supports simple, punitive means testing, but both suggest that modern, well-designed targeted programs can achieve strong redistributive outcomes.

Expand full comment
forumposter123@protonmail.com's avatar

Means tested programs are designed to steal from the middle class. They end up paying taxes and not getting benefits. Universal programs are better because the difference between what you pay and what you get tends to be lower.

Example

Means Tested for middle class:

Taxes = 80

Benefits = 0

Net = -80

Universal for middle class:

Taxes = 100

Benefits = 70

Net = -30

And I'm being generous there. Perhaps taxes are the same in those scenarios.

It's a libertarian fantasy that cutting universal benefits will lead to dramatically lower taxes. Governments maximize tax revenue, any reduced spending burden on universal benefits will get re-directed to welfare (for the poor, public sector unions, or lobbyists).

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts

OSZAR »