Content or Discontent? Perceptions of Social Protection in France, Germany and the United Kingdom

Report

12 July 2024

3. System-wide and welfare state‑independent factors influencing public satisfaction with social protection

Laurenz Baertsch

Valerie Frey

Abstract

This chapter compares satisfaction with social protection with different aspects of the system in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Net contributions are aligned with differences in perceptions of public services for different household types within countries, though they do not explain differences in perceptions across countries. Frictions in application processes for social programmes, as well as the associated time costs in accessing services or benefits, have little relationship with the observed differences in satisfaction. This chapter suggests that country-specific, systematic differences in reporting satisfaction with social protection systems seem to exist independent of welfare state design and functioning. Compared to respondents in other OECD countries, French respondents systematically report lower satisfaction levels than one would expect based on policy indicators and macroeconomic and individual characteristics. A factor explaining cross-country satisfaction differences may be cultural factors and expectations independent of welfare state design.

Introduction

The shape and size of social programme benefits and services only weakly correspond with satisfaction with social protection in France, Germany and the United Kingdom (Chapter 2). What else, then, explains different perceptions of social protection? This chapter analyses the role that system-wide institutional factors and variables independent of the welfare state play in determining public satisfaction.

To analyse the role of institutional characteristics, this chapter analyses different aspects of the social security system. Using the OECD Tax-Benefit calculator, we find that net contributions (i.e. contributions minus benefits) are aligned with differences in perceptions of public services for different household types within countries. However, they do not explain differences in perceptions across countries.

Furthermore, frictions in application processes for social programmes, as well as the associated time costs in accessing services or benefits, do not seem to explain the observed differences in satisfaction with public social services between France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Lastly, this chapter shows that country-specific, systematic differences in reporting satisfaction with social protection systems seem to exist independent of welfare state design and functioning. Compared to respondents in other OECD RTM countries, French respondents systematically report lower satisfaction levels than one would expect based on area-specific policy indicators and macroeconomic and individual characteristics, while German and UK respondents’ reported satisfaction is close to what would be expected. Building on the literature explaining differences in reporting life satisfaction, this chapter suggests that a significant factor in cross-country satisfaction differences is due to cultural factors and expectations independent of welfare state design.

Institutional explanations do not align with differences in satisfaction across France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

System-wide institutional characteristics of social protection systems, such as the funding scheme or how time‑efficiently it operates, might affect the citizens’ overall satisfaction with the social protection system. This section analyses whether proxies of these characteristics, namely net social contributions (OECD Tax-Benefit calculator) and the time tax in administrative procedures, are related to the observed patterns in satisfaction between France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Net social security contributions explain differences in perceptions within, but not across, countries

How much individuals receive in social benefits and contribute via income taxes and social contributions likely affects their perceptions of social services. This section analyses this relationship using data from the OECD Tax-Benefit calculator for different household types (couple with children, single parent, couple without children, single without children). The analysis finds some support for an association between net contributions (i.e. contributions minus benefits) and perceptions of public social services for different household types within countries: household types with lower net contributions are more likely to say that they receive a fair share in public benefits given their contributions and are somewhat more satisfied with public social services than those with higher net contributions. The analysis does not find such an association comparing each family type separately across countries.

For this analysis, four household types are considered: single parent households with one child, two parent households with two children, singles without children, and couples without children. RTM identifies parents if their child is under 18 and lives in the same household. The assumed working hours and hourly wage for each family type are reported in. Table 3.1.The OECD Tax-Benefit model then provides data on the contributions and social benefits for each household type. Figure 3.2 shows the net contribution, i.e. contributions minus benefits, that the household types receive in each country.

Household type	partner	# children	hourly wage (% average)	working hours
Single parent	single	1	100%	75%
2 parents	couple	2	200% (100/100)	100/50
Single w/o children	single	0	100%	100
Couple w/o children	couple	0	200% (100/100)	100/100

Note: The table presents the four household types considered in the Tax-Benefit analysis. The number of children for single parent and two parent households corresponds to the mode of these household types in RTM 2022. Hourly wages are set to the national average to match the nationally representative sample of RTM 2022. The fact that parents tend to offer lower labour supply motivates the choice of the working hours.

Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 3.1. Households with children perceive the social protection system as fairer than those without

Proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay and/or have paid in the past”, 2022, by household type.

Perceptions of the social protection system differ across the four household types (Figure 3.2). Households with children, i.e. single parents and two-parent households, tend to be more likely to believe that they receive a fair share of public services given their current and past contributions (Panel A) and to be more satisfied with public services across areas (Panel B) than single and couple households without children. This pattern looks slightly different in France, where the difference between two parent households and single households is statistically insignificant.

Figure 3.2. Net contributions are highest in Germany, followed by France and the United Kingdom

Net contributions, i.e. social security contributions and personal income taxes net of received social benefits, as fraction of gross income, 2022, by household type.

Almost all the chosen family types have positive net contributions (Figure 3.2, Annex Table 3.A.1), meaning that they contribute more to the financing of the social protection system via social contributions and income taxes than they receive in social benefits. This is because social protection systems are designed such that only low-income households are net recipients. In contrast, the parameters chosen in this analysis result in household types that have income around the average household, mirroring the nationally representative RTM data. An exception are single parent households in the United Kingdom, which see their disposable income increased by 3% of gross earnings through social benefits. This is mainly because this household type qualifies for social assistance and housing benefits in the United Kingdom but not in France or Germany (Annex Table 3.A.2, Annex Figure 3.B.1)

Households with children have substantially lower net contributions (8% for single parents and 22% for two parent households on average across countries) than those without (30% for both single and couple households). There are two reasons for this: first, the social protection systems provide households with children with specific cash benefits, such as the General Family Benefit (Allocations Familiales in France or Kindergeld in Germany). Second, reflecting the lower labour supply among parents compared to individuals without children, households with children are assumed to have lower income than those without in this analysis, which results in lower social security contributions and income tax payments.

All household types face the highest net contributions in Germany, ranging from 20% of gross income for single parent households to 38% for singles and couples without children, followed by France (from 7% to 28%) and the United Kingdom (‑3% to 25%). This gap is particularly large in the case of single parent households, which face a net contribution of 20% of their gross income in Germany, of 7% in France and are net benefit recipients of 3% in the United Kingdom. These gaps are explained by a 10% in-work benefit in France and 8% housing benefit and 7% social assistance programmes in the United Kingdom, to which single parent families are not entitled in Germany. Additionally, income tax payments and social security contributions for single parents are higher in Germany (19%) than in the United Kingdom (16%).

Comparing the different household types across France, Germany and the United Kingdom, Figure 3.3 shows that differences in net contribution rates are not related to perceptions regarding the fairness of a country´s social security system. More precisely, respondents of a given household type that face higher net contributions in their country, are not less likely to state that they receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions they pay. For example, although net contributions for single parents amount to 19% in Germany, 33% of them believe that the system is fair – just like British single parents, who are net recipients (3% of gross income).

Figure 3.3. Across countries, net contribution rates are not related with fairness perceptions

Proportion of respondents who agree or disagree with the statement “I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay and/or have paid in the past”, 2022, by net contribution as a share of gross income.

However, when comparing different household types within countries, a negative relation between net contributions and fairness perceptions appears in the three countries of interest. In particular, household types that pay low net contributions, such as single parents, perceive the social protection system as fairer than those with higher net contributions, such as single and couple households without children. For example, in France single parents have a net contribution of 7% and 24% think that they receive a fair share. Higher net contributions among singles and couples without parents (28%) coincide with a lower share of these groups thinking they receive a fair share (20% for singles and 13% for couples). This relationship is of similar strength in the three countries of interest.

Figure 3.4. Within countries, household types facing lower net contributions also perceive the social protection system as fairer

Proportion of respondents who agree or disagree with the statement “I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay and/or have paid in the past”, 2022, by net contribution as a share of gross income.

Annex Figure 3.B.2 shows that, within countries, a negative relationship also exists between net contributions and satisfaction with public services averaged across all areas. However, the relationship is less clear than in the case of fairness perceptions (Figure 3.4), as some of the household types are located further away from the fitted line, such as two parents households in Germany.

This analysis provides suggestive evidence of net contributions influencing (fairness) perceptions of social protection systems within countries. However, the analysis cannot rule out the possibility that other factors, such as higher exposure to the social protection system or a more public service‑friendly attitude among parents than among respondents without children, might partially explain the negative relationship.

Frictions in administrative processes are not related to differences in satisfaction across countries

Frictions in administrative procedures for obtaining public social services and benefits have been identified as a potential source of dissatisfaction (Sunstein, 2020[1]). This section provides evidence on frictions at different stages of the application process, including perceived eligibility for benefits, perceived fairness of the application process for services/benefits, knowledge required to apply, difficulty of applying, and time costs for various administrative procedures using RTM survey data.

This analysis shows that frictions in administrative procedures or the associated time cost do not seem to explain the observed differences in satisfaction with public services between France, Germany and the United Kingdom. While the French are less satisfied with public services, respondents in all three countries generally assess frictions in the administrative procedures relatively similarly (Figure 3.5)

Figure 3.5. Respondents in all three countries hold similar beliefs about most stages of the application process for social benefits

Differences in beliefs about one’s own eligibility for social benefits stand out as the main difference between France, Germany and the United Kingdom when it comes to perceptions of administrative procedures. French respondents are substantially more skeptical in this area, as only 24% of respondents in France but 42% in Germany believe that they would qualify. Simultaneously, the French have the highest confidence in their knowledge of the application procedure, although the cross-country gap is smaller in this area (49% in France, 47% in Germany and 42% in the United Kingdom). Nevertheless, the French respondents’ high confidence in their knowledge about application procedures seems to be at odds with their skeptical attitude towards their eligibility status as the social protection coverage is relatively similar in Germany and France (Chapter 2).

Perceptions at other stages of the application process are not statistically different in the three countries. On average across countries 26% of respondents state that they could easily receive social benefits if needed, 21% report that they expect the application process to be simple and quick, and 35% think that they would be treated fairly by the government office.

Another type of administrative friction that likely matters for the citizens’ satisfaction with public services is the time spent on administrative procedures, often referred to as the time tax. For the same level of public service provision, more time‑intensive administrative procedures are likely to lead to lower satisfaction among respondents. This section shows how much time respondents report having spent on different administrative tasks in the past 12 months in France, Germany and the United Kingdom (Figure 3.6, Annex Table 3.A.5).

Figure 3.6. The time tax tends to be lower in France than in Germany and the United Kingdom

Average hours that respondents spend on selected administrative tasks (see notes for details) annually, 2022

Self-reported time spent on administrative procedures in France, Germany and the United Kingdom does not match the observed patterns in satisfaction with public services in these countries. German respondents tend to report the highest and French respondents the lowest number of hours spent on administrative procedures each year, particularly in the areas of organising healthcare and taxes, yet Germans are more satisfied with public services than the French (Chapter 2). This time use pattern is consistent across categories that match specific policy areas, such as healthcare or education, and those that refer to more general administrative procedures, such as applying for government benefits (excluding healthcare) or filing taxes.

When considering any type of government benefit (excluding healthcare), Germans (5.4 hours) devote a statistically insignificant 1.2 hours more each year to applications than the French (4.2 hours) and 0.9 hours more than respondents in the United Kingdom (4.5 hours). These statistics are approximately in line with the cross-country OECD average of 5.1 hours per year.

In the area of education, the differences in time spent on administrative procedures are relatively small. There is no statistically significant difference in terms of time spent on applying and enrolling their children in school between respondents in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, who spend an average of 3.3 hours on this task. Germans spend 1.1 hours more on applying and enrolling their children in day care than the French (2.5 hours), while the difference between respondents in the United Kingdom (3.3 hours) and the remaining two countries is not statistically significant.

Respondents in Germany (7.3 hours) and in the United Kingdom (7.2) devote significantly more time each year to organising their healthcare than their French counterparts (4.7 hours). This pattern does not align with the observed perceptions of the healthcare system, as Germans show the highest level of satisfaction in this area.

Germans also spend more time on filing taxes, confirming the overall pattern of the Germans bearing the highest time tax, followed by respondents in the United Kingdom and in France. With 4.3 hours annually devoted to filing taxes, the French spend 1 hour less than respondents in the United Kingdom (5.3 hours) and 2.5 hours less than Germans (6.8 hours).

Country-specific differences in reported satisfaction independent of welfare state design

In light of the evidence presented in this report, it seems very likely that factors other than welfare state shape, size and service delivery affect respondents’ satisfaction with social protection. Indeed, respondents in different countries have been known to report different levels of satisfaction even when facing a similar policy environment. For example, differences in institutional, macroeconomic or individual characteristics do not fully explain differences in life satisfaction or happiness across countries (Deaton, 2008[2]; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008[3]). Consequently, some countries show higher and some show lower levels of satisfaction than one would expect based on these characteristics.

Relating life satisfaction with GDP, for example, Inglehart et al., 2008 show that respondents in France and Germany report lower-than-expected levels of satisfaction, whereas the opposite is true for the United Kingdom. This phenomenon could also partly explain the observed misalignment between the respondents’ reported satisfaction with social protection and the observed policy indicators in France, Germany and the United Kingdom (Chapter 2).

Indeed, our analysis – similar to Inglehart et al., 2008 but using social protection preferences as outcomes – shows that French RTM respondents report substantially lower levels of satisfaction with social protection than what could be expected based on social policy indicators, macroeconomic variables (GDP per capita and a measure of inequality) and individual-level characteristics compared to German and UK respondents (Figure 3.7). Relative to the average level of satisfaction, the French report a 18% lower-than-expected satisfaction with social protection (averaged across all policy areas). In contrast, satisfaction with social protection in Germany and the United Kingdom are close to the expected level. The estimate for Germany differs from the one in Inglehart et al., 2008 which might partially be because the latter considers life satisfaction, while this analysis considers satisfaction with social protection, as outcome variable.

Box 3.1. Estimation of the gap between expected and observed levels of satisfaction with social protection

Following the literature investigating the differences in reported levels of life satisfaction and happiness (cite), this section estimates the gap between expected and observed levels of satisfaction with social protection for each country. This gap is first estimated for each area of social protection separately, and then aggregated to over policy areas to obtain one estimate per country.

To obtain the expected level of satisfaction with social protection for all RTM countries, this approach estimates one linear regression model per policy area using the reported satisfaction level from RTM 2022 (i.e. a dummy variable for being satisfied) as outcome variable and individual characteristics (e.g. gender, age, income,…), macroeconomic variables (GDP per capita and the GINI coefficient) and, most importantly, area-specific policy indicators (in most policy areas identical to the ones presented in Chapter 2) as explanatory variables. These models take the following form:

$y_{i, a, c} = α + β_{1} {i n d i v i d u a l}_{i} + β_{2} {m a c r o e c o n o m i c}_{c} + β_{3} {p o l i c y i n d i c a t o r s}_{a, c} + ε_{i, a, c}$ (1).

The estimated, area-specific models are then used to predict the expected level of satisfaction for each individual (2). In the next step, both the expected and the observed levels of satisfaction are aggregated to the country-policy area level (3). The gap is defined as the difference between expected and observed levels of satisfaction (i.e. the regressions’ residual) relative to the average level of satisfaction in a given policy area (4). Thus, positive values indicate higher-than-expected and negative values indicate lower-than-expected levels of satisfaction.

${\hat{y}}_{i, a, c} = α + \hat{β_{1}} {i n d i v i d u a l}_{i} + \hat{β_{2}} {m a c r o e c o n o m i c}_{c} + \hat{β_{3}} {p o l i c y i n d i c a t o r s}_{a, c}$ (2).

$y_{a, c} = \sum_{i} y_{i, a, c} {\hat{y}}_{a, c} = \sum_{i} {\hat{y}}_{i, a, c}$ (3).

${g a p}_{a, c} = y_{a, c} - {\hat{y}}_{a, c}$ (4).

To obtain satisfaction gap at the country-level, these estimates are averaged over all policy areas:

${g a p}_{c} = \sum_{a} {g a p}_{a, c}$ (5).

Only areas with sufficient high-quality policy indicators are used in this procedure, namely pensions, family, education, employment, housing and health.

The reliability of this method strongly depends on the quality of the underlying policy indicators in each area. If important aspects of a country’s social protection system are not captured by these indicators, for example a stronger reliance on a private rather than public provision of social services in some countries than in others, this can lead to inaccurate estimations of the gap in expected and reported levels of satisfaction. Importantly, due to the varying quality of policy indicators across poliy areas, the estimates can be more reliable in one area than in another. Nevertheless, this analysis illustrates systematic differences in the reporting of satisfaction with social protection across countries.

Note: The subscripts i, a and c refer to individual, policy area and country, respectively.

In all policy areas, France reports both lower satisfaction with social protection than one would expect based on policy indicators, and also a larger gap between expected and actual satisfaction levels compared to Germany and the United Kingdom (Annex Figure 3.B.3). In the case of France this negative gap between observed and expected satisfaction is particularly large in family support, education and pensions.

In contrast, in Germany and the United Kingdom., both the sign of the gap (i.e. whether the reported satisfaction is higher or lower than expected) and the relative ranking between the two countries, depends on the policy area. Germans are more optimistic than UK respondents in employment and health. In the area of health they are even more satisfied than expected. UK respondents are more optimistic than Germans in family support and education while there is no difference between the two countries in housing and pensions. As a result, German and British respondents rank very similarly on average across all policy areas (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7. The French report satisfaction with social protection well below the level that would be expected based on policy indicators

Average difference between predicted and observed satisfaction with social protection as a share of average satisfaction (averaged across policy areas), 2022

The reporting of low levels of satisfaction compared to similar countries seems to be particularly pronounced in France. In fact, the term “French Dissatisfaction Puzzle” has been introduced to describe the lower-than-expected levels of satisfaction in France observed in the context of life satisfaction (Senik, 2014[4]). Senik (2014[4]) shows that – both in France and abroad – French people are more unhappy than other Europeans living in a given country. Also, European immigrants in France are not less happy than they are in other comparable European countries. She attributes these gaps in happiness between the French and other Europeans to cultural differences, supported by the fact that the initially higher levels of happiness among European immigrants in France fall over generations.

Additionally, research suggests that the French might respond more positively when asked about their personal life than when asked about the state and future direction of their country (Perona and Senik, 2022[5]). For example, the majority of respondents thinks that the quality of life in France will deteriorate, yet a majority also believes that their personal finances will stay unchanged. Additionally, out of a sample of 50 surveyed countries, the French report the highest perceived national income inequality but are also among the most optimistic respondents in terms of their own social income mobility. This discrepancy in satisfaction levels between private and public affairs, might contribute to the misalignment between observed satisfaction with public services and policy indicators in this study. It could also be indicative for why the French assess their personal short-term risks, such as not being able to access good-quality childcare or education for their children, similarly compared to German and UK respondents, but are systematically less satisfied when it comes to social protection services (e.g. in education) provided by the government (Chapter 2).

References

[2] Deaton, A. (2008), “Income, Health, and Well-Being around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 22/2, pp. 53-72, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.53.

[5] Perona, M. and C. Senik (2022), Observatoire du Bien-être du Cepremap, Rapport 2022, https://www.cepremap.fr/publications/le-bien-etre-en-%C9nce-rapport-2022/.

[4] Senik, C. (2014), “The French unhappiness puzzle: The cultural dimension of happiness”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 106, pp. 379-401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.05.010.

[3] Stevenson, B. and J. Wolfers (2008), “Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 2008/1, https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.0.0001.

[1] Sunstein, C. (2020), “Sludge Audits”, Behavioural Public Policy, Vol. 6/4, pp. 654-673, https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.32.

Annex 3.A. Tables

Country	Single parent	Two parents	Single	Couple	Average
DEU	33.0	30.8	24.9	21.2	27.5
FRA	24.1	20.9	19.7	13.1	19.5
GBR	32.5	31.8	22.3	23.5	27.5
Average	29.9	27.8	22.3	19.3	24.8

Note: respondents were asked: “Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement: “I feel that I receive a fair share of public benefits, given the taxes and social contributions I pay and/or have paid in the past.” Respondents could choose between: “Strongly disagree”; “Disagree”; “Neither agree nor disagree”; Agree”; “Strongly agree”; “Can’t choose”. Data represent the share of respondents who report “strongly agree” or “agree”.

Source: RTM 2022.

Country	Single parent	Two parents	Single	Couple	Average
DEU	19.56798	27.7534	37.77936	37.77924	30.72
FRA	6.98276	19.66102	27.65477	27.65452	20.48827
GBR	-2.97755	18.9067	24.62009	24.62001	16.29231
Average	7.857731	22.10704	30.01807	30.01792	22.50019

Note: Net contributions are defined as the sum of social security contributions and personal income taxes net of social benefits received. Social benefits are composed of social assistance programmes, housing benefits, family benefits are in-work benefits. All numbers are shown as a share of a country’s average wage.

Source: OECD Tax-Benefit Model.

Panel A: Germany
Household type	social assistance	housing	family	in-work	income tax	social security contributions
single parent	0	0	4.774623	0	‑4.4694	‑14.9812
2 parents	0	0	9.549245	0	‑21.2169	‑29.9624
single	0	0	0	0	‑17.4543	‑20.325
couple	0	0	0	0	‑34.9085	‑40.6499

Panel B: France
Household type	social assistance	housing benefit	family benefit	in-work benefit	income tax	social security contributions
single parent	0	0	0.101107	10.29225	‑7.14781	‑8.48267
2 parents	0	0	3.834617	0	‑16.2328	‑17.0936
single	0	0	0	0	‑16.2164	‑11.4386
couple	0	0	0	0	‑32.4326	‑22.877

Panel C: United Kingdom
Household type	social assistance	housing benefit	family benefit	in-work benefit	income tax	social security contributions
single parent	7.499774266	7.913318284	2.558916	0	‑8.75643	‑6.98239
2 parents	0	0	4.255079	0	‑18.6503	‑13.965
single	0	0	0	0	‑14.3253	‑10.295
couple	0	0	0	0	‑28.6503	‑20.5901

Note: The table shows social benefits (namely social assistance, family benefits, housing benefits, in-work benefits) and contributions (namely social security contributions and personal income tax for the four household types analysed in this section. All numbers are displayed as a share of a country’s average wage.

Source: OECD Tax-Benefit Model.

	FRA	DEU	GBR	FRA–DEU		FRA–GBR		DEU–GBR
Category	mean (%)	mean (%)	mean (%)	mean (p.p.)	p-value	mean (p.p.)	p-value	mean (p.p.)	p-value
Could easily receive if needed	23.7	26.7	26.8	‑3.0	0.200	‑3.1	0.368	‑0.1	0.976
Would qualify	24.0	41.7	29.3	‑17.7	0.000	‑5.3	0.081	12.4	0.001
Know how to apply	49.0	46.8	42.8	2.2	0.403	6.2	0.028	4.0	0.119
Simple and quick appl. proc.	21.4	19.9	21.6	1.4	0.469	‑0.3	0.947	‑1.7	0.679
Fair treatment by gov. off.	34.8	35.5	33.8	‑0.7	0.771	1.0	0.716	1.7	0.531

Note: RTM27 refers to the unweighted average of the 27 OECD countries that participated in RTM 2022. Respondents were asked: “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statement? If you currently are receiving services or benefits please answer these questions according to your experience. If you are not receiving them, please answer according to what you think your experience would be if you needed them: I feel I could easily receive public benefits if I needed them/I am confident I would qualify for public benefits/I know how to apply for public benefits/I think the application process for benefits would be simple and quick/I feel I would be treated fairly by the government office processing my claim. 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: RTM 2022.

	FRA	DEU	GBR	FRA–DEU		FRA–GBR		DEU–GBR
Area	mean (%)	mean (%)	mean (%)	mean (p.p.)	p-value	mean (p.p.)	p-value	mean (p.p.)	p-value
Filing taxes	4.3	6.8	5.3	-2.5	0.00	-1.0	0.05	1.5	0.00
Benefit application	4.2	5.4	4.5	-1.2	0.04	-0.3	0.54	0.9	0.18
School for children	3.0	3.3	3.6	-0.3	0.53	-0.6	0.36	-0.3	0.68
Daycare for children	2.5	3.6	3.3	-1.1	0.02	-0.8	0.15	0.3	0.65
Organising health care	4.9	7.3	7.2	-2.4	0.00	-2.3	0.00	0.1	0.78

Note: Respondents were asked: “People usually spend at least a bit of time on paperwork, phone calls, or internet searches when they file their taxes, apply for government benefits, or enrol their children in school or day-care. Please tell us approximately how much time you spent on the following tasks for yourself and for your household in the last 12 months?” Tasks are: Filing taxes; Applying for a government benefit (e.g. unemployment benefits, sickness/disability benefits, or old-age pensions) apart from healthcare; Applying to and enrolling my children in school (including also additional after-school programmes); Applying to and enrolling my children in daycare; Organising my healthcare (e.g. getting appointments with doctors, seeking reimbursement of healthcare expenses). Answer choices are: Zero hours; Less than 1 hour; 1‑10 hrs; 11–20 hrs; 21–30 hrs; 31–40 hrs; more than 40 hrs; Does not apply to me]. Data show the average of the midpoint of each interval. The first three columns report the average of the midpoint of each time interval. Columns 4, 6 and 8 show the mean difference between country pairs and columns 5, 7, 9 report the p-values of the corresponding t-tests. Standard errors are clustered at the regional level (provinces). RTM data include respondents aged 18‑64.

Source: RTM 2022.

Annex 3.B. Figures

Note: The vertical axis shows benefits (social assistance, family benefits, housing benefits, in-work benefits) on the positive and contributions (social security contributions, personal income tax) on the negative range. Net earnings correspond to the sum of net earnings and benefits, net of contributions. All numbers are displayed as a share of a country’s average wage.

Source: OECD Tax-Benefit Model.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & Events

News & Events

Featured Events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment