Laurenz Baertsch
Valerie Frey
Content or Discontent? Perceptions of Social Protection in France, Germany and the United Kingdom
2. Perceptions of social protection vis-à-vis social benefit and service outcomes
Abstract
This chapter presents perceptions of risks and satisfaction with social protection services and benefits in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, using microdata from the OECD’s Risks that Matter survey. This analysis finds that while there is relatively little difference in perceptions of short-term risks and of the adequacy of public cash benefits across these countries, French respondents are systematically the least satisfied with social services across the three countries. The chapter then explores to what degree satisfaction in France, Germany and the United Kingdom maps onto the actual generosity and coverage of social programme benefits and services. The relationship between actual benefits and perceptions is in general relatively weak; it is rare that policy indicators are aligned with observed patterns in satisfaction across the three countries. The chapter presents a few potential explanations for this misalignment between satisfaction with social protection and measurable outcomes of the welfare state.
Introduction
This chapter describes the perceptions of risks and satisfaction with social protection services and benefits in France, Germany and the United Kingdom using microdata from the OECD’s Risks that Matter survey. This analysis reveals that there is relatively little difference in perceptions of short-term risks and of the adequacy of public cash benefits – an exception are pensions, for which satisfaction is lowest in France.
In contrast, RTM respondents in these countries perceive social protection services differently: French respondents are systematically the least satisfied with social protection services across the three countries. Satisfaction among German and the United Kingdom respondents is at similar levels in all policy areas except for housing support, where the United Kingdom respondents are substantially more satisfied than Germans.
The second half of this chapter examines whether the differences in satisfaction with public social services between France, Germany and the United Kingdom align with country-level indicators for the observed policy environment in specific areas. In other words, does popular satisfaction in France, Germany and the United Kingdom map onto actual generosity and coverage of social programme benefits and services in those countries? This analysis finds that the relationship between actual benefits and perceptions is in general relatively weak; it is rare that policy indicators are aligned with observed patterns in satisfaction between all three countries. An exception are learning outcomes of 15‑year‑olds, as measured by standardised test scores.
Some general patterns do emerge from this analysis. First, in most areas, public social services and benefits are at similar levels in France and Germany, and typically of higher generosity and coverage than in the United Kingdom. This is in line with the welfare state literature, which mostly classifies the welfare regime in France and Germany as Conservative Corporatist and the one in the United Kingdom as Liberal (Chapter 1).
Second, despite broad similarities across France and Germany, differences in policy commitment do exist between the two countries. For example, Germany provides more generous family support while France offers higher pension entitlements.
Third, the differences in coverage and generosity do in general not correspond with the satisfaction gap when comparing France to Germany and the United Kingdom.
However, in many areas, policy indicators align with certain aspects of the cross-country satisfaction pattern, such as differences between country-pairs (e.g. between France and Germany) or a country´s particularly high or low satisfaction level. For example, differences in public and mandatory private spending on family support correspond with the satisfaction in in this area when comparing France and Germany, but not when including the United Kingdom in this comparison. Similarly, the substantially larger satisfaction with housing support in the United Kingdom coincides with substantially higher spending when compared to Germany and France, yet the French-German satisfaction gap is unrelated to differences in spending in this area.
This chapter concludes with a descriptive overview of how key social programmes have changed in recent decades. It finds that while there is little evidence of a retrenchment of the welfare state in France, per-capita spending stagnated in multiple policy areas for the past decade (or longer) in France. In the areas of housing, long term care for the elderly, and incapacity-related needs, real per-capita spending is at roughly the same level in 2019 as in 1990 and at the same level as in 2000 in the case of family support. In contrast, in Germany, spending on family support and incapacity-related benefits has increased significantly over the past decade. These patterns are indicative of a more stagnant policy commitment (measured in terms of per-capita spending) in France. This may contribute to widespread dissatisfaction with social protection in France, but is unlikely to explain the large cross-country differences entirely, as – in many policy areas – spending evolved similarly in both France and Germany.
Various potential explanations for the misalignment between patterns in satisfaction with social services and the area-specific policy indicators exist. First, the topic-specific policy indicators might not capture country-level institutional differences, such as the citizen´s financial contribution, the general functioning/efficiency of administrative procedures, and the perceived outcomes of social programmes, which might affect the general level of satisfaction with government and social services in a country (Chapter 3).
Second, country-specific factors unrelated to social protection systems, such as cultural differences in reporting satisfaction, likely play an important role in explaining cross-country differences in satisfaction with social services (Chapter 3).
The OECD Risks that Matter survey
The OECD Risks that Matter (RTM) survey is a cross-national survey examining people’s perceptions of the social and economic risks they face, how well they think their government addresses those risks, and what preferences they have for social protection going forward. RTM is the most extensive global survey of perceptions of, and preferences for, social protection (Box 2.1)
Box 2.1. About the OECD Risks that Matter (RTM) Survey
The RTM survey builds and expands on standard data sources like administrative records and labour force surveys, which provide more traditional data on issues such as people’s employment, earnings, and level of education. The RTM microdata cover a majority of OECD countries (27 of 38) and are updated every two years. Existing cross-national surveys in the area of perceptions of risk, including certain rounds of the International Social Survey Programme or the European Commission’s Eurobarometer survey, are conducted less frequently and/or only in specific regions.
The first RTM survey was conducted in spring and autumn of 2018, covering 18‑70 year‑olds in 21 countries. The second wave ran in September-October 2020, covering 18‑64 year‑olds in 25 OECD countries, and the third wave – on which this module is primarily based – was fielded in October-November 2022, covering 18‑64 year‑olds from 27 countries. The countries participating in the 2022 wave are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States. Member countries opt in to participate.
The questionnaire was developed by the OECD Secretariat in collaboration with OECD member country Delegates and stakeholders participating in an advisory group workshop in April 2022, and subsequently translated into national languages.
RTM uses non-probability samples recruited via the Internet and over the phone, and respondents take part in the survey online. The sampling criteria is based on quotas for gender, age group, education level, income level, and employment status. Survey weights are used to correct for under- or over-representation based on these five criteria. The target and weighted sample is 1 000 respondents per country. Respondents are paid a nominal sum of around one to two euros. The survey contractor is Bilendi Ltd (formerly Respondi Ltd).
RTM is overseen by the OECD Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Committee (ELSAC) and managed in the OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. Financial support for the 2022 survey was provided through voluntary contributions by participating OECD member countries, and specific modules were funded by the OECD Centre for Well-Being, Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunity (WISE), Kings College London, and the University of Stavanger.
Source: OECD Risks that Matter Survey.
Perceptions of social and economic risks across countries
What are people worried about in OECD countries? Risks that Matter (RTM) asks respondents to describe their degree of concern towards a list of short-term and longer-term social and economic risks such as illness or disability, losing their job, finding/maintaining housing, and so on. They respond to these questions before stating their satisfaction with social protection services and are, thus, not primed to take social services into account when expressing their concerns. The respondents’ short-term concerns for France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the OECD average (from the 27 countries in RTM) are shown in Figure 2.1
In most areas, short-term concerns in France, Germany and the United Kingdom are relatively similar to the RTM average. However, this is not the case in all categories. For example, fewer respondents worry about access to good-quality childcare or education for their children in Germany (32%), France (33%) and the United Kingdom (33%) than in all RTM countries on average (43%). As this issue area exemplifies, there is in general relatively little difference in the perception of short-term worries between France, Germany and the United Kingdom. An exception is accessing good-quality healthcare, about which significantly more respondents are worried in the United Kingdom (71%) than in France (65%) and in Germany (56%).1
Figure 2.1. Respondents in France, Germany and the United Kingdom are similarly worried in most areas
Proportion of respondents who report being somewhat or very concerned by each identified risk over the next two years (see notes for details), by category, 2022
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of the 27 OECD countries for which data are available. Respondents were asked: “Thinking about the next year or two, how concerned are you about each of the following? Becoming ill or disabled/Losing a job or self-employment income/Not being able to find/maintain adequate housing/Not being able to pay all expenses and make ends meet/Not being able to access good-quality childcare or education for your children (or young members of your family)/Not being able to access good-quality long-term care for elderly family members/Not being able to access good-quality long-term care for young or working-age family members with an illness or disability/Being the victim of crime or violence/Having to give up my job to care for children, elderly relatives, or relatives with illness or disability/Accessing good-quality healthcare”. Respondents could choose between: “Not at all concerned”; “Not so concerned”; “Somewhat concerned”; “Very concerned”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “somewhat concerned” or “very concerned.” RTM data include respondents aged 18‑64.
Source: OECD Risks that Matter Survey 2022.
The extent of the respondents’ short-term concerns varies substantially across the different categories in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. On average across countries respondents are most concerned about being able to pay all expenses (66%) – although this risk is unevenly distributed across age groups – and least concerned about having to give up their job to care for a relative (31%). Differences in the average level of concerns across countries could be due to some risks being more relevant at certain stages of life (e.g. childcare and education costs) while others are faced by all respondents relatively evenly across the life course (e.g. living costs). Health-related issues are a major concern in all three countries, as both becoming ill or disabled (53%) and accessing good-quality healthcare (60%) are among the respondents’ most cited concerns. Yet, the average level of concern across all areas is just below the cross-country OECD average (63%) in all three countries (59%, 60% and 62% in Germany, France and the United Kingdom, respectively).
Cross-national variation in risk perceptions depends on the category. In some areas, such as becoming ill or disabled, paying all expenses and becoming the victim of crime, respondents are similarly worried in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
However, there are areas in which the three countries of interest show differences in the level of concerns: for example, respondents in the United Kingdom (50%) are more worried than those in Germany (36%) and France (39%) about losing their job (Annex 2.A), coinciding with weaker employment regulation in terms of dismissals in the United Kingdom.
However, both Germans (37%) and the United Kingdom respondents (33%) are more worried than the French (23%) about leaving work to care for a family member. Similarly, worries about finding or maintaining adequate housing are also higher in Germany (48%) and the United Kingdom (45%) than in France (37%).
The absolute cross-country difference is largest in healthcare. Here United Kingdom respondents (71%) are more worried than the French (65%), who in turn are more concerned than Germans (56%) about accessing good-quality healthcare.
Yet these differences in risk perceptions across France, Germany and the United Kingdom are relatively small compared to the observed differences in satisfaction with social services (see below).
When asked about income support in specific circumstances, cross-country differences are relatively small
In RTM respondents state their beliefs about the adequacy of governmental income support (or cash benefits) in case of income loss due to specific circumstances, such as becoming unemployed or having an(other) child. The average levels of satisfaction with governmental income support in France, Germany and the United Kingdom are reported for all circumstances in and Annex Table 2.A.2.
Perceptions of the adequacy of cash benefits in specific circumstances are similar in France, Germany and the United Kingdom in most categories, and close to the OECD RTM‑27 average. They tend to be slightly more negative in France (20% satisfied) than in Germany (23%) and the United Kingdom (23%) Figure 2.2. This mirrors the relatively homogenous short-term risk perceptions in these three countries (see above). However, there are few categories in which the differences in the perception of cash benefits between the three countries are statistically significant. An example is income support during retirement, with which more United Kingdom respondents (26%) are satisfied than Germans (22%), followed by the French (17%).
Figure 2.2. The French are less satisfied with pensions than German, the United Kingdom and OECD average respondents
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the government does/would provide them and their household with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to selected circumstances, by category, 2022
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of the 27 OECD countries for which data are available. Respondents were asked: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that the government does/would provide my household and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to”: Unemployment/Illness/disability/Having a child/having more children/Leaving work to care for elderly family members or family members with disabilities/Retirement/Death of spouse or partner”. Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly disagree” or “disagree”. RTM data include respondents aged 18‑64.
Source: OECD Risks that Matter Survey 2022.
On average across the three countries, respondents are most satisfied with public income support in the case of unemployment (26%) and least satisfied with support for leaving work to take care of a family member (18%).
There are only few circumstances for which RTM respondents assess the adequacy of income support differently across France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Statistically significant but substantively small gaps only exist for leaving work to care for a family member (15% satisfied in France, compared to 19% in both Germany and the United Kingdom) and for retirement, where respondents in the United Kingdom and Germany are more satisfied (26% and 22%, respectively) than French respondents (17%).
Significant differences emerge in satisfaction with public social services
To assess their satisfaction with government and social policy, RTM respondents are then asked to what degree their household has or would have access to good-quality and affordable social protection services in specific policy areas. The average levels of satisfaction with social services in France, Germany and the United Kingdom are reported for each policy area in Figure 2.3, with sizeable differences in many areas. These considerable differences in satisfaction with social protection exist even as respondents in these countries hold relatively similar risk perceptions Figure 2.1. United Kingdom and German respondents are (on average) the most satisfied with social service provision, and French respondents are (on average) the least satisfied with social service provision. Only 28% of respondents in France report that they are satisfied with their social services across the eight policy areas measured, on average. Satisfaction is higher in Germany (37% on average across policy areas) and in the United Kingdom (38%).
Satisfaction with public social services in Germany and the United Kingdom is – with a few exceptions – close to the cross-country OECD average. Some exceptions are housing, where United Kingdom respondents are significantly more satisfied than the OECD average, and public safety, where Germans are more satisfied than respondents in RTM countries on average. In contrast, satisfaction with social services in France is below the OECD average in all areas. Consequently, there are substantial differences in satisfaction between France, Germany and the United Kingdom in some areas, particularly in education, health and public safety.
Figure 2.3. French respondents are less satisfied with social protection than those in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the OECD on average
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of..., if needed”, by area, 2022
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of the 27 OECD countries for which data are available. Respondents were asked: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of […], if needed.’” Family support (e.g. childcare, parenting support services, etc.)/Education (e.g. schools, universities, professional/vocational training, adult education, etc.)/Employment (e.g. job search supports, skills training supports, self-employment supports, etc.)/Housing (e.g. social housing, housing benefit, etc.)/Health (e.g. public medical care, subsidised health insurance, mental health support, etc.)/Disability/incapacity-related needs (e.g. disability benefits and services, long-term care services for persons with disability, community living resources, etc.)/Long-term care for older people (e.g. home, community-based and/or institutional care)/Public safety (e.g. policing)”. Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. RTM data include respondents aged 18‑64.
Source: OECD Risks that Matter Survey 2022.
Satisfaction with social protection services among RTM respondents in France, Germany and the United Kingdom varies depending on the policy area (Figure 2.2) Average levels of satisfaction among these three countries are highest for education (43%), public safety (42%) and health (41%) and lowest in the areas of disability (27%), long-term care (28%) and housing (29%).
The gaps in satisfaction between the three countries greatly vary by policy area. The areas with the largest gaps between France and Germany are public safety (20 percentage points), education (14 percentage points) and health (13 percentage points), while the differences are lowest in the areas of long-term care (1 percentage point) and housing (3 percentage points). Between France and the United Kingdom education (16 percentage points), public safety (15 percentage points), and housing show the largest differences in satisfaction, whereas there are no statistically significant differences in long-term care (4 percentage points). When comparing Germany and the United Kingdom, only the difference in satisfaction with housing policies is statistically significant (8 percentage points higher satisfaction in the United Kingdom).
The large cross-country differences in satisfaction match cross-national differences in risk perceptions in some areas but not in others. For example, among the three countries, Germans are both the most satisfied with their healthcare services and the least concerned about accessing good-quality healthcare. Similarly, when it comes to long-term care for elderly people, there are no differences in risk perceptions or in satisfaction between the three countries.
However, risk perceptions and satisfaction with public policies do not align in all areas. For example, French respondents are 20 percentage points less likely to be satisfied with public safety than Germans, but only 1 percentage point more concerned about becoming a victim of crime.
Cross-country differences in satisfaction with social protection services show little relation with differences in social benefits and service provision
This chapter has so far established that respondents in France, Germany and the United Kingdom hold relatively similar (if moderately negative) views towards the adequacy of cash benefits, but that perceptions vary more across social services.
This section assesses whether differences in public service spending, provision and policy outcomes explain the observed differences in satisfaction with social protection services and benefits across France, Germany and the United Kingdom. In general, this study finds little relationship between average perceptions in a country vis-à-vis policy resources and observed policy outcomes.
A set of internationally comparable policy indicators that correspond with the policy areas in the RTM survey were selected for this analysis. These policy indicators were selected to capture 1) the resources that governments devote to a certain policy area (e.g. spending), and 2) policy outcomes, i.e. measures of concrete results that are arguably more easily observable by respondents (e.g. student test scores in education). However, the availability of internationally comparable data, and therefore the number of policy indicators, varies by policy area.
All policy indicators are measured such that they are as comparable as possible across countries. As an example, all monetary outcomes are measured in 2015 Purchasing Power Parity US Dollars (simply USD hereafter) unless otherwise indicated. Policy indicators are always measured in the same reference year (mostly 2019) for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The averages for the remaining RTM countries are based on the year that is closest to the reference year. Detailed information on the policy indicators and their measurement are available in the notes of all figures.
Low satisfaction with pensions contrasts with high pensions entitlements in France
Figure 2.4. The French receive the highest income in old age and retire earliest
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree that the government does/would provide them and their household with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to selected circumstances, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “I think that the government does/would provide my household and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to retirement”. Respondents could choose: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. The proportion choosing “Agree” or “Strongly agree” is shown. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows per capita spending on (early-retirement) pensions from public and mandatory private sources (reference year: 2019); Panel B reports older peoples’ (older than 65 years) median disposable income from all sources as a fraction of median disposable income of the entire (reference year: 2018); Panel C shows the incidence of poverty among the people aged older than 65, defined as disposing of less than 50% of the median income (reference year: 2020). Panel D shows the current average retirement age of persons who entered the labour market at age 22. The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), (OECD, 2021[1]), OECD Pensions at a Glance 2021.
RTM respondents report how confident they are that the government would provide them with adequate income support (i.e. pensions) when retiring. Overall, attitudes are fairly negative. Only 22% of German and 26% of UK respondents think that their pensions would be adequate. Yet the rate is even lower in France, as only 17% of French respondents expect their pensions would offer adequate income support. This pattern in satisfaction does not align with available policy indicators on pensions: although French retirees have the highest net disposable income, the lowest risk of poverty and the most flexible early-retirement legislation, they are also the least satisfied with their pension benefits (Figure 2.4). While the opposite is true for the United Kingdom, Germany ranks in between the two in terms of satisfaction and most of the policy indicators.
Public and mandatory private spending on pensions, include early retirement pensions, is more than double the amount in France (5 100 USD per capita) compared to the United Kingdom (2 300 USD). Germany (4 300 USD) is situated in between (Panel A). Consequently, despite the role of the public pensions system being comparatively small in the United Kingdom, the satisfaction with government-provided pensions is higher in the United Kingdom than in Germany and France.
Income in old age (Panel B), measured as the median net disposable income of individuals older than 65 (for whom pensions are typically the most important source of income) as a share of median net income in the entire population, mirrors the pattern in spending on pensions (Panel A). While a French median retiree disposes of almost the same income as the median individual in the overall population (100%), a German median retiree disposes of 89% and the United Kingdom. median retiree of 81% of the median population-wide income.
The retirees’ risk of income poverty, defined as disposing of less than 50% of the national median income, aligns with the disposable income indicator across the three countries (Panel C). The risk of income poverty is lowest in France, where around 4% of individuals aged 66 or older are at risk of poverty. The same is true for 9% of retirees in Germany and 16% in the United Kingdom.
Additionally, French workers retire earlier than their German and the United Kingdom counterparts (Panel D). In 2022, the average effective labour market exit age was lowest in France (61.5), followed by the United Kingdom (63.0) and Germany (63.5). This is due to differences in both the current normal retirement age for persons who entered the labour market at the age of 22 (64.9 in France, 65.8 in Germany and 66 in the United Kingdom) and in the current early retirement schemes in place, which albeit modified by recent reforms, exist in France (starting from age 55) and Germany (starting from age 63.7) but not in the United Kingdom (OECD, 2023[2]).
High satisfaction with family support policies is mirrored in policy commitments in Germany
Figure 2.5. Germany and France show higher family support than the United Kingdom in most areas, yet French are least satisfied
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of family support if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of family support (e.g. childcare, parenting support services, etc.), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows per capita spending on in-kind and cash benefits for family support from public and mandatory private sources (reference year: 2019); Panel B shows the fraction of the population aged 15‑64 receiving family support in the form of in-kind or cash benefits from public and mandatory private sources (reference year: 2018); Panel C shows the number of full-rate equivalent weeks of paid leave available to mothers in the months after child birth (reference year: 2022); Panel D shows the fraction of children aged 0‑5 enrolled in early childhood education (reference year: 2020). The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), OECD Social Benefit Recipient Database (SOCR), OECD Family Database.
RTM asks respondents how satisfied they are with their household´s access to good-quality and affordable public services in the area of family support (defined in the questionnaire as “childcare, parenting support services, etc.”). In France, only 25% of respondents say they are satisfied with family support; in Germany, 31% are satisfied or highly satisfied; and in the United Kingdom, 33% are. In some areas, German satisfaction matches policy commitments compared to France (Figure 2.4): Germany tends to spend the most on cash benefits, reaches the highest number of beneficiaries and offers the most generous maternity leave. France, in contrast, spends more on childcare and preschool and has a higher share of young children enrolled. However, the high satisfaction in the United Kingdom is not related to these policy indicators, as France and Germany consistently rank higher than the United Kingdom when considering policy indicators.
Spending on family support policies from public and mandatory private sources is substantially higher in Germany and – to a lesser degree – in France than in the United Kingdom (Panel A). While the United Kingdom spends 1 060 USD per capita annually, this number is 10% higher in France (1 170 USD per capita) and 18% higher in Germany (1 250 USD per capita). These data include cash benefits and services such as family allowances, parental leave and early childhood education and care.
The number of beneficiaries of family support policies shows a similar pattern as spending in these countries, although these data only cover parental leave benefits (Panel B). The coverage rate is highest in Germany (3.4% of the working-age population, 15‑64 years), followed by France (2.8%) and the United Kingdom (0.9%).
The generosity of family cash benefits, such as child benefits, family allowances and family-related tax credits, depends on the family structure (Appendix figure). A two‑child family with two working parents, both earning the median income, receive more than twice the amount in cash benefits in Germany (9% of average full-time earnings, AW) than in France (4%) and the United Kingdom (4.5%). Two-child families with a single part-time working parent earning median income (of the full-time earnings distribution), receive substantially higher benefits in all countries, although the ranking among the three countries remains the same. While German single‑parent families receive almost 30% AW, the same family receives 18% AW in the United Kingdom and 13% AW in France. However, two‑parent families with a single earner at the 90th percentile of the income distribution receive 4% AW in cash benefits in France. This family type is not supported through cash benefits in Germany and the United Kingdom.
Paid leave for mothers, including paid maternity leave in the months around childbirth and home care leave, is more than twice as long in Germany (43 full-rate equivalent weeks), as in France (18 weeks) and the United Kingdom (11 weeks) (Panel C). Although more paid leave months are earmarked for fathers in France (8 full-rate equivalent weeks) than in Germany (6 weeks) and the United Kingdom (0.4 weeks), the share of parental leave taking fathers is higher in Germany, where 25% of paid parental leave recipients are male, than in France (4%) (OECD, 2022[3]). No data on paid paternal leave take‑up exist for the United Kingdom.
In terms of early childhood education and care (ECEC), France stands out as the country with both the highest spending per child (9 200 USD) and the highest enrollment rate of children (80%) under the age of six (Panel D and Appendix figure). Germany also spends a comparatively high amount on early childhood education (7 400 USD), yet shows a relatively low enrollment rate of 66%. The higher enrolment rate in France compared to Germany is likely explained by the fact that mandatory schooling starts when children are three years old in France, but only when they are six years old in Germany. Spending per child is lowest in the United Kingdom (3 600 USD), yet more children below the age of six are enrolled in the United Kingdom (73%) than in Germany. These spending and enrollment patterns translate into the lowest student-teacher-ratio, often used as a proxy for educational quality, in Germany (7 students per teacher), followed by France (23) and the United Kingdom (37), as set forth in regulations.
Patterns in satisfaction with education align with learning outcomes but are less related to schooling resources
Figure 2.6. Low student-to-teacher ratios might contribute to high satisfaction in Germany
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of education if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of education (e.g. schools, universities, professional/vocational training, adult education, etc.), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows spending on private and public education at all levels, from early childhood to tertiary education, from local, regional and national governments (reference year: 2019); Panels C and D show student-to-teacher ratios at primary and secondary schools, respectively; Panel D shows the average PISA test scores for 15‑years-old secondary school students in the subjects reading, mathematics and natural sciences (reference year: 2018). The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Statistics.
In RTM, respondents report their satisfaction with public services in education (e.g. schools, universities, professional/vocational training, adult education, etc.). Similar proportions of respondents are satisfied with educational services in Germany (47%) and the United Kingdom (49%), whereas satisfaction is substantially lower in France (33%). This cross-country pattern of satisfaction is reflected in student learning, measured by PISA test scores (Figure 2.6). Moreover, comparatively high satisfaction among Germans aligns with low student-to-teacher ratios and the highest level of public spending. However – apart from student learning – the French are less and the United Kingdom respondents more satisfied with education than one would expect based on available policy indicators.
Public spending on education varies significantly among the three countries (Panel A). While educational institutions in Germany receive 12 700 USD per full-time equivalent student from the government, this number is lower in France (10 900 USD) and in the United Kingdom (9 100 USD). These spending statistics include direct payments (excluding student loans, scholarships and other grants) from local, regional and the central government to both public and private institutions of all educational levels (i.e. from early childhood education to tertiary education).
In line with the average expenditure levels in the three countries the student-teacher ratio is highest in the United Kingdom at the pre‑tertiary education level (20 and 17 students per teacher at the primary and secondary level, respectively) (Panel B and Panel C). Germany shows the lowest student-teacher ratio in both primary (15) and secondary school (13), while France has a low student-teacher ratio in secondary school (13) and a relatively high one in primary school (19).
In terms of student learning at age 15, as measured by the average PISA test score in reading, mathematics and science, the United Kingdom (503 points across all subjects) and Germany (500 points), consistently rank before France (494 points) (Panel D). The difference in PISA test scores between France and the United Kingdom correspond to 26% of a standard deviation in the distribution of all 78 countries that participated in the test.
Adult learning opportunities align with satisfaction with employment services
Figure 2.7. Adult learning appears to be most widespread among workers in Germany
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of employment if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of employment (e.g. job search supports, skills training supports, self-employment supports, etc.), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows spending from public and mandatory private sources on active labour market policies (reference year: 2019); Panel B shows the fraction of 25‑64 year‑olds participating in formal or non-formal adult learning (years: 2016 for France and the United Kingdom and 2018 for Germany); Panel C shows the average annual hours that 25‑64 year‑olds devote to formal or non-formal adult learning (reference year: 2016); Panel D shows the fraction of companies providing adult training courses (reference year: 2015). The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), OECD Statistics.
RTM respondents state their satisfaction with public services in the area of employment (e.g. job search supports, skills training supports, self-employment supports, etc.). Satisfaction with employment services is higher in the United Kingdom (40%) and Germany (37%) than in France (31%). German and – to a lesser degree – United Kingdom satisfaction with employment services are reflected in the availability of adult learning opportunities (Figure 2.6). Furthermore, the chosen policy indicators on adult learning align with the French-German satisfaction gap in this area, while spending on active labour market policies does not.
Public and mandatory private spending on active labour market policies (ALMP), including training, employment and start-up incentives, is substantially higher in France and Germany, which both spend around 300 USD per capita annually, than in the United Kingdom (75 USD per capita) (Panel A). Consequently, spending on ALMP is negatively associated with the reported levels of satisfaction. Strikingly, although financial resources for ALMP in France and Germany are comparable, satisfaction with employment services are 7 percentage points lower in France than in Germany.
Among the three countries, adult learning is somewhat more prevalent in Germany, both along the extensive margin (participation rate) and the intensive (annual hours) margin (Panel B and Panel C). In Germany 56% of people aged 25‑64 participate in formal or non-formal adult training, while this share is lower in the United Kingdom (52%) and in France (51%). When it comes to the intensity of adult learning, German (124 hours annually) and the United Kingdom employees (121), on average, devote more time to formal and non-formal courses than French employees (106 hours). In contrast, the provision of adult training courses by companies is substantially more widespread in the United Kingdom (86%), than in France (79%) and Germany (77%) (Panel D).
Significant housing policy commitments align with high satisfaction in the United Kingdom, but not in France
Figure 2.8. Reflecting high housing costs in France and the United Kingdom, housing policy commitments in these countries are higher than in Germany
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of housing if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of housing (e.g. social housing, housing benefit, etc.), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows spending on housing support from public and mandatory private sources (reference year: 2019); Panel B shows the provision of social housing as a share of the overall housing stock (years: 2019 for Germany and the United Kingdom and 2018 for France); Panel C shows the fraction of low-income tenants (i.e. lowest income quintile) who are over-burdened by their housing costs, defined as paying more than 40% of their disposable income on housing (years: 2020 for France and the United Kingdom and 2019 for Germany); Panel D shows the fraction of low-income owners who are over-burdened by their housing costs (including mortgage payments). The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), OECD Affordable Housing Database.
In the area of housing, RTM asks respondents to indicate their satisfaction with public services such as social housing and housing benefits. German and French respondents report similar levels of satisfaction (24% and 28%, respectively), while United Kingdom respondents are more satisfied (36%). Although the high satisfaction in the United Kingdom might come as a surprise given the high housing cost in the United Kingdom, in particular for tenants, these patterns in satisfaction partly correspond with some of the available policy indicators (Figure 2.7). Satisfaction with housing policies in the United Kingdom may reflect relatively high benefit coverage and public spending, as well as the highest social housing stock among the three countries. Similarly, Germany, which shows the lowest level of satisfaction, offers the lowest level of social housing stock, spending and service recipients. France ranks in between Germany and the UnitedKingdom for most indicators, yet its satisfaction rates are even lower than the ones in Germany.
Public per capita spending on housing support, namely housing allowances and rent subsidies, is highest in the United Kingdom, with almost 500 USD compared to France and Germany, which spend around 300 and 250 USD respectively (Panel A). Average satisfaction with housing policies mirrors this trend, as the public in the United Kingdom shows considerably higher satisfaction (around 36%) compared to Germany (28%) and France (24%). Though spending on housing per capita is higher in the United Kingdom, comparable numbers of people receive housing benefits in France and the United Kingdom, suggesting lower generosity in France.
Housing tenure differs widely across France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The share of social rental dwellings (as percentage of total housing stock) is highest in the United Kingdom (16%), closely followed by France (15%) and Germany around (3%) (Panel B). While the share of households who own their properties outright in the United Kingdom and France is comparable (around 39%), Germany’s housing tenure distribution is characterised by a relatively low share of outright homeowners (26%) and a very large rental sector (47%) (OECD, 2023[4]).
The burden of housing costs on low-income households is most acute among tenants in the United Kingdom’s private rental sector, where over 50% of such households find themselves overburdened (Panel C). Subsidised rental dwellings in the United Kingdom also see a significant burden, affecting roughly 25% of low-income households. In France, 30% of households in private rentals and 9% in subsidised housing are overburdened by costs. Notably, among low-income homeowners, France, while recording the lowest overburden for tenants in subsidised rental dwellings, records the highest overburden rate for low-income owners (over 30% of owners are faced with overburden) (Panel D).
High health spending and resource density coincides with high satisfaction in Germany, while satisfaction with health is lower than policy indicators would suggest in France
Figure 2.9. France performs better than Germany on health outcomes, although spending and resource density tend to be lower
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of health if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of health (e.g. public medical care, subsidised health insurance, mental health support, etc.), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows spending on health services, including inpatient care, outpatient care, long-term care, preventative care and expenditure on medical goods, by all providers (e.g. hospitals, providers of ambulatory healthcare,…) from government and compulsory funding (reference year: 2019); Panel B shows the number of generalist physicians per 1’000 inhabitants (reference year:); Panel C shows the number of specialist physicians, e.g. paediatricians, obstetricians and gynaecologists, per 1’000 inhabitants. Panel D shows the number of avoidable deaths, such as deaths from lung cancer and breast cancer, per 100’000 inhabitants. The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Health Statistics.
RTM respondents report their satisfaction with public health services, such as public medical care, subsidised healthcare and mental health support, with which respondents in Germany (47%) and the United Kingdom (43%) are most satisfied. Only 34% of respondents declare the same in France. Some policy indicators align with this pattern while others do not (Figure 2.8). High satisfaction in Germany corresponds with the highest levels of spending and the highest specialist physician density. However, the United Kingdom shows similar levels of satisfaction, yet its spending on healthcare is relatively low and it also tends to offer a low density of healthcare resources. Similarly, the low satisfaction in France is not reflected in the low number of avoidable deaths and a high generalist physician density.
Health spending from government and compulsory schemes is highest in Germany, where 4 970 USD per capita are spent annually, followed by France (4 010 USD) and the United Kingdom (3 250 USD) (Panel A). Moreover, the financing schemes vary substantially between the three countries: while out-of-pocket payments are highest in Germany (790 USD per capita annually compared to 640 USD in the United Kingdom and 450 USD in France), the French pay the most in voluntary contributions (340 USD per capita annually compared to 210 USD and 160 USD in the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively).
Regarding the ease of access to health services and available capacities in the health sector, measured by the density of hospital beds as well as generalist and specialist physicians (Panel B and Panel C), the evidence on how the three countries perform is mixed. France has the highest generalist physician density (1.4 per 1 000 inhabitants) on average, followed by Germany (1) and the United Kingdom (0.8). Yet, when it comes to specialist physicians, Germany scores highest (3.4 specialists per 1 000 inhabitants), followed by the United Kingdom (2.2) and France (1.8). Strikingly, Germany has on average more than three times more hospital beds than the United Kingdom (7.9 compared to 2.5 beds per 1 000 inhabitants) and France is situated in between with 5.8 beds per 1 000 inhabitants. Moreover, satisfaction with public health services is also not related with the physician density at the provincial level in Germany and France (Annex Figure 2.B.1).
In spite of higher public spending and specialist density in Germany, France offers the lowest rates of avoidable mortality, which consists of deaths due to preventable causes (e.g. lung cancer) and treatable causes (e.g. breast and colorectal cancers) (Panel D). In France there are 160 avoidable deaths per 100 000 inhabitants per year. In Germany and the United Kingdom close to 200 such cases are observed annually.
Satisfaction with disability-related programmes aligns with coverage rates
Figure 2.10. Large gap in coverage and spending on disability-related services between Germany and France
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of disability-related needs if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of disability/incapacity-related needs (e.g. disability benefits and services, long-term care services for persons with disability, community living resources, etc.), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows spending on incapacity-related in-kind and cash benefits from public and mandatory private sources (reference year: 2019); Panel B shows the number recipients of incapacity-related in-kind and cash benefit as a fraction of the population aged 15‑64 (reference year: 2018). The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), OECD Social Benefit Recipient Database (SOCR).
RTM asks respondents about their satisfaction with public services in disability/incapacity-related needs, such as disability benefits and services, long-term care services for persons with disability or community living resources. In this area German and the United Kingdom respondents are more satisfied (28% and 30%, respectively) than their French counterparts (23%). Comparing France and Germany, this pattern in satisfaction aligns with the policy indicators in this area (Figure 2.10): German satisfaction coincides with a high coverage rate and spending, while France ranks low both on these policy measures and in terms of satisfaction. High satisfaction in the United Kingdom aligns with a high coverage rate, in spite of low levels of spending.
The United Kingdom and France spend similar amounts on incapacity-related benefits (580 USD and 730 USD per capita annually), while public spending in this area is more than twice as high in Germany (2030 USD) (Panel A). These statistics are based on spending from public and mandatory private sources and comprise both cash benefits, such as disability pensions and paid sick leave, as well as in-kind benefits, such as residential care and rehabilitation services.
The number of beneficiaries of incapacity-related benefits is twice as high in Germany (18% of the working age population, 16‑64) and in the United Kingdom (17%) as in France (7%) (Panel B). These figures do not include beneficiaries of in-kind benefits, such as residential care and rehabilitation services.
Similar levels of satisfaction with long-term care for elderly people despite substantial variation in policy measures
Figure 2.11. Cross-country differences in spending and resource availability are considerable
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of long-term care for elderly people if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of long-term care for older people (e.g. home, community-based and/or institutional care), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows spending on long-term care in old age from public and mandatory private sources (reference year: 2021); Panel B shows the number of beds in residential long-term care facilities per 1’000 people aged older than 65 (reference year: 2019); Panel C shows the number of long-term care workers as a share of total employment (years: 2021 for France and Germany and 2019 for the United Kingdom); Panel D shows the number of people who receive formal long-term care, i.e. care delivered by paid carers (residential and home‑based), among those with at least three daily living limitations (reference year: 2022). The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Health Database, (OECD, 2023[5]), “Health expenditure and financing: Health expenditure indicators”.
In the area of long-term care in old age (LTC), RTM respondents state their level of satisfaction with public services like home‑based, community-based or institutional care. Satisfaction is highest the United Kingdom (30%), followed by Germany (28%) and France (26%), however, the differences between the three countries are not statistically significant. Similarly, the cross-country differences in LTC services and benefits are not consistent across policy indicators (Figure 2.11). While Germany spends most on LTC and offers the highest resource density (LTC beds and workers), substantially more persons in need receive formal LTC in France compared to Germany (no data available for the United Kingdom).
Public and mandatory private spending on long-term care in old age (excluding pensions), including both in-kind and cash benefits, is substantially higher in the Germany (1 060 USD) than in France (750 USD) and the United Kingdom. (670 USD) (Panel A). The large difference between Germany – on one side – and France and the United Kingdom is mainly due to Germany spending significantly more on home‑based LTC (640 USD per capita) than the United Kingdom (270 USD per capita) and France (170 USD per capita) (OECD, 2023[5]).
Germany also offers the highest LTC bed density (54 beds per 1 000 people aged 65 and older), and the highest share of LTC workers (2.4% of total employment) (Panel B and Panel C). When comparing France and the United Kingdom the evidence is mixed: while France provides more LTC beds (49 beds per 1 000 people aged 65 and older) than the United Kingdom (43 beds), the opposite is true in terms of LTC workers (2.2% of total employment in the United Kingdom and 1.3% in France).
Despite lower spending and resource density in France than in Germany, more people who have difficulties with at least three activities of daily living (e.g. cooking, eating, dressing, managing finances,..) receive formal care (i.e. care delivered by a paid carer) in France (36%) compared to Germany (33%) (Panel D). In contrast, family care is more common in Germany (14%) than in France (7%) (Annex Figure 2.B.2). This mirrors the higher annual public spending on home‑based LTC in Germany (640 USD per capita) compared to France (170 USD per capita).
Satisfaction with public safety is to some degree aligned with crime rates
Figure 2.12. Crime is more prevalent in France than in Germany
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of crime if needed”, by policy indicators (see notes for details)
Note: OECD‑27 refers to the unweighted average of all 27 countries that participated in RTM 2022 and for which the policy indicators are available. The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of Public safety (e.g. policing), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”. The horizontal axes show area-specific policy indicators measured in the reference year (see below) in France, Germany and the United Kingdom or the latest available year before the reference year in other countries: Panel A shows the number of vehicle thefts by 10 000 inhabitants (reference year: 2016); Panel B shows the number of intentional homicides per 100 000 inhabitants (reference year: 2018). The dashed line represents the linear trend for France, Germany and the United Kingdom. USD refers to 2015 purchasing-power-equivalent USD.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Statistics.
RTM respondents are asked to report their levels of satisfaction with public safety (e.g. policing). In this area Germany and the United Kingdom show substantially higher levels of satisfaction (50% and 45%, respectively) than France (30%).
Satisfaction with public safety is to some degree in line with observed measures of crime, especially in the case of vehicle thefts (Figure 2.12) Germany, where 50% of respondents are satisfied with public safety, shows the lowest number for both vehicle thefts (72.8 per 100 000 inhabitants) and homicides (0.8 per 10 000 inhabitants) (Panel A and Panel B). Instead in France, where only 30% are satisfied with public safety, both the vehicle theft rate (250) and the homicide rate (1.1) are substantially higher. In the United Kingdom the vehicle theft rate (156) and the homicide rate (1.1) are both higher than in Germany while less respondents (45%) are satisfied with public safety.
Can long-run trends in the policy environment explain the high dissatisfaction with social protection in France?
Could a stagnating or even shrinking social protection system over the past decades explain the comparatively high dissatisfaction among respondents despite the high level of social policy commitment? This could be expected if respondents take the provision of social protection in their country in the past, rather than the social protection system in other countries, as reference point when stating their level of satisfaction. To provide evidence on this question, this section compares the evolution of the social protection system over the past decades. Since the data on satisfaction with the social protection is unavailable before 2018 in RTM, only the evolution of available policy indicators is analysed.
The available policy indicators do not show strong evidence of a declining welfare state. Since the 1990s real per-capita spending on social services and benefits increased or stayed constant in almost all areas in France and Germany (Figure 2.13). However, in some policy areas, real spending has stagnated in France in the past decade (or longer), while it increased substantially in Germany over the same time period (e.g. family support and incapacity-related benefits). Looking at available policy indicators in selected areas over the past decade, there is little evidence of a systematically receding social protection system in France or Germany (Figure 2.14; Figure 2.16).
Figure 2.13. Per-capita spending on social protection increased in many policy areas since the 1990s
Per-capita spending on social protection from 1990 to the latest available year (measured in 2015 USD PPP), by policy area and country
Note: The figures above show the evolution of per-capita spending in France, Germany and the United Kingdom for different policy areas during the period from 1990 to the latest available year (mostly 2019 or 2020). Spending from public and mandatory private sources is included and measured in 2015 USD PPP.
Source: OECD Social Expenditure Database (SocX).
In absolute levels, average per-capita spending on social services and benefits over the past decade was higher in France than in Germany in three out of five policy areas, namely family support (1 200 EUR in France and 1 100 EUR in Germany), housing (320 EUR in France and 270 EUR in Germany), and pensions (4 900 EUR in France and 4 000 EUR in Germany) (Figure 2.13). No policy area in either France or Germany experienced a reduction in spending per capita, neither over the long term nor in recent years. Instead, many areas in France and Germany saw an increase in per-capita spending since the 1990s, namely family support, health, and pensions, while this is also true for incapacity-related benefits in the case of Germany.
However, per-capita spending stagnated in multiple policy areas for the past decade (or longer), particular in France. In the areas of housing, long term care for the elderly, incapacity-related needs, per-capita spending is at roughly the same level in 2019 as in 1990 and at the same level as in 2000 in the case of family support. In contrast, in Germany spending on family support and incapacity-related benefits has increased significantly over the past decade. These patterns are indicative of a more stagnant policy commitment (measured in terms of per-capita spending) in France than in Germany. Thus could be an intuitive contributing factor to the widespread dissatisfaction with social protection in France but is unlikely to explain the large cross-country differences entirely, as – in many policy areas – spending evolved similarly in both France and Germany.
Considering the evolution of policy area-specific indicators, Figure 2.14 demonstrates that between 2015 and 2022, the average effective labour market exit age experienced the most significant increase in France, rising from 59.2 to 61.5 years, followed by Germany with an increase from 61.8 to 63.5 years. In contrast, the United Kingdom’s average effective exit age remained relatively stable, increasing only slightly from 62.4 to 63 years. The income and poverty rates in old age stayed largely stable between 2014 and 2018 in all three countries. Due to data limitations the evolution of these indicators in earlier years cannot be analysed.
Figure 2.14. Pension entitlements have stayed stable over time, but the French retire later on average
Evolution of policy indicators in the area of pensions (see notes for details), by country
Note: The figures above show the evolution of different policy indicators in the area of pensions for the period in which data are available. Panel A reports older peoples’ (older than 65 years) median disposable income from all sources as a fraction of median disposable income of the entire (reference year: 2018); Panel B shows the incidence of poverty among the people aged older than 65, defined as disposing of less than 50% of the median income (reference year: 2020). Panel C shows the average effective labour market exit age between 2015 and 2022 (average between men and women).
Source: OECD Pensions at a Glance 2021, 2023.
In the area of family benefits, the length of paid parental leave in 2018 compared to 1970 increased for both mothers and fathers in all three countries. Interestingly, the length of paid parental leave for mothers in Germany decreased from 109 to 58 weeks since 1995, due to a paid parental leave reform in 2007 (Elterngeld), which reduced the maximum length of paid parental leave for mothers but increased the benefit amount (Figure 2.15). Over the same period, the duration of paid parental leave for French mothers increased from 16 to 42 weeks. The childcare enrolment rate for children up to two years of age increased since the mid‑2000s in both France and Germany, yet this trend slowed down in more recent years (although data are missing for some years in Germany).
Figure 2.15. Large variation in the evolution of parental leave in Germany, while childcare enrolment changed little over the last 15 years
Evolution of policy indicators in the area of family support (see notes for details), by country
Note: The figures above show the evolution of different policy indicators in the area of family support for the period in which data are available. Panel A shows the duration (in weeks) of paid leave available to mothers; Panel B shows the duration (in weeks) of paid leave available to fathers. Panel C shows the fraction of children aged 0‑2 enrolled in early childhood education.
Source: OECD Family Database.
Housing costs at the national level, measured as the share of housing cost in final consumption, have slightly increased in France – from 23% in 1995 to 26% in 2018 (Figure 2.16). This increase in stronger in France than in Germany. The fraction of homeowners spending more than 40% of their disposable income on housing costs (i.e. the homeowner overburden rate) has increased since 2018 and 2020, with a particularly strong increase from 3 to about 5% in France. Similarly, the overburden rate for tenants renting in the private market slightly increased in France from 8 to 9% and especially in the United Kingdom (from 18 to 23%) while it stayed roughly constant in Germany. There is little change in the social housing stock over the past decade, which slightly increased in France and decreased in Germany and the United Kingdom.
Figure 2.16. Housing indicators stayed roughly constant over the past decade at the national level
Evolution of policy indicators in the area of housing support (see notes for details), by country
Note: The figures above show the evolution of different policy indicators in the area of housing support for the period in which data are available. Panel A shows the evolution of household expenditure on housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels as a share of total household consumption expenditure. Panel B shows the fraction of owners with a mortgage who are over-burdened by their housing costs, defined as paying more than 40% of their disposable income on principal repayment and interest payments. Panel C shows the fraction of tenants who rent at market rate and are over-burdened by their housing costs, defined as paying more than 40% of their disposable income on rent; Panel D shows the provision of social housing as a share of the overall housing stock.
Source: OECD Affordable Housing Database.
References
[5] OECD (2023), “Health expenditure and financing: Health expenditure indicators”, OECD Health Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00349-en (accessed on 18 September 2023).
[4] OECD (2023), OECD Affordable Housing Database, https://www.oecd.org/housing/data/affordable-housing-database/.
[2] OECD (2023), Pensions at a Glance 2023: OECD and G20 Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/678055dd-en.
[3] OECD (2022), OECD Family Database: PF2.2 Use of childbirth-related leave benefits.
[1] OECD (2021), Pensions at a Glance 2021: OECD and G20 Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca401ebd-en.
Annex 2.A. Tables
Annex Table 2.A.1. Respondents in France, Germany and the United Kingdom are similarly worried in most areas
Note: Respondents were asked: “Thinking about the next year or two, how concerned are you about each of the following? Becoming ill or disabled/Losing a job or self-employment income/Not being able to find/maintain adequate housing/Not being able to pay all expenses and make ends meet/Not being able to access good-quality childcare or education for your children (or young members of your family)/Not being able to access good-quality long-term care for elderly family members/Not being able to access good-quality long-term care for young or working-age family members with an illness or disability/Being the victim of crime or violence/Having to give up my job to care for children, elderly relatives, or relatives with illness or disability/Accessing good-quality healthcare”. Respondents could choose between: “Not at all concerned”; “Not so concerned”; “Somewhat concerned”; “Very concerned”; “Can’t choose”. The first three columns report the share of respondents who report “somewhat concerned” or “very concerned”. Columns 4, 6 and 8 show the mean difference between country pairs and columns 5, 7, 9 report the p-values of the corresponding proportion tests. Standard errors are clustered at the regional level (provinces).
Source: OECD Risks that Matter Survey 2022.
Annex Table 2.A.2. The French are less satisfied with pensions than German and the United Kingdom respondents
Note: Respondents were asked: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: “I think that the government does/would provide my household and me with adequate income support in the case of income loss due to”: Unemployment/Illness/disability/Having a child/having more children/Leaving work to care for elderly family members or family members with disabilities/Retirement/Death of spouse or partner”. Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. The first three columns report the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree”. Columns 4, 6 and 8 show the mean difference between country pairs and columns 5, 7, 9 report the p-values of the corresponding proportion tests. Standard errors are clustered at the regional level (provinces).
Source: OECD Risks that Matter Survey 2022.
Annex Table 2.A.3. French respondents are less satisfied with social protection services than those in Germany and the United Kingdom
Note: Respondents were asked: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of […], if needed.” Family support (e.g. childcare, parenting support services, etc.)/Education (e.g. schools, universities, professional/vocational training, adult education, etc.)/Employment (e.g. job search supports, skills training supports, self-employment supports, etc.)/Housing (e.g. social housing, housing benefit, etc.)/Health (e.g. public medical care, subsidised health insurance, mental health support, etc.)/Disability/incapacity-related needs (e.g. disability benefits and services, long-term care services for persons with disability, community living resources, etc.)/Long-term care for older people (e.g. home, community-based and/or institutional care)/Public safety (e.g. policing)/Public transportation”. Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. The first three columns report the share of respondents who report “Agree” or “Strongly agree”. Columns 4, 6 and 8 show the mean difference between country pairs and columns 5, 7, 9 report the p-values of the corresponding proportion tests. Standard errors are clustered at the regional level (provinces).
Source: OECD Risks that Matter Survey 2022.
Annex 2.B. Figures
Annex Figure 2.B.1. Satisfaction with health services aligns with regional physician density across, but not within, countries
Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of health if needed”, by regional physician density
Note: The vertical axis in all panels corresponds to the question: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘I think that my household and I have/would have access to good quality and affordable public services in the area of health (e.g. public medical care, subsidised health insurance, mental health support, etc.), if needed.’” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; “Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data present the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree” at the provincial level in France (blue) and Germany (red). The horizontal axis shows the physician density at the provincial level in France and Germany. The line represents the linear trend for French and German provinces.
Source: RTM 2022, OECD Regional Statistics.
Annex Figure 2.B.2. More people with limitations receive formal care in France and family care in Germany
Share of the population 65+ with at least three ADL or IADL limitations, by type of care received
Note: Family care is received from family and friends; formal care is delivered by paid carers.
Source: (OECD, 2021[1]), OECD Pensions at a Glance 2021.
Note
← 1. Concerns about accessing good-quality healthcare also show substantial variation by age, with 68% of respondents aged 50‑64, 65% of respondents aged 30‑49 and 59% of 18‑29 year‑olds worrying about this risk category.