Nr 1 (13) 2017

Social Pol­icy

CHILD BENEFIT PROGRAMME 500+ OUTCOMES AND OUTPUTS

Pobierz numer

Table of Con­tents 1/2017 Eng­lish Edition

FROM THE EDITORS – Elż­bi­eta Bojanowska, Kaz­imierz W. Frieske
IS THE 500+ CHILD BENEFIT PROGRAMME OVERGENEROUS? POLISH SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE ON BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN COMPARED WITH OTHER MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE EU AND OECD – Krzysztof Hage­me­jer
COMBATING POVERTY THROUGH FAMILY CASH BENEFITS. ON THE FIRST RESULTS OF THE PROGRAMME “FAMILY 500+” IN POLAND – Stanisława Goli­nowska, Agnieszka Sowa-Kofta
THE 500+ CHILD BENEFIT SCHEME AND SOCIAL WELFARE IN POLAND – Elż­bi­eta Bojanowska
THE IMPACT OF “FAMILY 500+” PROGRAMME ON HOUSEHOLD INCOMES, POVERTY AND INEQUALITY – Michał Brzez­iński, Mateusz Najsz­tub
EFFECT OF CHILD CARE BENEFIT (500+) ON POVERTY BASED ON MICROSIMULATION – Ryszard Szarfen­berg
INFLUENCE OF THE 500+ PROGRAMME ON THE POLISH LABOUR MARKET. WHAT IS, WHAT WILL BE WHAT TO EXPECT… – Elż­bi­eta Kryńska
CHILD CARE BENEFIT 500+ AS COMPONENT OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE: ATTEMPT TO GET INSIGHT – Kinga Pawłowska
THE “FAMILY 500+” PROGRAMME: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON DEMOGRAPHIC PROCESSES, THE LABOUR MARKET AND THE PENSION SYSTEM – Maria Pierzchal­ska

ABOUT AUTHORS

Elż­bi­eta Bojanowska (PhD, Car­di­nal Ste­fan Wyszyński Uni­ver­sity, War­saw, Poland)
Kaz­imierz W. Frieske (Pro­fes­sor, Insti­tute Labour and Social Stud­ies, War­saw, Poland)
FROM THE EDITORS (p. 1)
It is not excluded that over a dozen or so years the ongo­ing dis­cus­sions about the 500+ child sup­port ben­e­fit – cer­tainly one of the key social pro­grams of the last quarter-century – will become a mate­r­ial based on which stu­dents of social sci­ences will have the oppor­tu­nity to analyse the prob­lems result­ing from think­ing that prompts us to seek sim­ple cause-effect rela­tion­ships and try to explain the var­i­ous social phe­nom­ena with one inde­pen­dent vari­able.
Unfor­tu­nately, what we usu­ally con­sider to be the result of intro­duc­ing of some – sup­pos­edly – change-inducing stim­u­lus into the social real­ity is in fact the result of a com­plex sys­tem of many dif­fer­ent fac­tors, which all influ­ence, to dif­fer­ent degrees, the above men­tioned result, i.e. our depen­dent vari­able. The pub­lic opin­ion expects a sim­ple mes­sage from the speaker – for exam­ple – that the 500+ child sup­port ben­e­fit results in the reduc­tion in the rate of poverty or in the decrease in the cost of social assis­tance, but after all, such reg­u­lar­i­ties are con­di­tional. Much depends on the sit­u­a­tion on the labour mar­ket, the dynam­ics of wage growth, etc. Some scep­ti­cal opin­ions on the child sup­port ben­e­fit were pre­dict­ing its dra­matic impact on the labour mar­ket It turned out, how­ever, that the claim on the demo­ti­vat­ing nature of the 500+ child sup­port ben­e­fit was refer­ring to sim­pli­fied and – as it turned out – unre­li­able intu­itions rooted in the old, con­stantly repeated rhetoric, accord­ing to which people’s entry into the labour mar­ket is pri­mar­ily dri­ven by the eco­nomic con­straint. It is easy, after all, to claim that at least part of the work­ers whose fam­i­lies receive this ben­e­fit have not retired from the labour mar­ket, but “have been retired” – replaced by migrant work­ers will­ing to work for less money.
We should there­fore humbly admit that the temp­ta­tion to appear in pub­lic dis­cus­sions leads to a con­tin­u­ous reduc­tion of the com­plex­ity of social real­i­ties, and also to ignor­ing the fact that while the fam­i­lies do think ratio­nally, mak­ing their eco­nomic deci­sions, but this ratio­nal­ity is “bounded”, deter­mined by the real­i­ties of place and time. Hence, it is worth remem­ber­ing that who­ever inter­prets, too hasty and / or based on undis­closed assump­tions, the sim­ple coex­is­tence of phe­nom­ena as a sim­ple sequence of causes and effects is wrong.
The con­clu­sion would there­fore be that: even though – guided by ratio­nal think­ing – we do not fully under­stand the com­plex­ity of func­tion­ing of the “Fam­ily 500+” pro­gram; it is how­ever clear that its cor­re­lates are at least encour­ag­ing – regard­less of what is said about its dif­fer­en­ti­ated impact on the sit­u­a­tion of Pol­ish fam­i­lies.

Krzysztof Hage­me­jer (Pro­fes­sor, Inter­na­tional Cen­tre for Research and Analy­sis ICRA, Poland)
IS THE 500+ CHILD BENEFIT PROGRAMME OVERGENEROUS? POLISH SOCIAL PROTECTION EXPENDITURE ON BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN COMPARED WITH OTHER MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE EU AND OECD (p. 1–7)
The recent intro­duc­tion of cash fam­ily ben­e­fit pro­gramme “500+” ignited debate on the desired lev­els of expen­di­ture on fam­ily ben­e­fits and of over­all social pro­tec­tion expen­di­ture in Poland. The objec­tive of the paper is to inform this debate through com­par­ing lev­els of fam­ily ben­e­fit expen­di­ture in Poland with the lev­els in other Euro­pean Union and OECD coun­tries. Analy­sis of the avail­able data shows that Pol­ish over­all gross social pro­tec­tion expen­di­ture – mea­sured as its ratio to GDP – is sig­nif­i­cantly lower than the EU aver­age and, after 2000, has been declin­ing slightly (while EU aver­age of this ratio has tended to increase). Expen­di­ture on old-age, sur­vivors’, and dis­abil­ity pen­sions is (as a per­cent­age of GDP) not much lower than the EU aver­age (although, after tak­ing into account the impact of direct tax­a­tion, the dif­fer­ence between expen­di­ture lev­els in Poland com­pared to other coun­tries becomes much greater). At the same time, expen­di­ture on health, unem­ploy­ment, and fam­ily ben­e­fits has over the last 15 years been at sig­nif­i­cantly lower lev­els than lev­els pre­vail­ing in a major­ity of EU coun­tries. Until 2015, fam­ily ben­e­fit expen­di­ture in Poland was – as a per­cent­age of GDP – sig­nif­i­cantly lower than the EU aver­age. Expen­di­ture on cash ben­e­fits in 2012 was 0.7%, which was a decline from 1% of GDP in 2000 and much less than the EU aver­age of 1.6%. Since 2013, cash fam­ily ben­e­fit expen­di­ture has been increas­ing faster than GDP, sur­pass­ing 0,8% of GDP in 2015. The intro­duc­tion of 500+ more than dou­bled the expen­di­ture to GDP ratio so that in 2016 it was 1.85% of GDP and one can esti­mate that in 2017, expen­di­ture on all types of cash fam­ily ben­e­fits will sur­pass 2% of GDP. As expen­di­ture on non-cash aspects of fam­ily ben­e­fits (ben­e­fits in kind like kinder­gartens and tax breaks for chil­dren) are not much lower in Poland than the EU aver­age, pro­gramme 500+ raises over­all social pro­tec­tion expen­di­ture on fam­ily and chil­dren to about 3% of GDP which is slightly over the EU aver­age but still lower than sev­eral higher spend­ing coun­tries in this area – UK, Scan­di­na­vian coun­tries, France or Bel­gium for exam­ple. One has to bear in mind that imi­ta­tions of data qual­ity and avail­abil­ity and dif­fer­ences between coun­tries both in terms of pol­icy instru­ments used by social pro­tec­tion sys­tems and dif­fer­ences of the extent to which var­i­ous social ben­e­fits are affected by direct and indi­rect tax­a­tion, require cau­tion when draw­ing con­clu­sions from above com­par­i­son of expen­di­ture levels.

Key­words: fam­ily ben­e­fits, social pro­tec­tion, social expenditure

REFERENCES
Adema W., P. Fron and M. Ladaique (2011), Is the Euro­pean Wel­fare State Really More Expen­sive? Indi­ca­tors on Social Spend­ing, 1980–2012 and a Man­ual to the OECD Social Expen­di­ture Data­base (SOCX), OECD, Paris.
EUROSTAT (2016), Euro­pean sys­tem of inte­grated social pro­tec­tion sta­tis­tics – ESSPROS. MANUAL AND USER GUIDELINES, 2016 edi­tion, Brus­sels, Lux­em­bourg, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/7766647/KS-GQ-16–010-EN-N.pdf/3fe2216e-13b0-4ba1-b84f-a7d5b091235f [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
EUROSTAT data­base: Social pro­tec­tion, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
Expen­di­ture Data­base (SOCX), OECD Social, Employ­ment and Migra­tion Work­ing Papers, No. 124, OECD Pub­lish­ing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg2d2d4pbf0-en [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
Goli­nowska S., Hage­me­jer K. (1999), Społeczne wydatki w Polsce z odniesieni­ami do innych kra­jów, IPiSS, War­saw.
ILO (1944), Rec­om­men­da­tion no 67 con­cern­ing Income Secu­rity, avail­able at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312405 [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
ILO (1952), Con­ven­tion no 102 con­cern­ing Min­i­mum Stan­dards of Social Secu­rity; avail­able at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312247 [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
ILO (2010), World Social Secu­rity Report 2010–2011, http://www.socialsecurityextension.org/gimi/gess/ShowTheme.do?tid=1985 [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
ILO (2012), Rec­om­men­da­tion con­cern­ing national floors of social pro­tec­tion, avail­able at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:R202 [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
ILO (2014), World Social Pro­tec­tion Report 2014–15: Build­ing eco­nomic recov­ery, inclu­sive devel­op­ment and social jus­tice, Geneva, avail­able at: http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/worldsocial-security-report/2014/lang–en/index.htm [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
ILO (2017), Gen­eral Sur­vey 2019: Report form for Social Pro­tec­tion Floors Rec­om­men­da­tion no 202; avail­able at: http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/WCMS_542394/lang–en/index.htm [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
Min­is­terstwo Gospo­darki, Pracy i Poli­tyki Społecznej (2003), Raport: Racjon­al­iza­cja wydatków społecznych, Warszawa.
OECD Fam­ily Data­base: http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
OECD SOCX Data­base: http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure.htm [accessed on 10 Octo­ber 2017].
Uścińska G. (2005), Europe­jskie stan­dardy zabez­pieczenia społecznego a współczesne rozwiąza­nia pol­skie. Adden­dum – Obliczenia porów­naw­cze, IPiSS, Warszawa.
Woy­ci­cka I., ed. (1999), Budżet poli­tyki społecznej, IBnGR, Warszawa.
Woy­ci­cka I., ed. (2003), Wydatki soc­jalne w lat­ach 2000–2020, IBnGR, Warszawa.

Stanisława Goli­nowska (Pro­fes­sor, Insti­tute Labour and Social Stud­ies, War­saw, Poland)
Agnieszka Sowa-Kofta (PhD, Insti­tute Labour and Social Stud­ies, War­saw, Poland)
COMBATING POVERTY THROUGH FAMILY CASH BENEFITS. ON THE FIRST RESULTS OF THE PROGRAMME “FAMILY 500+” IN POLAND (p. 7–13)
The arti­cle is devoted to the analy­sis of the pre­lim­i­nary results of the “Fam­ily 500+” cash ben­e­fit intro­duced in Poland in the sec­ond quar­ter of 2016. The results are con­sid­ered on a the­o­ret­i­cal and com­par­a­tive basis from the point of view of the polit­i­cally declared objec­tives of the cash ben­e­fit, espe­cially the rad­i­cal reduc­tion of child poverty and the improve­ment of fer­til­ity. The analy­sis is based on the BBGD unit data (2015 and 2016), EU-SILC data, includ­ing 2016, and data from the OECD data­base (Fam­ily Data­base). Pre­lim­i­nary results show that the 500+ ben­e­fit suc­ceeded in reduc­ing income poverty in many fam­i­lies, improv­ing the struc­ture of con­sump­tion for the needs of the whole fam­ily, but, at the same time, increased the ten­dency of moth­ers to leave the labour mar­ket, which is a phe­nom­e­non that had already started in Poland before the imple­men­ta­tion of the 500+ benefit.

Key­words: child poverty, mate­r­ial depri­va­tion, cash ben­e­fits, fer­til­ity, fam­ily friendly policy

REFERENCES
Arak P. (2016), Pro-family pol­icy in Poland and around the world, Cen­tral Euro­pean Finan­cial Observer, https://financialobserver.eu/poland/profamily-policy-in-poland-and-around-the-world/ [accessed on 12.10.2017].
Becker G.A. (1991), Trea­tise on the Fam­ily, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity Press, Cam­bridge.
Billings­ley S., Fer­rarini T. (2011), Fam­ily Poli­cies and Fer­til­ity Inten­tions across New and Old Wel­fare Democ­ra­cies, Work­ing Paper 10/2011 of the SPaDE, Stock­holm Uni­ver­sity, http://www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.89147.1337846234!/menu/standard/file/WP_2011_10.pdf [accessed on 12.10.2017].
Brady D., Bur­roway R. (2012), Tar­get­ing, uni­ver­sal­ism and single-mother poverty: a mul­ti­level analy­sis across 18 afflu­ent democ­ra­cies, “Demog­ra­phy”, Vol. 49 (2), p. 719–746.
Brad­shaw J., May­hew E. (2006), Fam­ily ben­e­fit pack­ages, w: J. Brad­shaw, A. Hat­land (eds.), Social Pol­icy, Fam­ily Change and Employ­ment in Com­par­a­tive Per­spec­tive, Edward Elgar, Chel­tenham.
Deaton A. (1992), Under­stand­ing Con­sump­tion, Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, Oxford.
Deaton A. (2015), The Great Escape: Health, Wealth and the Ori­gins of Inequal­ity, Prince­town Uni­ver­sity Press, Prince­town.
Esping-Andersen G. (1999), Social Foun­da­tions of Postin­dus­trial Economies, Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, Oxford.
Esping-Andersen G., ed. (2007). Fam­ily For­ma­tion and Fam­ily Dilem­mas in Con­tem­po­rary Europe, Fun­dan­cion BBVA, Bil­bao.
Esping-Andersen G. (2007a), Chil­dren in the wel­fare state, in: Fam­ily For­ma­tion and Fam­ily Dilem­mas in Con­tem­po­rary Europe, Fun­dan­cion BBVA, Bil­bao.
Esping-Andersen G. (2009), The Incom­plete Rev­o­lu­tion. Adapt­ing Wel­fare States to Women’s New Roles, Polity Press, Cam­bridge.
Euro­stat – Data­base LFS 2017.
Fer­rarini T., Nel­son K., Hoog H. (2012), From Uni­ver­sal­ism to Selec­tiv­ity: Old Wine in New Bot­tles for Child Ben­e­fits in Europe and Other Coun­tries, GINI Dis­cus­sion Papers 49, Pal­grave Macmil­lan, Lon­don.
Frątczak E., Joźwiak J., Bal­icki J., Ptak J., Chmielewska A. (2002), The Eval­u­a­tion of Changes in Atti­tudes and Repro­duc­tive Behav­iours of Young and Mid­dle Gen­er­a­tions of Female and Male Poles and Their Influ­ence on the Process of Fam­ily and House­hold For­ma­tion and Dis­so­lu­tion, “Pol­ish Pop­u­la­tion Review”, No 21.
Gau­tier A., Hatz­ius J. (1997), Fam­ily ben­e­fits and fer­til­ity: An econo­met­ric analy­sis, “Pop­u­la­tion Stud­ies”, Vol. 51(3), p. 295–306.
Gau­thier A. (2007), The impact of fam­ily poli­cies on fer­til­ity in indus­tri­al­ized coun­tries: A review of the lit­er­a­ture, “Pop­u­la­tion Research and Pol­icy Review”, No 26, p. 323–346.
GUS (2016), Małżeństwa oraz dziet­ność w Polsce [Mar­riage and fer­til­ity in Poland], Warsaw.GUS (2017a), Bada­nia Budżetów Gospo­darstw Domowych [Sur­vey of House­hold Bud­gets], War­saw.
GUS (2017b), Bada­nia Akty­wności Eko­nom­icznej Lud­ności (BAEL) [Labor Force Sur­vey (LFS)], War­saw.
GUS (2017c), Pod­sta­wowe dane doty­czące zasięgu ubóstwa w Polsce w 2016 r., wskaźniki mon­i­toru­jące Kra­jowy Pro­gram Reform na rzecz real­iza­cji Strate­gii Europa 2020 [Basic data on the extent of poverty in Poland in 2016, Mon­i­tor­ing indi­ca­tors of The National Reform Pro­gramme for the imple­men­ta­tion of the Europe 2020 Strat­egy] https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/warunki-zycia/ubostwo-pomocspoleczna/podstawowe-dane-dotyczace-zasiegu-ubostwa-w-polscew-2016-r-,19,1.html [accessed on 10.10.2017].
Har­vey P., Cony­ers L. (2016), The Human Cost of Wel­fare: How the Sys­tem Hurts the Peo­ple It’s Sup­posed to Help, The Lib­erty, Project Wash­ing­ton D.C.
Helin C. (2014), The Eco­nomic Depen­dency Trap. Break­ing Free for Self-Reliance, Open Road Media, Cub­bie Blue Pub­lish­ing, Inc.
Jef­fer­son P.N., ed. (2012), The Oxford Hand­book of the Eco­nom­ics of Poverty, Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, Oxford.
Kalil A., Hask­ins R., Chesters J., eds. (2012), Invest­ing in Chil­dren. Work, Edu­ca­tion, and Social Pol­icy in Two Rich Coun­tries, Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion Press, Wash­ing­ton D.C.
Kotowska I., red. (1999), Przemi­any lud­noś­ciowe w lat­ach dziewięćdziesią­tych w Polsce w świ­etle kon­cepcji drugiego prze­jś­cia demograficznego [Demo­graphic changes in Poland over the 1990s in the sec­ond demo­graphic tran­si­tion con­cept per­spec­tive], SGH, War­saw.
Luci-Greulich A., Thevenon O. (2013), The impact of fam­ily pol­icy pack­ages on fer­til­ity trends in devel­oped coun­tries, “Euro­pean Jour­nal of Pop­u­la­tion”, Vol. 29, Issue 4, p. 387–416, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-013‑9295-4 [accessed on 12.10.2017].
Magda I. (2017), Fam­ily 500+ and Wom­ens’ Labour Mar­ket Par­tic­i­pa­tion, Insty­tut Badań Sys­te­mowych, War­saw.
McGin­nity F., Whe­lan Ch.T. (2009), Com­par­ing Work-Life Con­flict in Europe: Evi­dence from the Euro­pean Social Sur­vey, “Social Indi­ca­tors Research”, Vol. 93, p. 433–444.
Meche­len Van N., Brad­shaw J. (2013), Child Poverty as a Gov­ern­ment Pri­or­ity: Child Ben­e­fit Pack­ages for Work­ing Fam­i­lies, 1992–2009, in: Marx I., Nel­son K. (eds), Min­i­mum Income Pro­tec­tion in Flux. Rec­on­cil­ing Work and Wel­fare in Europe, Pal­grave Macmil­lan, Lon­don.
Molin M. (2016), The Effect of Cash Ben­e­fits on Poverty Reduc­tion – A Panel Study of 18 OECD Coun­tries, Lund Uni­ver­sity, School of Eco­nom­ics and Man­age­ment; http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8891303&fileOId=8891307 [accessed on 20.10.2017].
Myck M. (2016), Esti­mat­ing Labour Sup­ply Response to the Intro­duc­tion of the Fam­ily 500+ Pro­gramme, CenEA Work­ing Paper 2016, No 1, http://www.cenea.org.pl/images/stories/pdf/working_papers/cenea_wp_0116.pdf [accessed on 11.03.2017].
Neels K., Woods J. (2013), Post­pone­ment of recu­per­a­tion of first births in Europe: the effect of eco­nomic and insti­tu­tional con­texts over the life­course, paper pre­sented at the PAA con­fer­ence, New Orleans LA, April 11–13.
OECD (2013), OECD Frame­work for Sta­tis­tics on Dis­tri­b­u­tion of House­holds Income, Con­sump­tion and Wealth, OECD Pub­lish­ing, Paris.
OECD (2015), Com­par­ing the Effects of Cash Ben­e­fits and In-kind Ser­vices on Fam­ily Out­comes, OECD Pub­lish­ing, Paris.
OECD Fam­ily Data­base, http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm [accessed on 10.11.2017].
Richard­son D. (2015), Child Poverty and Fam­ily Poli­cies in the OECD, UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti, Flo­rence.
Ruzik-Sierdzińska A. (2017), Czy pro­gram „Rodz­ina 500+” wywołał efekt na rynku pracy? [Did the ”500+ Fam­ily” pro­gram trig­ger an effect on the labour mar­ket?], Insty­tut Oby­wa­tel­ski [Civic Insti­tute], Analy­sis 15, War­saw.
Salverda W., Nolan B., Chec­chi D., Marx I., McK­night A., Toth I.G., van de Werfhorst H., eds. (2014), Chang­ing Inequal­i­ties in Rich Coun­tries. Ana­lyt­i­cal and Com­par­a­tive Per­spec­tives, Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, Oxford.
Sara­ceno Ch. (2011), Fam­ily poli­cies. Con­cepts, goals and instru­ments, Carlo Alberto Note­book No 30, www.carloalberto.org/working_papers[accessed on 23.09.2017].
Thevenon O. (2011), Fam­ily Poli­cies in OECD coun­tries: A Com­par­a­tive Analy­sis, “Pop­u­la­tion and Devel­op­ment Review”, Vol. 37(1), p. 57––87.
Ver­bist G., Mat­saga­nis M. (2012), The Redis­trib­u­tive Capac­ity of Ser­vices in the EU, AIAS, GINI Dis­cus­sion Paper 53, www.gini-research.org[accessed on 23.09.2017].
Wilcox D.W. (1989), Social Secu­rity Ben­e­fits, Con­sump­tion Expen­di­ture, and the Life Cycle Hypoth­e­sis, “Jour­nal of Polit­i­cal Econ­omy”, Vol. 97, No. 2, p. 288–304.

Elż­bi­eta Bojanowska (PhD, Car­di­nal Ste­fan Wyszyński Uni­ver­sity, War­saw, Poland)
THE 500+ CHILD BENEFIT SCHEME AND SOCIAL WELFARE IN POLAND (p. 13–15)
The Act of 11 Feb­ru­ary 2016 on state aid in rais­ing chil­dren intro­duced the right to untaxed child ben­e­fits of PLN 500 per month, which is granted to each sec­ond and sub­se­quent child until they are 18 years of age. This ben­e­fit is an invest­ment that is intended to increase human cap­i­tal and sup­port fam­i­lies in ensur­ing their children’s safety and favourable con­di­tions for rais­ing chil­dren, and thus aims to reduce the phe­nom­e­non of child poverty.

Key­words: child ben­e­fit 500+, fam­ily, poverty, social assis­tance, social work

REFERENCES
Gid­dens A. (1998), The Third Way, Cam­bridge.
GUS (2015), Ubóstwo eko­nom­iczne w Polsce w 2014 r. [Eco­nomic poverty in Poland in 2014], War­saw.
GUS (2017), Zasięg ubóstwa eko­nom­icznego w Polsce w 2016 r. (na pod­stawie bada­nia budżetów gospo­darstw domowych) [The scope of eco­nomic poverty in Poland in 2016 (based on a study of house­hold bud­gets)], Warsaw.

Michał Brzez­iński (Pro­fes­sor, Uni­ver­sity of War­saw, Poland)
Mateusz Najsz­tub (Mas­ter, Cen­tre for Eco­nomic Analy­sis, Szczecin, Poland)
THE IMPACT OF “FAMILY 500+ PROGRAMME ON HOUSEHOLD INCOMES, POVERTY AND INEQUALITY (p. 16–25)
We use the microsim­u­la­tion approach and house­hold bud­get sur­vey data from 2015 to esti­mate the short­term impact of the “Fam­ily 500+” pro­gramme on house­hold incomes, poverty and inequal­ity. The results sug­gest that the pro­gramme will have the strongest impact on the incomes of house­holds at the lower end of income dis­tri­b­u­tion. Extreme con­sump­tion poverty in the whole pop­u­la­tion is reduced in the range from 35 to 37%, while child poverty in the range from 75 to 100%, depend­ing on the choice of equiv­a­lence scale and assump­tions about changes in house­hold expen­di­tures. The paper shows also that the pro­gramme will reduce the Gini index of income inequal­ity in Poland by a few per­cent­age points. The pro­gramme can lead to a lower risk of extreme poverty for house­holds with chil­dren as com­pared to small house­holds (e.g. single-person house­holds). Analy­sis based on cer­tain equiv­a­lence scales sug­gests that even before the imple­men­ta­tion of the “Fam­ily 500+” pro­gramme extreme poverty among house­holds with chil­dren was com­pa­ra­ble or lower than among one-person or child­less house­holds. The pro­gres­sive impact of “Fam­ily 500+” pro­gramme on income dis­tri­b­u­tion in Poland may be reduced in the longer run if labour mar­ket activ­ity of low income house­holds will be affected negatively.

Key­words: child-care ben­e­fits, poverty, inequal­ity, microsim­u­la­tion, equiv­a­lence scales

REFERENCES
Blun­dell R., Dun­can A., McCrae J., Meghir C. (2000), The Labour Mar­ket Impact of the Work­ing Fam­i­lies’ Tax Credit, “Fis­cal Stud­ies”, Vol. 21(1), p. 75–104.
Aizer A., Eli S., Fer­rie J., Lleras-Muney A. (2016), The long-run impact of cash trans­fers to poor fam­i­lies, “The Amer­i­can Eco­nomic Review”, Vol. 106(4), p. 935–971.
Bar­gain O., Morawski L., Myck M., Socha M. (2007), As SIMPL as that: intro­duc­ing a tax-benefit microsim­u­la­tion model for Poland, IZA Dis­cus­sion Papers 2988, Insti­tute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Bishop J.A., Grod­ner A., Liu H., Ahamdanech-Zarco I. (2014), Sub­jec­tive poverty equiv­a­lence scales for Euro zone coun­tries, “The Jour­nal of Eco­nomic Inequal­ity”, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 265–278.
Buh­mann B., Rain­wa­ter L., Schmaus G., Smeed­ing T.M. (1998), Equiv­a­lence Scales, Well-being, Inequal­ity, and Poverty: Sen­si­tiv­ity Esti­mates Across Ten Coun­tries Using the Lux­em­burg Income Study (LIS) Data­base, “Review of Income and Wealth”, Vol. 34, Issue 2, p. 115–142.
Carneiro P., Loken K.V., Sal­vanes K.G. (2015), A Fly­ing Start? Mater­nity Leave Ben­e­fits and Long-Run Out­comes of Chil­dren, “Jour­nal of Polit­i­cal Econ­omy”, Vol. 123(2), p. 365–412.
Col­lado D., Can­til­lon B., Van den Bosch K., Goedeme T., Van­de­lan­noote D. (2017), The end of cheap talk about poverty reduc­tion: the cost of clos­ing the poverty gap while main­tain­ing work incen­tives, Work­ing Paper No. 16/08, Her­man Deleeck Cen­tre for Social Pol­icy, Uni­ver­sity of Antwerp.
Coul­ter F.A., Cow­ell T.M., Jenk­ins S.P. (1992), Dif­fer­ences in needs and assess­ment of income dis­tri­b­u­tions, “Bul­letin of Eco­nomic Research”, Vol. 44(2), p. 77–124.
Domitrz A., Morawski L., Myck M., Seme­niuk A. (2012), Dys­try­bucyjny wpływ reform podatkowo-świadczeniowych wprowad­zonych w lat­ach 2006–2011 [The dis­tri­b­u­tion impact of tax-benefit reforms imple­mented in the years 2006–2011], “Bank i Kredyt”, No. 44(3).
Gar­ner T., Short K. (2003), Per­sonal assess­ments of min­i­mum income and expenses: What do they tell us about ‘min­i­mum liv­ing’ thresh­olds and equiv­a­lence scales?, w: J. Bishop, Y. Amiel (eds.), Inequal­ity, Wel­fare and Poverty: The­ory and Mea­sure­ment, Research on Eco­nomic Inequal­ity, Else­vier, p. 191–243.
Goraus-Tańska K., Inchauste G. (2016), The dis­tri­b­u­tional impact of taxes and trans­fers in Poland, Pol­icy Research Work­ing Paper; No. WPS 7787, World Bank Group, Wash­ing­ton D.C.
GUS (2017a), Sytu­acja gospo­darstw domowych w 2016 r. w świ­etle wyników bada­nia budżetów gospo­darstw domowych [The sit­u­a­tion of house­holds in 2016 in light of house­hold bud­get study results], War­saw.
GUS (2017b), Zasięg ubóstwa eko­nom­icznego w Polsce w 2016 r., opra­cow­anie syg­nalne [The extent of eco­nomic poverty in Poland in 2016, lead study], War­saw.
Haan P., Myck M. (2007), Apply with cau­tion: intro­duc­ing UK-style in-work sup­port in Ger­many, “Fis­cal Stud­ies”, Vol. 28, p. 43–72.
Haan P., Wrohlich K. (2011), Can Child Care Encour­age Employ­ment and Fer­til­ity? Evi­dence from a Struc­tural Model, “Labour Eco­nom­ics”, Vol. 18(4), p. 498–512.
Inchauste G., Rodas P., Goraus-Tańska K. (2016), Skutki dys­try­bucyjne pro­gramu Rodz­ina 500 Plus, nieop­ub­likowany raport [Dis­tri­b­u­tion impact of the Fam­ily 500+ pro­gramme, unpub­lished report].
Kalbarczyk-Stęclik M., Miśta R., Morawski L. (2017), Sub­jec­tive equiv­a­lence scale – cross-country and time dif­fer­ences, “Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Social Eco­nom­ics”, Vol. 44(8), p. 1092–1105.
Miśta R., Morawski L. (2016), Dochód, płeć i wiek a wspólne zamieszki­wanie z rodzi­cami. Przy­padek Pol­ski, Czech, Estonii i Węgier [Income, gen­der and age, and liv­ing together with par­ents. The case of Poland, Czech Repub­lic, Esto­nia and Hun­gary], “Stu­dia Eko­nom­iczne”, No. 2, p. 286–311.
Morawski L. (2016), Reg­u­la­cyjna skala ekwi­wa­lent­ności dla gospo­darstw domowych w Polsce w lat­ach 2006–2014 [Reg­u­la­tory equiv­a­lence scale for house­holds in Poland in the years 2006–2014], “Gospo­darka Nar­o­dowa”, No. 5, p. 71–89.
Morawski L., Myck M. (2010), ‘Klin’-ing up: Effects of Pol­ish Tax Reforms on Those In and on those Out, “Labour Eco­nom­ics”, Vol. 17(3), p. 556–566.
Morawski L., Myck M. (2011), Dis­tri­b­u­tional Effects of the Child Tax Cred­its in Poland and Its Poten­tial Reform, “Ekon­o­mista”, No. 6, p. 815–830.
Myck M. (2009), Anal­izy pol­skiego sys­temu podatkowo-zasiłkowego z wyko­rzys­taniem mod­elu mikrosy­mu­la­cyjnego SIMPL [Analy­ses of the Pol­ish tax-benefit sys­tem using the SIMPL microsim­u­la­tion model], “Prob­lemy Poli­tyki Społecznej”, No. 11, p. 86–107.
Myck M. (2016), Esti­mat­ing Labour Sup­ply Response to the Intro­duc­tion of the Fam­ily 500+ Pro­gramme, CenEA Work­ing Paper Series WP01/16.
Myck M., Kun­dera M., Najsz­tub M., Oczkowska M. (2015), Port­fele gospo­darstw domowych po expose pre­mier Beaty Szydlo, Komen­tarz CenEA [The wal­lets of house­holds after the expose of Prime Min­is­ter Beata Szy­dło, CenEA Com­men­tary] 19/11/15.
Myck M., Kurowska A., Kun­dera M. (2013), Finan­cial Sup­port for Fam­i­lies with Chil­dren and its Trade-offs: Bal­anc­ing Redis­tri­b­u­tion and Parental Work Incen­tives, “Baltic Jour­nal of Eco­nom­ics”, Vol. 13(2), p. 59–84.
Myck M., Najsz­tub M. (2015), Data and Model Cross-validation to Improve Accu­racy of Microsim­u­la­tion Results: Esti­mates for the Pol­ish House­hold Bud­get Sur­vey, “Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Microsim­u­la­tion”, Vol. 8(1), p. 33–66.
Myck M., Najsz­tub M. (2016), Dis­tri­b­u­tional con­se­quences of tax and ben­e­fit poli­cies in Poland: 2005–2014, CenEA Work­ing Paper Series WP02/16.
Popova D. (2016), Dis­tri­b­u­tional impacts of cash allowances for chil­dren: a microsim­u­la­tion analy­sis for Rus­sia and Europe, “Jour­nal of Euro­pean Social Pol­icy”, Vol. 26(3), p. 248–267.
Szarfen­berg R. (2017), Wpływ świad­czenia wychowaw­czego (500+) na ubóstwo na pod­stawie mikrosy­mu­lacji [The impact of the child-care ben­e­fit (500+) on poverty based on microsim­u­la­tion], “Poli­tyka Społeczna”, No. 5–6.

Ryszard Szarfen­berg (Pro­fes­sor, Insti­tute of Social Pol­icy, Uni­ver­sity of War­saw, Poland)
EFFECT OF CHILD CARE BENEFIT (500+) ON POVERTY BASED ON MICROSIMULATION (p. 25–31)
Child care ben­e­fit (500+) is a new cash instru­ment of fam­ily pol­icy intro­duced in Poland in 2016. There were a lot of dis­cus­sions on many respects of the new ben­e­fit. One of them is expected impact on child, fam­ily and total poverty. In the first part I described goals of fam­ily pol­icy and the 500+ in com­par­i­son to fam­ily ben­e­fits. Sec­ond part con­tains crit­i­cal exam­i­na­tion of offi­cial jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of 500+ in the light of a the­ory of poverty reduc­tion by cash ben­e­fits. In the main part I pre­sented shortly microsim­u­la­tion mod­els and results of three of them (Min­istry of Finance, World Bank and Euro­pean Com­mis­sion). It is likely that 500+ impact on over­all poverty and child and fam­ily poverty in finan­cial dimen­sion will be impres­sive. In the result the change of the struc­ture of poverty risk in Poland can be substantial.

Key­words: fam­ily ben­e­fits, child allowances, poverty, microsim­u­la­tion, child poverty, 500+

REFERENCES
Behrendt C. (2002), At the Mar­gins of the Wel­fare State: Social Assis­tance and the Alle­vi­a­tion of Poverty in Ger­many, Swe­den and the United King­dom, Ash­gate, Burling­ton.
Brad­shaw J.R., Huby M. (2014), Decom­pos­ing Child Poverty Reduc­tion, ”Euro­pean Jour­nal of Social Secu­rity”, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 26–50.
Inchauste G., Cor­ral Rodas P., Goraus K. (2016), Skutki dys­try­bucyjne pro­gramu Rodz­ina 500 Plus [Dis­tri­b­u­tion effects of the Fam­ily 500+ pro­gram], nota z 2 maja [note from 2 of May].
Fun­dacja Repub­likańska (2016), Mapa wydatków państwa [Map of state expen­di­tures], http://www.mapawydatkow.pl/ [accessed on 23.02.2017].
KE (2017), In-depth analy­sis of tax reforms – POLAND.
Konopczak K., Skibicki J. (2012), Mikrosy­mu­la­cyjny model podatkowoza­siłkowy Min­is­terstwa Finan­sów – doku­men­tacja [Tax and ben­e­fit microsim­u­la­tion model of the Min­istry of Finance – doc­u­men­ta­tion], MF Work­ing Paper Series, No 12, http://www.mf.gov.pl/documents/764034/1209344/mf_wp_12.1.pdf [accessed on 18.02.2017].
Lis M., Miazga A., Sachach K., Szpor A., Świę­ci­cka K. (2016), Ubóstwo ener­gety­czne w Polsce – diag­noza i rekomen­dacje [Energy poverty in Poland – diag­no­sis and rec­om­men­da­tions], Insti­tute for Struc­tural Research, War­saw.
Morawski L., Seme­niuk A. (2013), Zakres ubóstwa a reformy podatkowoświad­czeniowe w lat­ach 2006–2010 [The extent of poverty and tax reforms in 2006–2010], “National econ­omy”, No. 4, p. 21–40.
MRPiPS (2016), Wpływ pro­gramu Rodz­ina 500 plus na zagroże­nie ubóst­wem [Impact of the Fam­ily 500+ pro­gram on the risk of poverty], https://www.mpips.gov.pl/wsparcie-dla-rodzin-z-dziecmi/rodzina-500-plus/dokumenty-i-opracowania/wplyw-programu-rodzina-500-plusna-zagrozenie-ubostwem/ [accessed on 15.02.2017].
Myck M. (2009), Anal­izy pol­skiego sys­temu podatkowo-zasiłkowego z wyko­rzys­taniem mod­elu SIMPL [Ana­lyzes of the Pol­ish tax and ben­e­fit sys­tem using the SIMPL model], „Prob­lemy Poli­tyki Społecznej. Stu­dia i Dyskusje [Prob­lems of Social Pol­icy. Stud­ies and Dis­cus­sions”, No. 9, pp. 87–100.
Myck M., Kun­dera M., Najsz­tub M., Oczkowska M. (2015), Pro­gramy wybor­cze 2015: kto zyska, kto straci i ile to będzie kosz­towało [Elec­tion pro­grams 2015: Who will win, who will lose and how much it will cost], V Raport Przed­wybor­czy CenEA, Szczecin [V Pre­lim­i­nary Report of CenEA, Szczecin], http://www.cenea.org.pl/images/stories/pdf/commentaries/raport5.pdf [accessed on 18.02.2017].
Myck M., Morawski L., Seme­niuk A., Domitrz A. (2012), Dys­try­bucyjny wpływ reform podatkowo-świadczeniowych wprowad­zonych w lat­ach 2006–2011, [Dis­trib­u­tive impact of tax and ben­e­fit reforms intro­duced in 2006–2011], Microsim­u­la­tion Report: 01/2012, CenEA Cen­ter for Eco­nomic Analy­sis [Fun­dacja Cen­trum Analiz Eko­nom­icznych CenEA], Szczecin.
Owczarek D. (2016), Ubóstwo ener­gety­czne – nowe wyzwanie, nowe rozwiąza­nia [Energy poverty – new chal­lenge, new solu­tions], Fun­dacja Blisko, http://fundacjablisko.pl/index.php/owczarek-ubostwo-energetycznenowe-wyzwanie-nowe-rozwiazania/ [accessed on 12.02.2017].
Rafal­ska E. (2016), Wys­tąpi­e­nie Elż­bi­ety Rafal­skiej, Min­is­ter Rodziny, Pracy i Poli­tyki Społecznej pod­czas pier­wszego czy­ta­nia rzą­dowego pro­jektu ustawy o pomocy państwa w wychowywa­niu dzieci w dniu 9 lutego 2016 r. [Speech by Elz­bi­eta Rafal­ska, Min­is­ter of Fam­ily, Labour and Social Pol­icy at the first read­ing of the gov­ern­ment draft state aid law on rais­ing chil­dren on 9 Feb­ru­ary 2016], https://www.mpips.gov.pl/wsparcie-dla-rodzin-z-dziecmi/rodzina-500-plus/dokumenty-iopracowania/wystapienie-elzbiety-rafalskiej-minister-rodziny-pracy-ipolityki-spolecznej-podczas-pierwszego-czytania-rzadowegoprojektu-ustawy-o-pomocy-panstwa-w-wychowywaniu-dzieci-/[accessed on 22.02.2017].
Rzą­dowy pro­jekt ustawy o pomocy państwa w wychowywa­niu dzieci (2016) [Gov­ern­ment draft on state aids in rais­ing chil­dren], Druk Sej­mowy nr 216, http://www.sejm.gov.pl/Sejm8.nsf/druk.xsp?nr=216 [accessed on 12.02.2017].
Sawul­ski J. (2016), Budżet zmarnowanej szansy, Opinia IBS o pro­jek­cie budżetu państwa na rok 2016 [Bud­get of wasted oppor­tu­nity, IBS Opin­ion on the State Bud­get for 2016], IBS Pol­icy Paper 01, Insty­tut Badań Struk­tu­ral­nych, War­saw.
Żoł­taszek A. (2013), Mod­ele mikrosy­mu­la­cyjne. Teo­ria i zas­tosowa­nia ekonomiczno-społeczne [Microsim­u­la­tion mod­els. Eco­nomic and social the­ory and appli­ca­tions], Uni­ver­sity of Łodź.

Elż­bi­eta Kryńska (Pro­fes­sor, Insti­tute of Labour and Social Pol­icy, War­saw, Poland)
INFLUENCE OF THE 500+ PROGRAMME ON THE POLISH LABOUR MARKET. WHAT IS, WHAT WILL BE AND WHAT TO EXPECT… (p. 31–36)
The aim of this paper is to iden­tify the likely impact of one of the fam­ily pol­icy instru­ments in Poland, the “Fam­ily 500+” pro­gramme. The analy­ses were focused on the sup­ply side of the labour mar­ket. The demand side, with­out neglect­ing it, was treated as one of the deter­mi­nants of labour sup­ply. As we are still lack­ing in reli­able research, as far as com­pre­hen­sive research in this area is con­cerned, the analy­sis is based on the knowl­edge con­tained in the source lit­er­a­ture and the research expe­ri­ence of the author. The arti­cle presents ele­ments of fam­ily pol­icy in Poland, fac­tors deter­min­ing the num­ber of labour resources and their pro­fes­sional activ­ity, the pro­gramme “Fam­ily 500+” and its influ­ence on the Pol­ish labour mar­ket in the short term, as well as the prob­a­ble impact in the medium term.

Key­words: fam­ily 500+, labour mar­ket, fam­ily pol­icy, work resources, pro­fes­sional activity

REFERENCES
Balcerzak-Paradowska B. (1993), Poli­tyka rodzinna w kra­jach Wspól­noty Europe­jskiej i jej uwarunk­owa­nia [Fam­ily pol­icy in the Euro­pean Com­mu­nity and its con­di­tions], IPiSS, War­saw.
Balcerzak-Paradowska B. (1999), Poli­tyka rodzinna między dwoma mod­e­lami [Fam­ily pol­icy between two mod­els], IPiSS, Warszawa.
Balcerzak-Paradowska B. (2004), Rodz­ina i poli­tyka rodzinna na przełomie wieków – przemi­any, zagroże­nia, potrzeba dzi­ałań [Fam­ily and fam­ily pol­icy at the turn of the cen­tury – changes, threats, need for action], IPiSS, War­saw.
Balcerzak-Paradowska B. (2009), Ogólne ten­dencje w poli­tyce rodzin­nej UE [Gen­eral trends in EU fam­ily pol­icy], in: Poli­tyka rodzinna w kra­jach Unii Europe­jskiej – wnioski dla Pol­ski [Fam­ily pol­icy in EU coun­tries – con­clu­sions for Poland], Biule­tyn RPO Mate­ri­ały Zeszyty Naukowe, War­saw.
Baltes B., Finkel­stein L., Kooij D., De Lange A., Jansen P.W. (2011), Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta-analysis, “Jour­nal of Orga­ni­za­tional Behav­ior”, Vol. 32(2).
Bed­narski M., Czepulis-Rutkowska Z., Gło­gosz D., red. nauk. (2017), O racjon­alną poli­tykę rodzinną, Rodz­ina for­ma­cją nieza­stą­pi­oną?. Księga Jubileuszowa Pro­fe­sor Bożeny Balcerzak-Paradowskiej [For a ratio­nal fam­ily pol­icy, an irre­place­able fam­ily? Jubilee Book for Pro­fes­sor Bożena Balcerzak-Paradowska], IPiSS, Warszawa.
Boeri T., Ours J.S. van (2011), Ekono­mia niedoskon­ałych rynków pracy [The eco­nom­ics of imper­fect labor mar­ket], Ofi­cyna a Wolters Kluwer busi­ness, War­saw.
Bronk A., Wiśniewski Z. Wojdyło-Preisner M., red. (2014), Ryzyko dłu­gotr­wałego bezrobo­cia w Polsce. Diag­noza i metody zapo­b­ie­ga­nia [Risk of long-term unem­ploy­ment in Poland. Diag­no­sis and pre­ven­tion meth­ods], MPiPS, War­saw.
CBOS (2013), Sytu­acja rodzinna i mate­ri­alna młodych Polaków i ich postawy kon­sump­cyjne [Fam­ily and mate­r­ial sit­u­a­tion of young Poles and their con­sumer atti­tudes], Novem­ber, War­saw.
CBOS (2017), Popar­cie dla pro­gramu „Rodz­ina 500 plus” po blisko roku od jego wprowadzenia [Sup­port for the “Fam­ily 500+” pro­gramme after nearly a year since its launch], CBOSNews Newslet­ter No. 11, http://www.cbos.pl/PL/publikacje/news/2017/11/newsletter.php [accessed on 20.7.2017].
GUS (2016), Komu­nikat doty­czący defi­cytu i długu sek­tora insty­tucji rzą­dowych i samorzą­dowych w 2016 r. [Gov­ern­ment deficit and gov­ern­ment debt mes­sage in 2016], http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/rachunki-narodowe/statystyka-sektora-instytucji-rzadowych-isamorzadowych/komunikat-dotyczacy-deficytu-i-dlugu-sektorainstytucji-rzadowych-i-samorzadowych-w-2016-r-,1,24.html [accessed on 1.8.2017].
GUS (2017), Mon­i­tor­ing rynku pracy, Kwartalna infor­ma­cja o ryku pracy, opra­cow­anie syg­nalne [Labour mar­ket mon­i­tor­ing. Quar­terly infor­ma­tion on labour mar­ket], sig­nal pro­cess­ing, War­saw.
Kalinowska-Sufinowicz B. (2013) Poli­tyka społeczno-gospodarcza państwa wobec pracy kobiet [Socio-economic pol­icy of the state towards the work of women], Wydawnictwo Uni­w­er­sytetu Eko­nom­icznego w Poz­na­niu, Poz­nań.
Kamer­man S.B. (1994), Rodz­ina: prob­lemy teorii i poli­tyki [Fam­ily: prob­lems of the­ory and pol­i­tics, in: O poli­tyce rodzin­nej: definicje, zasady, prak­tyka [Fam­ily pol­icy: def­i­n­i­tions, prin­ci­ples, prac­tice], „Mate­ri­ały z Zagranicy” z. 2, IPiSS, War­saw.
Kryńska E. (2015a), Klin podatkowy a poli­tyka rodzinna w Polsce na tle innych kra­jów OECD (vol. 1) [Tax wedge and fam­ily pol­icy in Poland against other OECD coun­tries], “Dia­log”, No. 1 (44).
Kryńska E. (2015b), Klin podatkowy a poli­tyka rodzinna w Polsce na tle innych kra­jów OECD (vol. 2) [Tax wedge and fam­ily pol­icy in Poland against other OECD coun­tries], „Dia­log”, No. 2(45).
Kryńska E. (2017), The faces of con­tem­po­rary labour mar­ket seg­men­ta­tion, „Olsz­tyn Eco­nomic Jour­nal”, No. 12(2).
Malec D. (2017), Rynek pracy w cza­sie świadomego kandy­data [The labour mar­ket at the time of the con­scious can­di­date], „Rynek Pracy”, No. 2(161).
MF (2017), Sza­cunkowe wyko­nanie budżetu państwa w okre­sie sty­czeńk­wiecień 2017 r. [Esti­mated imple­men­ta­tion of the state bud­get in January-April 2017], pub­likacja z 24 maja [pub­li­ca­tion of May 24], http://www.mf.gov.pl/ministerstwo-finansow/wiadomosci/komunikaty/-asset_publisher/6Wwm/content/szacunkowe-wykonanie-budzetupanstwa-w-okresie-styczen-kwiecien-2017-r/pop_up?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mf.gov.pl%2Fministerstwo-finansow%2Fwiadomosci%2Fkomunikaty%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_6Wwm%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dpop_up%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26_101_INSTANCE_6Wwm_advancedSearch%3Dfalse%26_101_INSTANCE_6Wwm_keywords%3D%26_101_INSTANCE_6Wwm_delta%3D20%26_101_INSTANCE_6Wwm_cur%3D1%26_101_INSTANCE_6Wwm_andOperator%3Dtrue [accessed on 1.8.2017].
Myrdal A. (1941), Nation and Fam­ily: The Swedish Exper­i­ment in Demo­c­ra­tic Fam­ily and Pop­u­la­tion Pol­icy, Harper & Broth­ers, New York.
NBP (2017), Kwartalny raport o rynku pracy w I kw. 2017 r. [Quar­terly report on labour mar­ket in Q1 2017], nr 02/17 lip­iec, War­saw.
OECD (2014), Glos­sary of Sta­tis­ti­cal Terms, Paris.
Organiściak-Krzykowska A. (2017), Popyt na pracę cud­zoziem­ców w Polsce [Demand for the work of for­eign­ers in Poland], „Rynek Pracy”, No. 2(161).
Pro­gram Rodz­ina 500+ wpływa na decyzje na rynku pracy [The 500+ fam­ily pro­gram influ­ences the deci­sions on the labour mar­ket], (2016), Infor­ma­cja Pra­sowa [Press Release], http://www.cenea.org.pl/images/stories/ pdf/press_releases/press07092016.pdf [accessed on 1.8.2017].
Rękas M. (2012), Ulgi pro­rodzinne jako ele­ment poli­tyki rodzin­nej w wybranych kra­jach UE [Fam­ily relief as an ele­ment of fam­ily pol­icy in selected EU coun­tries], in: J. Sokołowski, M. Rękas, G. Węgrzyn (ed.), Ekono­mia, [Econ­omy], Research Papers of Wro­claw Uni­ver­sity of Eco­nom­ics, Wrocław.
Sobier­a­jski T. (2017), Charak­ter doradztwa edukacyjno-zawodowego w społeczeńst­wie wiedzy [The nature of edu­ca­tional and pro­fes­sional coun­sel­ing in the knowl­edge soci­ety], „Rynek Pracy”, No. 2(161).
Szarfen­berg R. (2017), Wpływ świad­czenia wychowaw­czego (500+) na ubóstwo na pod­stawie mikrosy­mu­lacji [Influ­ence of child ben­e­fit (500+) on poverty on the exam­ple of microsim­u­la­tion], „Poli­tyka Społeczna”, No. 4.
Ślesicka A. (2011), Stosowanie ulg i zwol­nień e podatku dochodowym od osób fizy­cznych w państ­wach UE [Apply­ing tax breaks and exemp­tions from EU per­sonal income tax], Ekono­mia nr 26, Wydział Nauk Eko­nom­icznych Uni­w­er­sytetu Warsza­wskiego, War­saw.
Trea­tise on the Fam­ily (1981), Uni­ver­sity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Witkowska M. (2017), Wybrane prona­tal­isty­czne instru­menty poli­tyki rodzin­nej [Selected prona­tal­ist instru­ments of fam­ily pol­icy], „Poli­tyka Społeczna”, No. 2.

Kinga Pawłowska (PhD, War­saw Uni­ver­sity of Tech­nol­ogy, War­saw, Poland)
CHILD CARE BENEFIT 500+ AS COMPONENT OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE: ATTEMPT TO GET INSIGHT (p. 37–42)
The paper is about child allowance (500+), a new fam­ily ben­e­fit intro­duced in Poland in 2016. In the pub­lic sphere there is a lot of dis­cus­sions con­nected with this new ben­e­fit, but most of them present the specialist’s points of view. The main goal of this paper is dif­fer­ent, it present the ele­ments of ”local knowl­edge”, the local points of view: peo­ple who ben­e­fit from the social sys­tem because of their dif­fi­cult finan­cial sit­u­a­tion and peo­ple who work in the local pub­lic insti­tu­tions and observe the impact of the new child allowance on the poor peo­ple every­day life. In the paper there are pre­sented the qual­i­ta­tive research results. Con­clu­sions are ambigu­ous and com­pli­cated – in the respondent’s opin­ions we can observe both the advan­tages and the dis­ad­van­tages of the new child allowance (500+).

Key­words: child allowance, poverty, „local knowl­edge”, local points of view

REFERENCES
Geertz C. (2005a), Opis gęsty: w poszuki­wa­niu inter­pre­taty­wnej teorii kul­tury [Thick descrip­tion: in search of an inter­pre­ta­tive the­ory of cul­ture], in: Inter­pre­tacja kul­tur: wybrane eseje [The Inter­pre­ta­tion of Cul­tures. Selected essays], Wydawnictwo Uni­w­er­sytetu Jagiel­lońskiego, Krakow.
Geertz C. (2005b), Myśl potoczna jako sys­tem kul­tur­owy [Com­mon thought as a cul­tural sys­tem], in: Wiedza lokalna: dal­sze eseje z zakresu antropologii inter­pre­taty­wnej [Local Knowl­edge: Fur­ther Essays in Inter­pre­tive Anthro­pol­ogy], Wydawnictwo Uni­w­er­sytetu Jagiel­lońskiego, Krakow.
Gro­mada A. (2017), Rodz­ina 500+ jako poli­tyka pub­liczna [The 500+ fam­ily as a pub­lic pol­icy], „Seria Anal­izy, Poli­tyka Społeczna, Ekono­mia” [Analy­sis Series, Social Pol­icy, Eco­nom­ics”], Insty­tut Stu­diow Zaawan­sowanych [Insti­tute for Advanced Stud­ies], http://krytykapolityczna.pl/file/2016/02/gromada_rodzina_500.pdf [accessed on 10.09.2017].
MRPiPS (2016), Raport „Rodz­ina 500+” [“500+ Fam­ily” report], War­saw, http://www.mpips.gov.pl/wsparcie-dla-rodzin-z-dziecmi/rodzina-500-plus/dokumenty-i-opracowania/raport-rodzina-500-plus-stan-na-30-listopada/ [accessed on 10.09.2017].
Rakowski T., Malewska-Szałygin A., red. (2011), Human­istyka i dom­i­nacja: odd­olne doświad­czenia społeczne w per­spek­ty­wie zewnętrznych rozpoz­nań [Human­ism and dom­i­na­tion: bottom-up social expe­ri­ences in the per­spec­tive of exter­nal recog­ni­tions], Insty­tut Etnologii i Antropologii Kul­tur­owej Uni­w­er­sytetu Warsza­wskiego, [Insti­tute of Eth­nol­ogy and Cul­tural Anthro­pol­ogy, Uni­ver­sity of War­saw], War­saw.
Szarfen­berg R. (2017), Wpływ świad­czenia wychowaw­czego (500+) na ubóstwo na przykładzie mikrosy­mu­lacji [Influ­ence of child ben­e­fit (500+) on poverty on the exam­ple of microsim­u­la­tion], „Poli­tyka Społeczna”, No. 4.

Maria Pierzchal­ska (PhD, Euro­pean Social and Tech­ni­cal School in Radom, Poland)
THE “FAMILY 500+” PROGRAMME: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON DEMOGRAPHIC PROCESSES, THE LABOUR MARKET AND PENSION SYSTEM (p. 42–50)
The “500+ Fam­ily” pro­gramme, which runs from mid-2016, is the open­ing of a new chap­ter in Pol­ish fam­ily pol­icy. It is the response of the gov­ern­ment to the demo­graphic cri­sis caused by the mass emi­gra­tion of young peo­ple and the low birth rate, which is due to the rapidly increas­ing num­ber of peo­ple in retire­ment age, result­ing in aging soci­ety. The main objec­tive of the pro­gram is to cre­ate con­di­tions con­ducive to hav­ing and rais­ing chil­dren, result­ing in a rever­sal of the unfavourable demo­graphic trend to increase the fer­til­ity rate. The pro­gram is also an invest­ment in human cap­i­tal and reduc­tion of poverty among fam­i­lies with chil­dren. The assumed pop­u­la­tion growth and the trans­for­ma­tion of the fam­ily model depends on changes in the work­place, which are pri­mar­ily the respon­si­bil­ity of women. The bar­ri­ers to par­tic­i­pa­tion of women in the labour mar­ket, such as the lack of flex­i­bil­ity in work­ing time, inequal­ity in earn­ings, the inabil­ity to rec­on­cile work and fam­ily respon­si­bil­i­ties, and the fear of pro­fes­sional inac­tiv­ity. This deprives them of both the inde­pen­dence as well as the abil­ity to self­ful­fil­ment or loss of pre­vi­ous com­pe­tences. The con­se­quence of this will be the loss of the right to a fair old-age pen­sion as a result of the non-payment of insur­ance pre­mi­ums for future retire­ment. The intro­duc­tion of the 500 Plus pro­gram causes of neces­sity of changes in the eco­nomic and social poli­cies of the state.

Key­words: “500+ fam­ily” pro­gramme, fam­ily, fam­ily pol­icy, female labour mar­ket, senior­ity, pen­sions for women

REFERENCES
Balcerzak-Paradowska B. (2003), Poli­tyka rodzinna w per­spek­ty­wie inte­gracji europe­jskiej [Fam­ily pol­icy in the per­spec­tive of Euro­pean inte­gra­tion], in: B. Balcerzak-Paradowska (ed.), Praca i poli­tyka społeczna wobec wyzwań inte­gracji [Labour and social pol­icy vs. The chal­lenges of inte­gra­tion], IPiSS, War­saw.
Balcerzak-Paradowska B., Goli­nowska S., ed. et al. (2009), Poli­tyka dochodowa, rodzinna i pomocy społecznej w zwal­cza­niu ubóstwa i wyk­luczenia społecznego. Ten­dencje i ocena skuteczności [Income, fam­ily and social secu­rity pol­icy in com­bat­ing poverty and social exclu­sion. Ten­den­cies and effec­tive­ness assess­ment], IPiSS, War­saw.
Balcerzak-Paradowska B., Goli­nowska S., ed. (2014), Poli­tyka dochodowa, rodzinna i pomocy społecznej w zwal­cza­niu ubóstwa i wyk­luczenia społecznego. Ten­dencje i ocena skuteczności [Income, fam­ily and social secu­rity pol­icy in com­bat­ing poverty and social exclu­sion. Ten­den­cies and effec­tive­ness assess­ment], IPiSS, War­saw.
Balcerzak-Paradowska B., Kołaczek B. Gło­gosz D. (2014), Tworze­nie warunków sprzy­ja­ją­cych pow­stawa­niu rodzin, przede wszys­tkim poprzez zaw­ieranie małżeństw i real­iza­cję planów prokrea­cyjnych [Cre­at­ing con­di­tions ben­e­fi­cial to the cre­ation of fam­i­lies, pri­mar­ily through enter­ing into mat­ri­mony and imple­men­ta­tion of pro­cre­ation plans], in: Rekomen­dacje Rzą­dowej Rady Lud­noś­ciowej w zakre­sie poli­tyki lud­noś­ciowej [Rec­om­men­da­tions of the Gov­ern­ment Pop­u­la­tion Coun­cil in the area of pop­u­la­tion pol­icy], RPO, War­saw.
Barr N. (2017), Państwo dobrobytu jako skar­bonka. Infor­ma­cja, ryzyko, niepewność a rola państwa [The wel­fare state as a pig­gy­bank. Infor­ma­tion, risk, uncer­tainty and the role of the state], WSP TWP Pub­lish­ing in War­saw, Elipsa Pub­lish­ing House, War­saw.
Chądzyński M. (2017), Ja jestem kobi­eta pracu­jąca [I am a work­ing woman], “Dzi­en­nik Gazeta Prawna” No. 147(4546) dated 1 August.
Chądzyński M., Kapiszewski J. (2017), Cieszmy się tym co mamy [Be happy with what we have], “Dzi­en­nik Gazeta Prawna”, No. 83/84.
Firlit-Fesnak G. (2011), Rodziny pol­skie i poli­tyka rodzinna; stan i kierunki przemian [Pol­ish fam­i­lies and fam­ily pol­icy; cur­rent state and direc­tion of changes], in: G. Firlit-Fesnak, M. Szylko-Skoczny (ed.), Poli­tyka społeczna [Social pol­icy], IPS UW, PWN, War­saw.
Gagacka M. (2011), Akty­wna poli­tyka społeczna i ekono­mia społeczna jako instru­menty wspar­cia rodzin [Active social pol­icy and social eco­nom­ics as instru­ments of fam­ily sup­port], in: A. Kubow, J. Szczepa­niak (ed.), Usługi społeczne wobec rodziny [Social ser­vices for the fam­ily], Wrocław Uni­ver­sity of Econ­omy Pub­lish­ing, Wrocław.
Goli­nowska S. (2012), Europe­jski model soc­jalny i otwarta koor­dy­nacja poli­tyki społecznej [The Euro­pean social model and open coor­di­na­tion of social pol­icy], “Poli­tyka Społeczna”, No. 11/12.
GUS (2008), Prog­noza lud­ności Pol­ski na lata 2008–2035 [Prog­no­sis of the Pol­ish pop­u­la­tion for the years 2008–2035], War­saw.
GUS (2014a), Prog­noza lud­ności na lata 2014–2050 [Prog­no­sis of the Pol­ish pop­u­la­tion for the years 2014–2050], War­saw.
GUS (2014b), Pod­sta­wowe dane demograficzne o dzieci­ach w Polsce [Pri­mary demo­graphic data on chil­dren in Poland], War­saw.
GUS (2014c), Stan i struk­tura lud­ności oraz ruch nat­u­ralny w przekroju tery­to­ri­al­nym w 2013 r. [State and struc­ture of the pop­u­la­tion and nat­ural mobil­ity in the ter­ri­to­r­ial cross sec­tion in 2013], War­saw.
GUS (2015), Rocznik Demograficzny 2015 [Demo­graphic Year­book 2015], War­saw.
GUS (2016), Małżeństwa oraz dziet­ność w Polsce [Mar­riages and fer­til­ity in Poland], War­saw.
GUS (2017a), Lud­ność w 2016 r. [The pop­u­la­tion in 2016], War­saw.
GUS (2017b), Lud­ność. Stan i struk­tura oraz ruch nat­u­ralny w przekroju tery­to­ri­al­nym w 2016 r. Stan w dniu 31.12.2016 r. [State and struc­ture of the pop­u­la­tion and nat­ural mobil­ity in the ter­ri­to­r­ial cross sec­tion in 2016. State as of 31.12.2016], War­saw.
GUS (2017c), Zasięg ubóstwa eko­nom­icznego w Polsce w 2016 r. [Extent of eco­nomic poverty in Poland in 2016], War­saw.
GUS (2017d), Mon­i­tor­ing rynku pracy, BAEL I kw. [Labour mar­ket mon­i­tor­ing, LFS (Labour Force Sur­vey, Q1)], War­saw.
GUS (2017e), Akty­wność eko­nom­iczna lud­ności Pol­ski I kwartał 2017 r. [Eco­nomic activ­ity of the Pol­ish pop­u­la­tion, 1st quar­ter of 2017], War­saw.
GUS, Sta­tis­tics Office in Krakow (2016), Dzi­ała­nia pro­rodzinne w lat­ach 2012–2015 [Pro-family actions in the years 2012–2015], Sta­tis­tics office in Krakow, Krakow.
Hapo­niuk M. (2014), Sytu­acja kobiet na rynku pracy w Polsce [The sit­u­a­tion of women in the labour mar­ket], www.instytutobywatelski.pl/wp-content/upload/s/2014/03/ [accessed on 24.07.2017].
Hrynkiewicz J., Potrykowska A., sci­en­tific ed. (2016), Per­spek­tywy demograficzne jako wyzwanie dla poli­tyki lud­noś­ciowej Pol­ski [Demo­graphic per­spec­tives as a chal­lenge to Pol­ish pop­u­la­tion pol­icy], RRL, War­saw.
Jak wspierać rodzi­cielstwo w Polsce? [How to sup­port par­ent­hood in Poland?] (2012), Biule­tyn Forum Debaty Pub­licznej [Pub­lic Debate Forum Bul­letin] no. 14, Chan­cellery of the Pres­i­dent of Poland, War­saw.
Kłos B., Szy­mańczak J. (online), Poli­tyka rodzinna: wybrane zagad­nienia, infor­ma­cja [Fam­ily pol­icy: selected issues, infor­ma­tion] no. 584, http://biurowe.sejm.gov./teksty/i-584.htm [accessed on 5.06.2017].
Koszty wychowa­nia dzieci w Polsce 2016. Praca to bez­pieczna rodz­ina [Costs of rais­ing chil­dren in Poland 2016. Work means a secure fam­ily] (2016), report by the Adam Smith Cen­tre under the super­vi­sion of Prof. A. Sur­dej, War­saw.
Kurzynowski A. (1991), Rodz­ina w poli­tyce społecznej państwa [Fam­ily in the state’s social pol­icy], in: A. Kurzynowski (ed.), Prob­lemy rodziny w poli­tyce społecznej [The issues of fam­ily in social pol­icy], War­saw.
Kurzynowski A., ed. (2001), Sytu­acja społeczno-zawodowa bezro­bot­nych kobiet, bari­ery i sty­mu­la­tory ich akty­wiz­a­cji zawodowej [The social and pro­fes­sional sit­u­a­tion of unem­ployed women, bar­ri­ers and stim­u­la­tors for their pro­fes­sional acti­va­tion], IGS, SGH, War­saw.
Kurzynowski A. (2011), Rodz­ina w poli­tyce społecznej w pro­ce­sie przemian demograficznych [Fam­ily in social pol­icy in the process of demo­graphic changes], in: J. Osiński (sci­en­tific ed.), Współczesne prob­lemy demograficzne: rzeczy­wis­tość i mity [Con­tem­po­rary demo­graphic prob­lems: real­ity and myths], SGH Pub­lish­ing House, War­saw.
MRPiPS (2015), Nowa poli­tyka rodzinna w Polsce 2011–2015 [New fam­ily pol­icy in Poland 2011–2015], report 7/2015, War­saw.
MRPiPS (2016), Ocena skutków reg­u­lacji pro­gramu 500+ przez MRPiPS w 2015 r. [Assess­ment of the impact of reg­u­lat­ing the 500+ pro­gramme by MRPiPS in 2015], War­saw, https://legislacja.rcl.gov.pl[accessed on 24.07.2017].
NBP (2017), Kwartalny raport o rynku pracy w I kwartale 2016 r. [Quar­terly report on the labour mar­ket in quar­ter 1 of 2016], War­saw.
NIK (2015), Koor­dy­nacja poli­tyki rodzin­nej w Polsce, Infor­ma­cja o wynikach kon­troli [Coor­di­na­tion of fam­ily pol­icy in Poland], Infor­ma­tion on con­trol results, War­saw.
Ołdak M. (2003), Praca zawodowa w życiu pol­s­kich kobiet: jako wartość i doświad­cze­nie [Pro­fes­sional work in the life of Pol­ish women: as value and expe­ri­ence], in: B. Balcerzak-Paradowska (ed.), Praca i poli­tyka społeczna wobec wyzwań inte­gracji [Labour and social pol­icy in the face of chal­lenges of inte­gra­tion], IPiSS, War­saw.
Postawy Polaków wobec oszczędza­nia [The atti­tudes of Poles towards sav­ing] (2011), report of the Kro­nen­berga Foun­da­tion at Citi Hand­lowy, TNS Pen­tor.
Prog­noza dla lud­ności pol­ski na lata 2008–2035 i 2050 [Prog­no­sis for the pop­u­la­tion of Poland for the years 2008–2035 and 2050] – GUS data, Demo­graphic Year­book 2015, War­saw.
RRL (2014), Rekomen­dacje Rzą­dowej Rady Lud­noś­ciowej w zakre­sie poli­tyki lud­noś­ciowej Pol­ski [Rec­om­men­da­tions of the Gov­ern­ment Pop­u­la­tion Coun­cil regard­ing Pol­ish pop­u­la­tion pol­icy], War­saw.
Rym­sza M. (2016), Poli­tyka rodzinna: cele, wartości, rozwiąza­nia – w poszuki­wa­niu kon­sen­su­al­nego pro­gramu [Fam­ily pol­icy: goals, val­ues, solu­tions – in search of a con­sen­sual pro­gramme], BAS Stud­ies No. 1(45), War­saw.
Sane­tra W. (2014), Aksjo­log­iczne pod­stawy prawa ubez­pieczeń społecznych [The axi­o­log­i­cal basis of social secu­rity law], in: K.W. Frieske, W. Przy­chodaj (sci­en­tific ed.), Ubez­pieczenia społeczne w pro­ce­sie zmian. 80 lat Zakładu Ubez­pieczeń Społecznych [Social Secu­rity in the process of changes. 80 years of the Social Insur­ance Insti­tu­tion], ZUS-IPiSS, War­saw.
Struk­tura wydatków soc­jal­nych w UE [Struc­ture of social expen­di­tures in the EU], http://forsal.pl/galerie/602251,duze-zdjecie,2,struktura-wydatkow [accessed on 24.07.2017].
Szarfen­berg R. (2016), Przewidy­wane skutki społeczne 500+: ubóstwo i rynek pracy [Antic­i­pated social impact of 500+: poverty and the labour mar­ket], EAPN Poland, Gen­eral Assem­bly of the Pol­ish Com­mit­tee of the Euro­pean Poverty Pre­ven­tion Net­work, War­saw, http://www.eapn.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/przewidywania500.pdf [accessed on 16.06.2017].
Szy­mańczak J., ed. (2016), Poli­tyka wobec rodziny w Polsce [Pol­icy towards the fam­ily in Poland], The Sejm’s Office of Analy­sis by the Sejm’s Chan­cellery, No. 1(45), War­saw.
Szy­mańczak J., ed. (2016), Poli­tyka wobec rodziny w Polsce [Pol­icy towards the fam­ily in Poland], The Sejm’s Office of Analy­sis by the Sejm’s Chan­cellery, No. 1(45).
Titkow A. (2007), Tożsamość pol­s­kich kobiet. Ciągłość, zmi­ana, kon­tek­sty [The iden­tity of Pol­ish women. Con­ti­nu­ity, changes, con­texts], IFiS PAN Pub­lish­ing, War­saw.
Uścińska G. (1996), Prawo zabez­pieczenia społecznego Rady Europy [The Euro­pean Council’s Social Secu­rity Law], in: L. Flo­rek (ed.), Europe­jskie prawo pracy i ubez­pieczeń społecznych [Euro­pean labour and social secu­rity law], IPiSS, War­saw.
Walig­orska M., Witkowski J. (2016), Prog­noza demograficzna dla Pol­ski do roku 2050 – nowe uję­cie [Demo­graphic prog­no­sis for Poland until the year 2050 – a new per­spec­tive], in: J. Hrynkiewicz, A. Potrykowska (sci­en­tific ed.), Per­spek­tywy demograficzne jako wyzwanie dla poli­tyki lud­noś­ciowej Pol­ski [Demo­graphic per­spec­tives as a chal­lenge for Pol­ish pop­u­la­tion pol­icy], RRL, War­saw.
Zasępa B. (2002), Rodz­ina i jej ochrona [Fam­ily and its defence], in: L. Frąck­iewicz (ed.), Poli­tyka społeczna zarys wykładu wybranych prob­lemów [Social pol­icy, out­line of selected issues], Śląsk Pub­lish­ing, Katow­ice.
Zielona Księga na rzecz adek­wat­nych, sta­bil­nych i bez­piecznych sys­temów emery­tal­nych w Europie [The Green Book for ade­quate, sta­ble and safe pen­sion sys­tems in Europe] (2010), Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, Brussels.

List of Con­tri­bu­tions

Elż­bi­eta Bojanowska – doc­tor of soci­ol­ogy, social politi­cian, assis­tant pro­fes­sor at the Insti­tute of Soci­ol­ogy of the Car­di­nal Ste­fan Wyszyński Uni­ver­sity in War­saw; Under­sec­re­tary of State at the Min­istry of Fam­ily, Labour and Social Pol­icy. Main areas of research: pop­u­la­tion age­ing and its socioe­co­nomic con­se­quences, inter­gen­er­a­tional rela­tions and prob­lems related to poverty and social exclu­sion.

Michał Brzez­iński – is an Adjunct Pro­fes­sor at the Fac­ulty of Eco­nomic Sci­ences Uni­ver­sity of War­saw where he teaches his­tory of eco­nom­ics and polit­i­cal eco­nom­ics. His research inter­ests include mod­el­ling income and wealth dis­tri­b­u­tion, mea­sure­ment of poverty and inequal­ity, hap­pi­ness eco­nom­ics and eco­nomic pol­icy in Poland. His pub­li­ca­tions are found in jour­nals such as Eco­nomic Sys­tems, Empir­i­cal Eco­nom­ics, Jour­nal of Applied Econo­met­rics, Phys­ica A, Applied Eco­nom­ics, Eco­nom­ics Let­ters, Sci­en­to­met­rics, and Social Indi­ca­tors Research.

Stanisława Goli­nowska – Pro­fes­sor at the Jagiel­lon­ian Uni­ver­sity Med­ical Col­lege, Cra­cow, and at the Insti­tute for Labour and Social Stud­ies, War­saw. She has led and par­tic­i­pated in many sci­en­tific Pol­ish and Euro­pean projects about social pol­icy and pub­lic health, par­tic­u­larly on poverty, age­ing, dis­abil­ity and long-term care, espe­cially ori­ented on Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean issues.

Krzysztof Hage­me­jer – PhD, pro­fes­sor at Bonn-Rhein-Sieg Uni­ver­sity of Applied Sci­ences, Ger­many. Lec­turer at Col­legium Civ­i­tas, War­saw and Maas­tricht Grad­u­ate School of Gov­er­nance. Econ­o­mist, spe­cial­iz­ing in eco­nom­ics and financ­ing of social poli­cies. Between 1993 and 2014 at Social Pro­tec­tion Depart­ment of the Inter­na­tional Labour Organ­i­sa­tion in Geneva, 2013–2014 Chief of Social Pro­tec­tion Pol­icy, Stan­dards and Gov­er­nance Branch. Key mem­ber of the team work­ing on new inter­na­tional labour stan­dard, Rec­om­men­da­tion no 202 con­cern­ing National Floors of Social Pro­tec­tion, adopted by the Inter­na­tional Labour Con­fer­ence in 2012. Before join­ing the ILO, assis­tant pro­fes­sor at the Depart­ment of Eco­nom­ics of War­saw Uni­ver­sity and adviser to the Pol­ish Min­is­ter of Labour and Social Policy.

Elż­bi­eta Kryńska – Pro­fes­sor Kryn­ska works at the Uni­ver­sity of Lodz, where she is a Direc­tor of Depart­ment of Eco­nomic Pol­icy, and in the Insti­tute of Labour and Social Stud­ies, where she is a Head of Depart­ment of Employ­ment and Labour Mar­ket. Her pro­fes­sional inter­ests are focused on con­tem­po­rary labour mar­kets issues. She is a well-known expert in the area of socio-economic pol­icy, in par­tic­u­lar within labour mar­ket issues. She has par­tic­i­pated in many sem­i­nars and con­fer­ences, pre­sent­ing results of research stud­ies. She is an author of about 300 research papers and books. Pro­fes­sor Kryn­ska has been a project man­ager in many national and inter­na­tional research projects.

Mateusz Najsz­tub – has been work­ing as an ana­lyst in Cen­tre for Eco­nomic Analy­sis, CenEA in Szczecin since 2013. He obtained his Master’s Degree in Chem­istry from the Adam Mick­iewicz Uni­ver­sity in Poz­nań in 2011. In his work at CenEA he focuses mainly on the SIMPL and EUROMOD microsim­u­la­tion mod­els that pro­vide the oppor­tu­nity to analyse direct effects of tax and ben­e­fit pol­icy reforms on house­hold dis­pos­able income. Apart from keep­ing the model up to date he also is involved in tech­ni­cal main­te­nance includ­ing data cor­rec­tion and weight adjust­ments. He also works with results of the SHARE 50+ sur­vey, where he focuses on analysing social exclu­sion among 50+ pop­u­la­tion.

Kinga Pawłowska – is a soci­ol­o­gist and anthro­pol­o­gist. Since 2008 she has worked as an Assis­tant Lec­turer, and since 2015 as an Asso­ciate Pro­fes­sor at the Fac­ulty of Admin­is­tra­tion and Social Sci­ences at the War­saw Uni­ver­sity of Tech­nol­ogy. Her schol­arly inter­ests are diverse, yet they con­cen­trate mainly around the issues of social pol­icy, inher­it­ing of poverty, soci­ol­ogy and anthro­pol­ogy of orga­ni­za­tion, power in orga­ni­za­tion and crit­i­cal man­age­ment stud­ies. She is an author of a few arti­cles, and co-author of mono­graphic works and hand­books. She has par­tic­i­pated in the projects on social econ­omy and the processes of inher­it­ing poverty. Now, she carry out the project on power in orga­ni­za­tion.

Maria Pierzchal­ska – A grad­u­ate of the Fac­ulty of Law and Admin­is­tra­tion at the Uni­ver­sity of War­saw. From 1991 PhD in eco­nom­ics from the Fac­ulty of Eco­nom­ics and Social Sci­ences at the War­saw School of Eco­nom­ics. Since 1977 she was an employee of the Social Insur­ance Insti­tu­tion in Radom. In 1991 she became direc­tor of Social Insur­ance Insti­tu­tion in Radom. Since 1995 she has been rec­tor of the sev­eral Uni­ver­si­ties in Radom. She is an author of sev­eral pub­li­ca­tions on social secu­rity and social pol­icy. She is a orga­nizer and co-organizer of numer­ous sci­en­tific con­fer­ences, founder of the “Open Hearts” Foun­da­tion and the Pol­ish Social Insur­ance Asso­ci­a­tion in Radom. Founder and rec­tor of the Euro­pean Uni­ver­sity Radom-Warsaw.

Agnieszka Sowa-Kofta – Assis­tant Pro­fes­sor at the Insti­tute of Labour and Social Stud­ies and expert of the Cen­ter for Social and Eco­nomic Research – CASE Foun­da­tion. Her research inter­ests focus on social pro­tec­tion pol­icy, includ­ing poverty, inequal­i­ties, health and long-term care. She has been par­tic­i­pat­ing in numer­ous national and inter­na­tional research projects.

Ryszard Szarfen­berg – PhD in polit­i­cal sci­ences, employed at the War­saw Uni­ver­sity in the Insti­tute of Social Pol­icy, main research areas are poverty, social exclu­sion and social assis­tance, reviewer at the Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Social Welfare.

 

« powrót