@phdthesis{Radenacker2015,
  author    = {Radenacker, Anke},
  title     = {Economic consequences of family dissolution},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-100217},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {v, 134},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Welfare states and policies have changed greatly over the past decades, mostly characterized by retrenchments in terms of government spending or in terms of restricted access to certain benefits. In the area of family policies, however, a lot of countries have simultaneously expanded provisions and transfers for families. Bringing together the macro analysis of policy variation and household income changes on the micro-level, the main research question of the dissertation is to what extent economic consequences following separation and divorce in families with children have changed between the 1980s and the 2000s in Germany and the United States. The second research question of the dissertation regards the differences in dissolution outcomes between married and cohabiting parents in Germany. The dissertation thus aims to link institutional regulations of welfare states with the actual income situation of families. To achieve this, a research design was developed that has never been used for the analysis of the economic consequences of family dissolution. For this, the two longest running panel datasets, German Socio-economic Panel (GSOEP) and the US American Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), have been used. The analytic strategy applied to estimate the effects of family dissolution on household income is a difference-in-difference design combined with coarsened exact matching (CEM). To begin with, the dissertation confirmed many findings of previous research, for example regarding the gender differences in family dissolution outcomes. Mothers experience clearly higher relative income losses and consequently higher risks of poverty than fathers. This finding is universal, that is it holds for both countries, for all time periods observed, and for all measures of economic outcome that were employed. Another confirmed finding is the higher level of welfare state intervention in Germany compared to the United States. The dissertation also revealed a number of novel findings. The results show that the expansion of family policies in Germany over time has not been accompanied by substantially decreasing income losses for mothers. Though income losses have slightly decreased over time, they have become more persistent during the years following family dissolution. The impact of the German welfare state has meanwhile been quite stable. American mothers' income losses took place on a slightly lower level than those of German mothers. Only during the 1980s their relative losses were clearly lower than those of German mothers. And also American mothers did not recover as much from their income losses during the 2000s than they used to during the 1980s. For them, the 1996 welfare reform brought a considerable decrease in welfare state support. Accordingly, the results for American mothers can certainly be described as a shift from public to private provision. The general finding of previous studies that fathers do not have to suffer income losses, or if at all rather moderate ones compared to mothers, can be confirmed. Nevertheless, both German and US American fathers face a deterioration of the economic consequences of family dissolution over time. German fathers' relative income changes are still positive though they have decreased over time. One reason for this decrease is the increasing loss of partner earnings following union dissolution. Also among American fathers, income gains still prevail in the year of family dissolution. Two years later, however, they have been facing income losses already since the 1980s which have furthermore increased considerably over time. Zooming in on Germany, family dissolution outcomes by marital status show negligible differences between cohabiting and married mothers in disposable income, but considerable differences in losses of income before taxes and transfers. It is the impact of the welfare state that equalizes the differences in income losses between these two groups of mothers. For married mothers, losses are not as high in the year of event but they have difficulties to recover from these losses. Without the income buffering of the welfare state, married mothers would, three years after family dissolution, remain with relative income losses double as high as for cohabiting mothers. Compared to mothers, differences between married and cohabiting fathers are visible in changes of income before as well as after taxes and transfers. The welfare state does not alter the difference between the two groups of fathers. With regard to both income concepts, cohabiting fathers fare worse than married fathers. Cohabiting fathers suffer moderate income losses of disposable income while married fathers experience moderate income gains. Accounting for support payments is decisive for fathers' income changes. If these payments are not deducted from disposable income, both married and cohabiting fathers experience gains in disposable income following family dissolution.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BangHoviSprinz2012,
  author    = {Bang, Guri and Hovi, Jon and Sprinz, Detlef F.},
  title     = {US presidents and the failure to ratify multilateral environmental agreements},
  series = {Climate policy},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Climate policy},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1469-3062},
  doi       = {10.1080/14693062.2012.699788},
  pages     = {755 -- 763},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Whereas the US President signed the Kyoto Protocol, the failure of the US Congress to ratify it seriously hampered subsequent international climate cooperation. This recent US trend, of signing environmental treaties but failing to ratify them, could thwart attempts to come to a future climate agreement. Two complementary explanations of this trend are proposed. First, the political system of the US has distinct institutional features that make it difficult for presidents to predict whether the Senate will give its advice and consent to multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and whether Congress will pass the required enabling legislation. Second, elected for a fixed term, US presidents might benefit politically from supporting MEAs even when knowing that legislative support is not forthcoming. Four policy implications are explored, concerning the scope for unilateral presidential action, the potential for bipartisan congressional support, the effectiveness of a treaty without the US, and the prospects for a deep, new climate treaty. Policy relevance Why does the failure of US ratification of multilateral environmental treaties occur? This article analyses the domestic political mechanisms involved in cases of failed US ratification. US non-participation in global environmental institutions often has serious ramifications. For example, it sharply limited Kyoto's effectiveness and seriously hampered international climate negotiations for years. Although at COP 17 in Durban the parties agreed to negotiate a new agreement by 2015, a new global climate treaty may well trigger a situation resembling the one President Clinton faced in 1997 when he signed Kyoto but never obtained support for it in the Senate. US failure to ratify could thwart future climate agreements.},
  language  = {en}
}