Non-take-up of in-work benefits: Determinants, benefit erosion and indexing

Muñoz-Higue as, Diego; Köppe, S ephan; G anell, Ra ael; Fuenmayo Fe nández,
Amadeo
A icle
Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: De e minan s, bene i
e osion and indexing
Jou nal o Labou Ma ke Resea ch
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Ins i u e o Employmen Resea ch (IAB)
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Muñoz-Higue as, Diego; Köppe, S ephan; G anell, Ra ael; Fuenmayo Fe nández,
Amadeo (2024) : Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: De e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing,
Jou nal o Labou Ma ke Resea ch, ISSN 2510-5027, Sp inge , Heidelbe g, Vol. 58, Iss. 1, pp. 1-19,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s12651-024-00385-8
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/308514
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access
© The Au ho (s) 2024. Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License, which pe mi s use,
sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and
he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his
a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included
in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will
need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p: //c ea i ecommo ns. o g/lice ns e s/by/4.0/.
Muñoz-Higue as e al. Jou nal o Labou Ma ke Resea ch (2024) 58:22
h ps://doi.o g/10.1186/s12651-024-00385-8
s uc u e has changed signi ican ly since hese s udies
we e published. The e o e, and hanks o new da a being
a ailable, i is mo e han imely o eassess he ake-up o
he WFP.
Wi h he libe alisa ion o labou ma ke s in he 1990s
and 2000s, many Eu opean wel a e s a es ha e in o-
duced in-wo k bene i s wi h he aim o mi iga e po e y.
While he main aim o hese e o ms was o inc ease
employmen ; low pay, empo a y jobs and dec easing
labou ma ke egula ions can con ibu e o in-wo k po -
e y. Mo eo e , one majo isk ac o o in-wo k po e y
a e child en in he household (Eu o ound 2017; Lohm-
ann and Ma x 2018).
Policy-make s ha e aimed o add ess in-wo k po e y
h ough a combina ion o di ec (e.g. in-wo k bene i s,
ax c edi s, minimum wage) and indi ec measu es (e.g.
a o dable childca e). Ne e heless, means- es ed in-
wo k bene i s a e known o be a ec ed by non- ake-up.
Fo ins ance, se e al s udies indica e non- ake-up o
1 In oduc ion
I eland pionee ed in-wo k bene i s be o e hese became
mo e common ac oss he EU. In oduced in 1984 he
hen called Family Income Supplemen was implemen ed
o mi iga e he isk o in-wo k po e y and child po -
e y. In a poli ical d i e o p omo e he key aims o he
scheme i was enamed o Wo king Family Paymen
(WFP) in 2018. While in-wo k bene i schemes in he
es o Eu ope would also include households wi hou
child en, he I ish scheme is speci ically a ge ed a wo k-
ing households wi h child en. Since he incep ion o he
scheme low ake-up had been a known issue (Callan e al.
1995; Sa age e al. 2015) bu he labou ma ke and social
Jou nal o Labou Ma ke
Resea ch
*Co espondence:
Diego Muñoz-Higue as
diego.munoz@u .es
1Depa men o Applied Economics, Uni e si y o Valencia, Valencia, Spain
2School o Social Policy Social Wo k and Social Jus ice, Uni e si y College
Dublin, Dublin, I eland
Abs ac
Non- ake-up o wel a e schemes is a key conce n o policy e ec i eness. Building on s udies ha ha e shown
he low ake-up o minimum income schemes, ou case s udy o I eland’s Wo king Family Paymen is he i s o
analyse non- ake-up o an in-wo k bene i and i s de e minan s wi h a special ocus on labou ma ke ac o s. Based
on EU-SILC (2014–2019) we es ima e a non- ake-up a e be ween 63 and 76%, which poses a majo obs acle o
e ec i e po e y p e en ion. Mo eo e , we s ess ha non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s di e s o minimum income
schemes. We p o ide new e idence on how labou ma ke cha ac e is ics play an impo an ole in explaining
non- ake-up, especially sel -employmen and he in e ac ion wi h unemploymen bene i s. Bene i e osion is a key
ac o in declining eligibili y, which should be add essed by indexing wages and p ices. Fu he mo e, we p opose
policy e o ms a ound au oma ic en olmen o ax c edi s o mi iga e non- ake-up and alle ia e in-wo k po e y.
Keywo ds Non- ake-up, Adminis a i e design, In-wo k bene i s, In-wo k po e y, Labou ma ke cha ac e is ics,
Wo king amily paymen
JEL Classi ica ion C15, D04, H31, H53, I38, J38
Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s:
de e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing
DiegoMuñoz-Higue as1* , S ephanKöppe2, Ra aelG anell1 and AmadeoFuenmayo 1
Page 2 o 19D. Muñoz-Higue as e al. (2024) 58:22
means- es ed social assis ance schemes is highe han
50% wi hin Eu ope (Fuchs e al. 2020). I a pe son o
household is eligible o ecei e an in-wo k bene i , bu
inally does no claim hei social igh , i unde mines he
e ec i eness o he scheme. The p oblem o non- ake-
up is u he ex apola ed i ce ain s a a in socie y a e
mo e p one o non- ake-up han o he s and de e io a es
hei social inclusion.
Non- ake-up is a mul idimensional phenomenon
and is a ec ed by clien , adminis a i e, policy design
and b oade social and legal con ex s (Oo scho 1996;
Janssens and Van Mechelen 2022). So a , he li e a u e
has ocussed on non- ake-up o gene al social assis-
ance schemes, wi h less a en ion on non- ake-up a es
and de e minan s o in-wo k bene i s. In his a icle,
we con ibu e o his li e a u e wi h one o he i s in-
dep h analysis o a wage supplemen . We ocus on he
indi idual and policy design cha ac e is ics as well as
labou ma ke a achmen o eligible indi iduals. As he
I ish WFP di e s om adi ional non- ake-up s ud-
ies on minimum income schemes and non-con ibu o y
bene i s, we pay mo e a en ion o he policy di e ences
be ween minimum income and in-wo k bene i schemes.
Hence, labou ma ke cha ac e is ics as a co e eligibil-
i y ea u e o in-wo k bene i s such as occupa ional class
and in ensi y o employmen a e a pa icula ocus o ou
empi ical analysis.
The emainde o his a icle is o ganised as ollows.
Fi s , we e iew he ele an li e a u e abou non- ake-up
and in sec ion h ee we con ex ualise in-wo k bene i s in
I eland. In sec ion ou we p esen he me hods, ollowed
by esul s. The inal sec ion discusses policy ecommen-
da ions and d aws wide conclusions o he ela ionship
o in-wo k bene i s, non- ake-up and policy design.
2 De e minan s o non- ake-up in he li e a u e
Non- ake-up o public social p o ec ion schemes is
an inc easingly ecognised p oblem o wel a e s a es.
Fo ins ance, means- es ed social assis ance bene i s in
Eu ope epo non- ake-up a es be ween 40% and 70%
(Eu o ound 2015; Fuchs e al. 2020). These es ima es a y
by he ype o bene i , he da a and he me hodology
used, which is u he complica ed by da a cons ain s
(Goedemé and Janssens 2020).
Unde s anding he d i e s o non- ake-up is ele an
as i a ec s bo h, he e ec i eness (i.e. po e y educ ion
in his case) and e iciency (in e ms o cos -bene i ) o
wel a e schemes and c ea es inequali ies be ween eligi-
ble popula ions (He nanz and Malhe be 2004). In addi-
ion, despi e he ac ha go e nmen s gene ally ocus
mo e on he o e paymen o bene i s o educe public
expendi u e (Ma saganis and Le y, 2010), he sho - e m
budge a y sa ings o non- ake-up may c ea e signi ican
long- e m cos s. Fo ins ance, p olonged child po e y
may impac a child’s heal h, employabili y and c iminal-
i y in he long- e m wi h much highe cos s o socie y
(Dubois and Ludwinek 2014).
The li e a u e di e en ia es be ween wo main non-
ake-up ypes ( an Oo scho 1996): P ima y non- ake-up
e e s o an eligible indi idual o household who is no
claiming he bene i . Seconda y non- ake-up desc ibes
a pe son o household who s a s he applica ion p oce-
du e, and despi e being eligible, inally does no ecei e
i . This is also e e ed o as adminis a i e e o . In ou
empi ical analysis, we will ocus on p ima y non- ake-up.
Fou main de e minan s o non- ake-up a e iden i ied
in he li e a u e: clien , adminis a ion, policy design
( an Oo scho 1996) – and mo e ecen ly – he b oade
social and legal con ex (Janssens and an Mechelen
2022). Each o hese de e minan s ha e been in es i-
ga ed ex ensi ely (Ba gain e al. 2012a; B uckmeie and
Wieme s 2012; He nanz and Malhe be 2004). In he
mos gene al unde s anding he ake-up o bene i s is he
esul o a ade-o be ween he cos s (e.g. in o ma ion
cos s, adminis a i e bu den, social s igma) and bene i s
(amoun and du a ion). The e o e, eligible households
will only submi an applica ion i he an icipa ed bene i s
ou weigh he pe cei ed cos s (Ke 1982; Ma saganis and
Le y, 2010).
2.1 Clien
A he clien le el, se e al de e minan s ha e been iden i-
ied. Fi s , a la ge body o e idence sugges s ha insu i-
cien bene i gene osi y inc eases non- ake-up (He nanz
and Malhe be 2004). Es ima ions o a ious policy
con ex s sugges ha a 10% inc ease o he bene i le el
educes non- ake-up by 0.5-2% (Ba gain e al. 2012a;
Riphahn 2001). Howe e , in e ms o bene i du a ion,
he e idence is less clea and seems o depend mo e on
he deg ee o u u e dependency o claiman s (B uck-
meie and Wieme s 2012). Highe p obabili ies o claim-
ing a bene i a e obse ed among jobseeke s, amilies
wi h child en and pensione s (He nanz and Malhe be
2004).
The cos s associa ed wi h claiming could be g ouped
by in o ma ion cos s and p ocess cos s, bo h o hem
con ibu ing o highe non- ake-up. In o ma ion cos s
a e he p edic ed, obse ed, and expe ienced cos s
ha a pe son mus spend o unde s and he applica-
ion ules o a bene i , and p ocess cos s a e he cos s
o making he applica ion (Janssens and an Mechelen
2022). Fo ins ance, he ease o a ailable in o ma ion, he
lesse documen a ion equi ed and p oximi y o wel a e
o ices, educe non- ake-up (Janssens e al. 2021; Muñoz-
Higue as e al. 2023). Lack o knowledge con ibu es o
non- ake-up, and is g ea e among immig an s and hose
wi h a highe deg ee o social exclusion (Aize and Cu ie
2004).
Page 3 o 19Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: de e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing (2024) 58:22
Social and physiological cos s, in pa icula he s igma
associa ed wi h means- es ed bene i s con ibu e o
non- ake-up. Fo example, he mo e uncondi ional and
uni e sal he scheme is, he lowe he s igma associa ed
wi h i . E idence om he UK sugges s ha in-wo k ax
c edi s ha e he lowes s igma ou o i e means- es ed
schemes (Baumbe g 2016), bu we know li le abou
s igma o o he in-wo k schemes. Mo eo e , me opoli-
an a eas gua an ee a highe le el o anonymi y o a oid
s igma and, hence, epo highe ake-up (Riphahn 2001).
Social ne wo ks migh educe adminis a i e and in o -
ma ion cos s o an applica ion (Bouckae and Schok-
kae 2011), bu he ole o non- ake-up beha iou is
unce ain. Fo example, indi iduals who mainly in e -
ac wi h people in employmen ind i mo e di icul o
ob ain in o ma ion abou social p o ision (Be and e al.
2000).
T igge e en s a e de ined as sudden dis up i e ci -
cums ances ha may can lead people o claim bene i s
( an Oo scho 1991). Such e en s (e.g. heal h p oblems,
loss o job) change he cos -bene i balance and inc ease
he likelihood o submi a claim.
2.2 Adminis a ion
The li e a u e has highligh ed mul iple adminis a i e
ba ie s o ake-up (Pee e s 2020), bu wi h ou empi i-
cal da a his dimension can be less explo ed di ec ly.
Imp o ing go e nmen in o ma ion on eligibili y con-
di ions and applica ion p ocedu es, as well as a ge ed
in o ma ion such as la ge-scale mailing campaigns,
sending social se ice wo ke s o he homes o po en-
ial claiman s, and a oiding s igma izing communica-
ion play an impo an ole in inc easing he ake-up o a
social bene i scheme (Finn and Goodship 2014; an Ges-
el e al. 2022). E ec i e collabo a ion be ween agencies
o e ing simila social p og ams is also an impo an ac-
o in educing non- ake-up (Raeymaecke s and Die ckx
2012; Muñoz-Higue as e al. 2023).
While online applica ions educe he ansac ion cos s
o mos people, hese a e less e ec i e o g oups such as
olde people o households in ex eme po e y (Kopczuk
and Pop-Eleches 2007).
Fu he mo e, he a ailabili y o linked adminis a i e
eco ds and he quali y o da a play an impo an ole in
he possibili y o eaching ou o po en ial bene icia ies
and de eloping au oma ic en olmen schemes (Janssens
and an Mechelen 2022).
2.3 Policy design
While eligibili y condi ions a e ul ima ely a poli ical
decision, such design choices no only limi he eligible
popula ion bu also indi ec ly a ec ake-up h ough
he in e play o poli ical communica ion, adminis a i e
p io i ies (Muñoz-Higue as e al. 2023) and clien ela-
ionships (Janssens and an Mechelen 2022).
The highe he deg ee o a ge ing, he highe he non-
ake-up ( an Oo scho , 2002). Ta ge ed p og ammes a e
associa ed wi h mo e s igma (B uckmeie and Wieme s
2012) and inc ease he in o ma ion cos s o claiman s.
Fo ins ance, complex a ge ing c i e ia o assess claim-
an s’ means inc ease he ime and e o equi ed o
unde s and he bene i .
In addi ion, longe wai ing pe iods inc ease non-
ake-up (Muñoz-Higue as e al. 2023) and cash ans-
e s gene a e highe ake-up a es han in-kind bene i s
(Schanzenbac, 2009).
Finally, while disc e ion o e s lexibili y and mo e pe -
sonal a ge ing o adminis a o s, i inc eases he p ob-
abili y o adminis a i e e o s ( ype II non- ake-up) and
claiman s’ unce ain y (Higue as and Pé ez 2020; Pee e s
2020).
2.4 Social and legal con ex
The clien , adminis a i e and policy design le els a e
in luenced by he b oade social and ins i u ional con ex
(Eu o ound 2015; Janssens and an Mechelen 2022). Fo
ins ance, Reijnde s e al. (2018) demons a e ha social
con en ions abou when i is accep able o ask o help
a e a ba ie o people seeking social suppo . Ano he
example a e how public pe cep ions o dese ingness
in luence he policy design.
The majo i y o non- ake-up s udies ocus on social
assis ance schemes, wi h a clea lack o in-wo k bene i s.
As a esul , he li e a u e has highligh ed key clien cha -
ac e is ics, bu has no paid a en ion o labou ma ke
ac o s. Hyb id sys ems, like in Ge many, which combine
minimum income suppo wi h in-wo k bene i s, epo
simila low ake-up a es and de e minan s, bu s ud-
ies ha e no conside ed labou ma ke cha ac e is ics
no could isola e hose only eligible o in-wo k bene i s
(B uckmeie e al. 2021; Wilke 2023). Wi h ou empi i-
cal analysis we will make no el con ibu ions o his li -
e a u e, while ocussing on he clien and policy design
de e minan s. Due o he case s udy design we canno
con ol o he social con ex and he da a con ains less
a iables o es o adminis a i e ba ie s. Based on
he exis ing li e a u e on minimum income schemes we
expec simila socio-economic de e minan s o be asso-
cia ed wi h non- ake-up o pu e in-wo k bene i s like
he WFP. In addi ion, we explo e ac o s associa ed wi h
labou ma ke p eca i y and how hese in e ac wi h he
usual suspec s. Conside ing he lack o p e ious s ud-
ies and heo ising, we use an empi ical d i en app oach
wi hou a p io i hypo heses and conside ou indings in
ela ion o exis ing heo ies in he discussion.
Page 4 o 19D. Muñoz-Higue as e al. (2024) 58:22
2.5 Wo king amily paymen in he I ish labou ma ke
I eland’s economy, labou ma ke and wel a e s a e ha e
some peculia ea u es in he con ex o he in e na ional
li e a u e ha a e ele an o gain a deepe unde s and-
ing o he ake-up o a wage supplemen scheme like he
Wo king Family Paymen .
When he old Family Income Supplemen was in o-
duced in 1984, I eland had one o he lowes GDPs pe
capi a in he O ganiza ion o Economic Coope a ion
and De elopmen (OECD), he economy was in ecession
and unemploymen was soa ing (O’Hagan and O’Toole
2017). Since hen, I eland became one o he iches
coun ies in he OECD pe capi a. S ill, he labou ma ke
is cha ac e ised by low wage labou , low emale labou
o ce pa icipa ion, medium employmen le els and he
highes g oss income inequali y wi hin he Eu opean
Union. In his con ex , minimum wage legisla ion and
wage supplemen s emain essen ial policies o mi iga e
in-wo k po e y isks.
In addi ion, he libe al wel a e sys em con ibu es o
po e y aps (NESC, 2020). Al hough he income ax
sys em is highly p og essi e and con ibu es la gely o
ela i e low ne income po e y a es (Roan ee e al.
2021), he eliance on means- es ed and la a e ben-
e i s con ibu es o s igma isa ion o bene i claiman s.
I eland has a ela i e high a e o joblessness among
households wi h child en and he s ong means- es -
ing is a key con ibu ing ac o (Hä könen 2011). Due
o he means- es ed sys em no only bene i s ape o
quickly, also access o se ices such as childca e and p i-
ma y medical ca e is a ec ed, which c ea es disincen-
i es o wo k (Regan e al. 2018) and s igma (Keane e al.
2021). Fu he mo e, insu icien ly gua an eed wo king
hou s in ze o hou o no con ac wo k a angemen s
a e ela i ely common in I eland, which is masked in
he high a es o s anda d measu e o pe manen con-
ac s (LMAC, 2022). I ish amily policies used o a ou
s ongly he male b eadwinne model (Fahey and Nixon
2014), bu ecen policy ad ances in childca e p o ision,
lea e en i lemen s (Köppe 2023) and ac i a ion measu es
ha e inc eased wo k incen i es o amilies and weak-
ened he male-b eadwinne model.
Du ing he obse a ion yea s 2014–2019, I eland expe-
ienced a pe iod o eco e y om a deep economic inan-
cial c isis (Roche e al. 2017), wi h high economic g ow h
a es and ising employmen oppo uni ies. Mos o he
aus e i y-imposed cu s we e eins a ed o p e-c isis le -
els, employees expe ienced eal income g ow h and ac i-
a ion measu es b ough almos ull employmen (Köppe
and MacCa haigh 2019).
Despi e hese labou ma ke inequali ies in-wo k
po e y in I eland has been signi ican ly below he EU
a e age (Nolan 2008). Nolan (2008) s esses ha he
ela i e low in-wo k po e y a e, which is calcula ed o
employees, is ela ed o highe le els o sel -employmen
(esp. ag icul u e), highe sha e o households wi h h ee
o mo e adul s and joblessness. In pa icula , lone pa -
en households wi h child en a e mo e likely o be ou
o wo k han being coun ed as in-wo k poo . Fo house-
holds wi h dependen child en, i.e. hose eligible o he
WFP, he in-wo k po e y a e has been a 8.5% in 2008,
bu has since declined o 5% o he employed popula-
ion (au ho ’s analysis o Eu os a , 2022). This ep esen s
abou 13% o all people in po e y (Daly 2019). Resea ch
ha conside s he policy ac o s o educe in-wo k po -
e y has shown ha he ela i e gene ous minimum wage
and he I ish social p o ec ion sys em as a whole con ib-
u e signi ican ly o a educ ion o in-wo k po e y and
iden i ied I eland as a success ul ou lie in his ega d
(Can illon e al. 2013). Howe e , Can illon e al. (2013)
canno single ou he WFP in hei analysis o means-
es ed ans e schemes. Recen simula ions by Roan ee
and Doo ley (2023) also show ha inc easing WFP
h esholds is a e y e ec i e way o educe child po e y
a es.
Al hough mul iple and complex policy schemes aim
o alle ia e in-wo k po e y, he WFP is he key wage
supplemen scheme o op-up ea nings o low-income
households wi h child en. Fu he mo e, in compa a i e
s udies, he WFP is used o model ake-up and po e y
educ ion e ec s o in-wo k bene i s in I eland (Lohm-
ann and Ma x 2018).
The eligibili y c i e ia a e as ollows (Ci izens In o ma-
ion, 2023), which did no change du ing he obse a ion
pe iod:
1. Wo k 38 o mo e hou s pe o nigh . These can be
combined wi h wo king hou s o he spouse, ci il
pa ne o cohabi an . Sel -employed wo k and job
c ea ion schemes (e.g. Communi y Employmen ,
JobB idge) a e no conside ed in compu ing he 38h
pe o nigh .
2. A leas one co- esiden child. The child en mus be
unde 18 (o be ween 18 and 22 i hey a e in ull-
ime educa ion).
3. The household alls below he income h eshold by
numbe o child en (see Table1).
4. The job is likely o las a leas 3 mon hs.
The bene i co e s he 60% o he gap be ween he a e -
age weekly amily income and he WFP income limi o
his amily size. I is a ax- ee bene i .
The i s main ea u e o he scheme is he wo k
equi emen o 19 h pe week. This equals pa - ime
wo k o a single pa en household, while couple house-
holds can combine ei he wo casual jobs o one pa -
ime employmen , mos ly associa ed wi h he male
b eadwinne model. The second key c i e ion is exclusion

Page 5 o 19Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: de e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing (2024) 58:22
o households wi hou child en o adul child en in he
households. Finally, he exclusion o sel -employed wo k
is a design ea u e we in es iga e u he in he empi ical
analysis.
The low ake-up o WFP has been no ed ea ly on in
he li e a u e. Callan e al. (1995) es ima ed 25% ake-
up among he eligible popula ion in 1987 based on The
Su ey o Income Dis ibu ion, Po e y and Usage o
S a e Se ices, a p ecu so su ey o EU-SILC (Eu o-
pean Union S a is ics on Income and Li ing Condi-
ions). Subsequen s udies es ima ed a wide ange bu
ne e highe han a hi d o he eligible popula ion would
claim WFP, 33% in 2010 based on EU-SILC (Sa age e
al. 2015); 17% in 2001 based on Li ing in I eland (LLI),
Ba gain and Doo ley, 2011). The mos ecen simula ions
based on EU-SILC show ha es ima es a y be ween 13
and 53%, depending on he da a sou ce and mic osimula-
ion model used. The lowe ake-up is based on EURO-
MOD, while he highe a e is based on SWITCH. While
EUROMOD is an o he shel mic o-simula ion ool
ac oss he EU, SWITCH is mo e ailo ed o he I ish
policy con ex and based on adminis a i e da a. Hence,
Doo ley and Kakoulidou (2023) claim ha he 47% non-
ake-up a e is mo e accu a e. Fu he mo e, his s udy
sugges s ha EUROMOD o e es ima es non- ake-up
o he WFP. Adminis a i e da a sugges s an inc ease
o o al claiman s be ween 2004 and 2014, al hough he
numbe o child en bene i ing dec eased (Milla e al.
2018). Ye , none i his agg ega e analysis con ols o
popula ion inc eases no eligibili y, no does he Depa -
men o Social P o ec ion publishes any o icial ake-up
a e (DEASP, 2018).
Besides hese disc epancies and inaccu acies in mea-
su ing o e all ake-up, he e is a clea lack o quan i a i e
s udies on he de e minan s o WFP non- ake-up. Ye ,
quali a i e s udies highligh he in lexibili y and bu eau-
c a ic bu den associa ed wi h WFP. The s ic wo-week
assessmen o he bene i inadequa ely accoun s o sea-
sonal wo k and p eca ious gig economy, excluding ce -
ain employees om eligibili y. Mo eo e , he mul iple
o ms and employe signa u es inc ease he hu dle o
applica ions (Milla e al. 2018; Pemb oke 2018). Fu he
desc ip i e s udies also show a highe sha e o single pa -
en s among claiman s (G ay and Rooney 2018), bu can-
no con ol o o he socio-demog aphic cha ac e is ics.
Al hough epo ing desc ip i e indings o non-
ake-up, o he s udies ha e ocussed mo e on wel a e
ou comes o he WFP such as po e y educ ion and
employmen incen i es (Doo ley e al. 2022; Ba gain and
Doo ley 2011b; DEASP, 2018). Rele an o non- ake-up
is ha WFP has a posi i e e ec on income adequacy and
a lowe s igma han o he means- es ed bene i s (Milla
e al. 2018). Ba gain and Doo ley (2011b) epo lowe
wo king hou s o men and low wo k in ensi y o pa -
ne ed women. In a simila ein, he means- es ed unem-
ploymen bene i (JSA – Jobseeke s Allowance) is mo e
gene ous han he WFP on minimum wage and pa - ime
wo k, because JSA claiman s can wo k h ee days a week
wi hou a bene i educ ion (DEASP, 2018). This means
JSA claiman s who comply wi h he 3-day- ule a e be -
e o han WFP claiman s who sp ead he same wo king
hou s ac oss he week. In con as o hese ea lie s udies,
we can con ol o he policy in e ac ion o WFP and JSA
wi h he a ailable da a (see Da a and me hods’ sec ion).
Finally, policy s udies simula e di e en e o m op ions
(Doo ley e al. 2022). The exclusion o sel -employed has
been p oblema ized (G ay and Rooney 2018). Mo e-
o e , in hei conclusion Keane e al. (2021) a gue ha a
e undable ax c edi would elimina e non- ake-up.
In b ie , non- ake-up o WFP is a known issue, bu
mo e ecen s udies ha ake ad an age o he much
mo e accu a e EU-SILC da a since 2014 a e missing.
Mo eo e , none o he s udies has explo ed he de e -
minan s o non- ake-up quan i a i ely, especially wi h a
ocus on clien and policy design de e minan s. Simula-
ion s udies ha e poin ed o ce ain policy solu ions o
add ess po e y educ ion (e.g. inc easing h esholds),
bu none had an empi ical ocus on non- ake-up.
Mo e b oadly, he I ish WFP highligh s speci ic pol-
icy cha ac e is ics o in-wo k bene i s (households wi h
child en). The e o e, his s udy con ibu es o he wide
li e a u e on ake-up o means- es ed bene i s, wi h a
speci ic ocus on in-wo k bene i s in a libe al labou ma -
ke egime.
Table 1 WFP income limi s o pe iod analysed (€ pe week)
Child en in household 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
1 506 506 511 511 521 521
2 602 602 612 612 622 622
3 703 703 713 713 723 723
4 824 824 834 834 834 834
5 950 950 960 960 960 960
6 1,066 1,066 1,076 1,076 1,076 1,076
7 1,202 1,202 1,212 1,212 1,212 1,212
8 o mo e 1,298 1,298 1,308 1,308 1,308 1,308
No e: own elabo a ion ollowing WFP ci izen in o ma ion
Page 6 o 19D. Muñoz-Higue as e al. (2024) 58:22
3 Da a and me hods
Due o he limi a ions o he o - he-shel mic osimu-
la ions ools such as EUROMOD ega ding WFP (see
Doo ley and Kakoulidou 2023), we es ima e ake-up
di ec ly wi h o iginal EU-SILC da a in S a a. Fo he anal-
ysis we use he c oss-sec ional da a o he EU-SILC o
I eland om 2014 o 2019. P io o 2014 he WFP was
agg ega ed in he su ey i em wi h o he ‘Family/Chil-
d en ela ed allowances’ and we can only iden i y WFP
claiman s co ec ly since hen h ough he HY051G a i-
able, which is p o ided by he I ish go e nmen h ough
adminis a i e da a. Mo eo e , we exclude he Co id-
19 pandemic yea s as his excep ional pe iod had com-
plex and unique e ec s on he labou ma ke and dis o
ake-up es ima es. EU-SILC p o ides compa able, c oss-
sec ional and longi udinal mul idimensional da a on
income, po e y, social exclusion and li ing condi ions in
he EU, which allows us o simula e bene i ake-up and
con ol o a numbe o socio-demog aphic de e minan s
o ake-up.
3.1 Eligibili y and non- ake-up simula ions
Based on he bene i eligibili y c i e ia explained p e i-
ously we assess i households mee he condi ions in a
ou -s ep p ocess (see appendix o mo e de ails), using
o iginal EU-SILC da a.
Fi s , we iden i y he numbe o hou s wo ked pe
o nigh as an employee and agg ega e all hou s by
household. I someone is sel -employed hese hou s a e
no aken in o accoun . Second, despi e ha a gene al-
pu pose su ey like EU-SILC could no con ain all he
in o ma ion ha we need o iden i y he eligible house-
hold, we assume ha people who a e wo king a he ime
o esponding o he su ey ha e been wo king o a
leas h ee mon hs. Thi d, we use he in o ma ion abou
he numbe and age o child en li ing in he household.
In addi ion, we can iden i y whe he a child aged o e
18 and unde 22 yea s old is in ull- ime educa ion. In
his case, hese dependen child en quali y o he WFP
and a e included. Fou h, we can iden i y all assessable
income. We dis ega d he bene i s/allowances ha a e
exemp om he WFP means- es (e.g. child bene i ).
Al hough no all exemp ions can be uniquely iden i ied,
hese a e o e all negligible o ge accu a e ake-up mea-
su emen s (see appendix able A.2).
A e adding up all assessable income, in a second s ep,
we calcula e he heo e ical amoun a household is eligi-
ble o. We d aw his in o ma ion om he WFP h esh-
olds (DSP, 2019). Based on Table1 we adjus o annual
changes and calcula e he eligibili y h eshold o each
household by he numbe o child en li ing in he house-
hold. I he household mee s he i s h ee condi ions
and i s adjus ed disposable income is below he eligibil-
i y h eshold, i is conside ed eligible o he WFP. In he
model we assign a bina y a iable o eligibili y (0 is no
eligible, 1 is eligible). Since we can iden i y now clea ly
he eligible popula ion and hose claiming WFP, we can
use he s anda d o mula o calcula e non- ake-up:
No
n
−
ake
−
up a e =
Eligible people,bu no ecei ing hebene i
Eligible popula ion
Based on he li e a u e, non- ake-up e e s o one pe son
ha is eligible o ecei e a social ans e , bu inally does
no claim i . Di ided by he eligible popula ion, he non-
ake-up a e p o ides a ela i e es ima e o non- ake-up
o e ime.
One o he s eng hs o ou es ima es is he ac ha
his policy does no ha e a weal h es . Weal h is o en
one o he mos di icul issues o assess and adi ional
es ima es need o simula e di e en scena ios o pe o m
alidi y and sensi i i y checks (Fuchs e al. 2020).
Fu he mo e, compa ed o minimum income bene i s,
his policy does no include eligibili y condi ions such as
he ci izenship o he claiman , he esidence s a us, o
he ime when he amily uni was o med. The e o e, he
eligibili y de e mina ion is much simple and mos likely
mo e accu a e han in o he s udies.
In o de o check he obus ness o ou simula ed
esul s, we conduc ed a sensi i i y check, inc easing and
dec easing assessable income by 5%, which also accoun s
o he pe iod e ec s in he EU-SILC. This also means,
based on e y p ecise es ima ion o eligibili y c i e ia, we
could achie e an accu a e ma ch o 73%. This is in line
wi h o he esea ch using gene al pu pose su eys (F ick
and G oh-Sambe g 2007).
Once he eligible popula ion o he WFP has been es i-
ma ed, we p o ide simple summa y desc ip i e s a is ics
by subpopula ions: bene icia ies, eligible and non- ake-
up. These a e explained as ollows (Table A.3): ‘Bene i-
cia ies’ a e households who a e cu en ly ecei ing he
WFP, as s a ed by a iable HY051G in he da abase; ‘Eli-
gible’ includes households who a e eligible o ecei e he
WFP, based on ou simula ions; ‘Non- ake-up’ e e s o
households who a e eligible o ecei e he WFP, bu a e
no ecei ing i .
3.2 Es ima ing he de e minan s o non- ake-up: a p obi
model
To es ima e he de e minan s o non- ake-up, we con-
side using a p obi model. This kind o model is used
when he dependen a iable is bina y. In addi ion, i
can con ol o unobse able ac o s, which is a he
common in he analysis o non- ake-up (Goedemé and
Janssens 2020). Fu he mo e, he p obi me hodology
cap u es he possible non-linea ela ionship be ween
a iables. All o hese me hodological issues can help in
he in e p e a ion o obus coe icien s.
Page 7 o 19Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: de e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing (2024) 58:22
In his case, he a ge ed popula ion o his model
includes all households eligible o ecei ing he
WFP (wo k a leas 38 h as employees pe o nigh
wi h dependen child en and income below he WFP
h eshold).
All households conside ed eligible o ecei e he pol-
icy a e used o he analysis o non- ake-up de e mi-
nan s (Table2). The model will explain why households
a e claiming he WFP. Households who a e eligible bu
do no ecei e he bene i (non- ake-up) ake he alue
‘1’, while hose ecei ing he bene i ake he alue ‘0’
( ake-up).
In addi ion, as a obus ness es , we ha e es ima ed
wo di e en models. Fi s , an OLS app oach. The esul s
o he model a e obus ac oss he a iables. While he
p obi models a e he mo e accu a e es ima o s consid-
e ing he disc e e a iable, he OLS indings con i m he
obse ed di ec ion and signi icance o he de e minan s.
Secondly, in o de o con ol o possible selec ion
bias (Heckman 1979), we applied a Heckp obi model.
Again, he esul s do no di e om ou app oach (see
Appendix).
The independen a iables om he desc ip i e ind-
ings a e in oduced in h ee sepa a e p obi models.
Model one iden i ies he s able socio-demog aphic
cha ac e is ics. The second model adds labou ma ke
ea u es ha a e speci ically ele an o an in-wo k ben-
e i , compa ed o social assis ance schemes wi hou wo k
equi emen s. Finally, he hi d model also conside s he
economic si ua ion o he household.
Ou selec ion o a iables is based on he de e minan s
iden i ied in he li e a u e e iew. Fi s , ela ed o socio-
demog aphic cha ac e is ics, we conside he numbe o
adul s in he household and he ma i al s a us, as sel -
pe cep ion o being a amily is conside ed as an impo -
an ac o in he decision o ake-up he bene i .
O he cha ac e is ics, such as he educa ional le el
a ained by he household head, a e used as a p oxy o
bo h s igma and in o ma ion cos . In his sense, as we a e
analysing an in-wo k bene i , we expec a di e en esul
compa ed o a minimum income scheme. In he WFP,
almos 40% o he bene icia ies had a ained e ia y edu-
ca ion. We expec ha he educa ional le el educes he
in o ma ion cos and no be in luenced by he possible
nega i e s igma o being in need (o a leas his in lu-
ence will be e y weak). Rela ed o housing enu e, he e
is no a weal h es in he WFP, so his a iable should
no ha e any in luence on he non- ake-up o he ben-
e i . Since we conside ha he s igma will be lowe o
in-wo k bene i s han o a minimum income scheme,
he deg ee o u banisa ion should be a less impo an
de e minan in ou model. We keep bo h, housing enu e
and deg ee o u banisa ion as obus ness checks o a oid
misspeci ica ion p oblems and o be able o compa e ou
model wi h esul s epo ed in he li e a u e.
The WFP does no ha e any ci izenship equi emen s,
so we do no expec a nega i e in luence o ci izenship in
he decision o ake-up he bene i . Finally, we expec ha
he numbe o child en educes non- ake-up, since he
amily esponsibili ies o an indi idual inc ease he likeli-
hood o applying (Schenk, 2018).
Then, we conside di e en labou ma ke cha ac e -
is ics. Compa ed o minimum income s udies, which do
no include hese, we explo e se e al no el de e minan s
in ou models, bu expec a highe ele ance in gene al.
Fi s , we c ea e ‘In ensi y o employmen ’ o analyse
he possible di e ences be ween employmen s uc u es
in a household: i akes di e en alues depending on
he wo king- ela ed cha ac e is ics o he household. I
akes alue ‘1’ i he e is a pe son wo king as employee
in he household; alue ‘2’ i he e is a pe son wo king as
employee and ano he one wo king as sel -employed o
amily wo ke in he household; and alue ‘3’ i he e a e
wo people wo king as employee in he household. We
mus ema k ha he sel -employed hou s a e no con-
side ed in he eligibili y es , which means households
wi h wo people wo king as sel -employed a e no eligible
o ecei ing he WFP and a e no in included in ou a -
ge popula ion (see Table2).
Second, we conside he occupa ion o he head o he
household, as a p oxy o s a us and social class. We also
conside he di e en easons o wo king less han 30h
pe week, conside ing he ela i e low wo king hou s
equi emen o 19h pe week wi hin he eligibili y c i e-
ia. We expec ha people wo king mo e han 30h will
show highe non- ake-up likelihood, as hey do no con-
side hemsel es in a si ua ion o need.
Finally, we analyse independen ly whe he he house-
hold head wo ks less han 30h due o housewo k/ca e
wo k. I is impo an o di e en ia e ha because o he
pa icula si ua ion o I eland. The childca e se ices
cos is ex emely high, so we expec ha amilies wo k-
ing pa - ime o ca e o o he s ha e a highe likelihood
o ake-up.
The las se o a iables included a e he economic
cha ac e is ics o he household. Due o he e idence ha
being wi hin he wel a e sys em (S ube and Schlesinge
2006) educes s igma and in o ma ion cos , we expec
ha i he household is ecei ing ano he means- es ed
bene i , he non- ake-up will be lowe . We c ea e he
a iable ‘Bene i ’ and i akes alue ‘1’ i he household
is ecei ing: old-age bene i s, su i o ’s bene i s, sick-
ness bene i s, disabled bene i s and educa ional g an s. In
o de o con ol by unemploymen bene i s sepa a ely, we
c ea e he a iable ‘Unemploymen bene i s’ and i akes
alue ‘1’ i he household is ecei ing jobseeke bene i s.
As discussed, he 3-day wo king ule in he Jobseeke
Page 8 o 19D. Muñoz-Higue as e al. (2024) 58:22
P obi model
Non- ake-upde e minan s Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Socio-demog aphic de e minan s
Numbe o adul s
( e . wo-adul s)
1 adul
− 0.2093(0.0712) *** − 0.1107 (0.0940) − 0.3220(0.0985) ***
3 o mo e adul s 0.3629 (0.1545) ** 0.3797 (0.1671) ** 0.2903 (0.1864)
Ma i al S a us
( e . ma ied)
Ne e Ma ied − 0.0548 (0.0760) − 0.0027 (0.0787) − 0.1157 (0.0813)
Sepa a ed/Di o ced 0.1228 (0.0890) 0.1329 (0.0926) 0.1629 (0.0965) +
Widowed 0.6149 (0.1807) *** 0.6394 (0.1956) *** 0.8906 (0.2046) ***
Educa ional Le el
( e . p ima y)
Seconda y − 0.3505 (0.0978) *** − 0.3322 (0.1001) *** − 0.3839 (0.1056) ***
Pos -seconda y non- e ia y − 0.4076 (0.1115) *** − 0.3441 (0.1159)*** − 0.4139 (0.1223) ***
Te ia y − 0.4111 (0.1002) *** .− 0.4073 (0.1046) *** − 0.3931 (0.1104) ***
House Tenu e
( e . owne -occupied)
P i a e en ing − 0.1031 (0.0771) − 0.1040 (0.0801) − 0.0259 (0.0847)
Social housing − 0.0272 (0.0649) − 0.0466 (0.0679) − 0.0732 (0.0717)
Deg ee o U banisa ion
( e . densely-popula ed a ea)
O he wise − 0.0682 (0.0555) − 0.0082 (0.0582) − 0.0500 (0.0614)
Ci izenship
( e . I ish)
EU coun y − 0.5862 (0.0800) *** − 0.6053 (0.0831)*** − 0.5919 (0.0860) ***
O he coun y 0.0198 (0.1277) − 0.0732 (0.1281) − 0.1063 (0.1323)
Numbe o child en − 0.1458 (0.0213) *** − 0.1625 (0.0220) *** − 0.2196 (0.0239) ***
Labou ma ke de e minan s
Wo king in ensi y
( e . one employee)
Employee + Sel -employed/Family Wo ke 0.8719 (0.1385) *** 0.9547 (0.1427) ***
Employee + Employee − 0.0687 (0.0794) 0.0391 (0.0817)
Occupa ion
( e . Manage s + P o essionals)
Technicians and associa e p o essionals − 0.2338 (0.1141) ** − 0.3309 (0.1186) ***
Cle ical suppo -0. 3737 (0.1032) *** − 0.4304 (0.1082) ***
Se ice and sales -.01790 (0.0902) ** -2761 (0.0959) ***
Skilled ag icul u al. C a , T ades − 0.3236 (0.1068) *** − 0.3209 (0.1111) ***
Elemen a y occupa ions − 0.2078 (0.1036) ** − 0.3118 (0.1092)***
Reason o wo king less han 30h
( e . > 30h)
Do no wan o wo k mo e hou s − 0.9254 (0.1754) *** − 0.7747 (0.1828) ***
Wan s o wo k mo e hou s
O he easons (educa ion, disabili y…)
− 0.3168 (0.1060) ***
− 0.5104 (0.1196) ***
− 0.2499 (0.1088) **
− 0.3561 (0.1247) ***
Housewo k, Ca e wo k
( e . No)
− 0.9255 (0.0860) *** − 0.8146 (0.0902) ***
Economic de e minan s
Non-means- es ed bene i s
( e . No) − 0.1558 (0.0628) ***
Unemploymen bene i s
( e . No) 0.4840 (0.0579) ***
Income Gap
Income Gap squa ed
-0195 (0.0033) ***
0.0003 (0.0000) ***
Table 2 Reg ession ou pu o he p obi model
Page 15 o 19Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: de e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing (2024) 58:22
The ‘ ail’ households ecei e on a e age 35% less han
he ‘co ec ’ g oup. This is consis en wi h ou hypo h-
esis: a some poin du ing he yea , hey we e eligible o
ecei e he bene i , bu on an a e age basis, he e we e no
eligible. I he assessable income is educed by 10%, ou
co ec es ima ions inc ease o 77%. Following F ick and
G oh-Sambe g (2007), we conside his ‘ ail’ as an eligible
popula ion.
In he assessable income es ima ion, he ollowing ben-
e i s/allowances a e deduc ed om he o al disposable
household income. They a e p o ided by adminis a i e
da a.
Table A.2 Deduc ed income o he Wo king Family paymen
Family/child en
ela ed
allowances
Wo king Family Paymen (WFP)
Child Bene i (CB)
Respi e Ca e G an Scheme (RCG)
Domicilia y Ca e Scheme
Social exclusion
allowances
Op ical Bene i
Den al Bene i
Excep ional Needs Paymen s, DRAS Re und
scheme
Humani a ian Assis ance Scheme
C eche Supplemen
T a el Supplemen
‘O he Supplemen s’ om DEASP admin da a
Amoun ecei ed om cha i able o ganisa ion
Di ec P o ision Allowance
Housing allowances Ren Allowance (RA), Ren Supplemen (RENT)
Mo gage Supplemen (MORT)
HAP
Excep ional Needs Paymen s
Hea Supplemen
O he en subsidy ID’d om RTB da a
Household Bene i s (F ee TV License +
Elec ici y Allowance o Gas Allowance)
Fuel Allowance
Telephone Suppo Allowance
Li ing Alone Inc ease
Income ecei ed by
people aged
unde 16
No e: own elabo a ion ollowing WFP ci izen in o ma ion
Ne e heless, we canno dis ega d whe he income
om le ing a p ope y quali ies as non-assessed income,
so we compu e all income om le ing o p ope y. In
addi ion, ela ed o s uden g an s, we a e unable o iden-
i y bo h he ‘1916 Bu sa y Fund om he Depa men
o Educa ion’ o ‘Uni e si y paymen s made unde he
Highe Educa ion Schola ships o Adul Lea ne s’, which
a e no aken in o accoun o he assessable income o up
o a maximum o €7000 pe yea .
As we men ioned be o e, one o he main ac o iden-
i ied in he li e a u e as a p oblem in he es ima ion
o assessable income is he income pe iod misma ch
(Goedemé and Janssens 2020). I has no been possible
o sol e his p oblem, bu we ha e ied using he LONG
da a om EU-SILC. This keeps he same household o 4
yea s, so a p io i i migh be a be e s a egy. Howe e ,
when using he LONG da ase , we los in o ma ion neces-
sa y o es ima e he eligibili y o he household. We don’
ha e in o ma ion on he numbe o mon hs he child
is s udying (necessa y o quali y a child as a dependen
child) o he o al numbe o hou s usually wo ked in a
second o hi d job (necessa y o mee he hou s wo ked
pe o nigh condi ion). I was he e o e no possible o
use his da ase o es ima e he eligibili y o a household.
Di e ences be ween subpopula ions
Ou subpopula ions o in e es a e explained as ollows;
‘Bene icia ies’: households who a e cu en ly ecei ing he
WFP, as s a ed by a iable HY051G in he da abase; ‘Non-
ake-up’: households who a e eligible o ecei e he WFP,
bu a e no ecei ing i ; ‘Eligible’: households who a e eli-
gible o ecei e he WFP, acco ding wi h ou simula ions.
This g oup is he sum o he o he wo.
Table A.3 Di e ences be ween subpopula ions
Sub-popula ions
Obse a ions
Bene i-
cia ies
(1,086)
Non-
ake-up
(2,468)
Eligible
(3,544)
Socio-demog aphic cha ac e is ics
Age 39.66 41.16 40.61
Sex Male 23.72% 24.83% 24.38%
Female 76.28% 75.17% 75.62%
Ma i al S a us 1. Ne e Ma ied 34.95% 35.57% 35.13%
2. Ma ied 47.27% 45.78% 45.57%
3. Sepa a ed o
di o ced
15.56% 14.11% 15.01%
4. Widowed 2.19% 7.93% 4.14%
Ci izenship I ish 76.51% 84.96% 82.88%
EU 19.79% 10.17% 12.45%
OTH 3.69% 4.86% 4.66%
Highes
Educa ional Le el
A ained
1. P ima y
educa ion
6.61% 11.75% 10.32%
2. Seconda y
Educa ion
39.88% 42.03% 42.36%
3. Pos -second-
a y non- e ia y
educa ion
14.29% 13.41% 13.84%
4. Te ia y
educa ion
39.20% 32.53% 33.46%

Page 16 o 19D. Muñoz-Higue as e al. (2024) 58:22
Table A.3 Di e ences be ween subpopula ions
Sub-popula ions
Obse a ions
Bene i-
cia ies
(1,086)
Non-
ake-up
(2,468)
Eligible
(3,544)
House Tenu e 1. Ou igh
owne
39.58% 40.03% 39.12%
2. Tenan o
sub enan
paying en a
p e ailing o
ma ke a e
25.28% 22.97% 23.,96%
3. Accommoda-
ion is en ed a
a educed a e
o is p o ided
ee
35.13% 36.99% 37.29%
Deg ee o
u banisa ion
1. Densely-pop-
ula ed a ea
30.24% 27.59% 28.27%
2. In e media e
a ea and Thinly-
popula ed a ea
69.75% 72.40% 71.72%
Numbe o
child en
2.38 2.29 2.28
Labou Ma ke cha ac e is ics
S a us in
employmen
Head
Sel -employed 3.13% 5.21% 4.50%
Employee 96.86% 94.78% 95.49%
Pa ne
Sel -employed 3.74% 12.38% 10.27%
Employee 96.25% 87.61% 89.72%
Occupa ion
(ISCO-08)
1. Manage s and
P o essionals
6.87% 10.81% 9.74%
2. Technicians
and Associa e
P o essionals
10.51% 9.51% 9.58%
3. Cle ical Sup-
po Wo ke s
15.22% 12.58% 13.61%
4. Se ice and
Sales Wo ke s
36.65% 36.11% 36.39%
5. Skilled
Ag icul u al,
Fo es y and
Fish + C a and
Rela ed T ades
Wo ke s + Plan
and Machine
Ope a o s
13.75% 14.31% 14.01%
6. Elemen a y
Occupa ions
17.97% 16.65% 16.63%
Table A.3 Di e ences be ween subpopula ions
Sub-popula ions
Obse a ions
Bene i-
cia ies
(1,086)
Non-
ake-up
(2,468)
Eligible
(3,544)
Reason o wo k-
ing less han 30h
1. Wo king mo e
han 30h pe
week
66.57% 83.99% 79.41%
2. Do no wan
o wo k mo e
hou s
3.69% 1.33% 1.94%
3. Wan s o wo k
mo e hou s bu
canno ind a
job(s) o wo k(s)
o mo e hou s
Pe sonal illness
o disabili y
7.57% 5.34% 5.74%
4. Housewo k,
looking a e
child en o
o he pe sons
16.38% 5.51% 8.49%
5. Unde going
educa ion o
aining + Num-
be o hou s
in all job(s) a e
conside ed as a
ull- ime job +
O he easons
5.77% 3.80% 4.38%
Type o con ac Head o
household
Pe manen job/
wo k con ac
93.80% 84.64% 87.12%
Tempo a y job/
wo k con ac
6.19% 15.35% 12.87%
Pa ne
Pe manen job/
wo k con ac
89.31% 83.18% 85.17%
Tempo a y job/
wo k con ac
10.68% 16.81% 14.82%
Numbe o hou s
usually wo ked
pe o nigh
98.99 74.41 76.94
Income cha ac e is ics
WFP assessable
income
28,502.59 18,670.25 19,644.58
Is ecei ing non
means- es ed
bene i s?
Yes
No
32.51%
67.48%
25.44%
77.30%
26.45%
73.54%
Is ecei ing
unemploymen
bene i s
Yes
No
40.64%
59.35%
49.10%
50.89%
46.47%
53.53%
Income Gap 26.29% 43.46% 41.23%
In o ma ion cos In e ne and
compu e
In e ne o
compu e
84.78%
15.21%
78.24%
21.75%
79.91%
20.08%
No e: own elabo a ion
The e a e impo an di e ences be ween he sub-pop-
ula ions o in e es . These ela e o socio-demog aphic
cha ac e is ics. In e ms o labou ma ke cha ac e is-
Page 17 o 19Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: de e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing (2024) 58:22
ics. Sel -employed a e mo e han 10% in he non- ake-
up g oup, bu i ually non-exis en in he o he g oups.
The e a e also di e ences by occupa ion. Non- ake-up is
highe in skilled ag icul u e, o es y and ishing, which
o e laps wi h sel -employed a me s. Two hi ds o he
non- ake-up g oup wan o wo k mo e hou s bu canno
ind ano he job o because hey a e looking a e chil-
d en. The ela ionship wi h he labou ma ke is mo e
uns able in he non- ake-up g oup.
The non- ake-up g oup is compa a i ely poo e han
he o he s. One i h o he non- ake-up g oup ecei e
ano he means- es ed bene i , compa ed o one hi d o
he bene icia ies.
Heckman selec ion model
As a obus ness check, we conside ed he Heckman
app oach o accoun o po en ial selec ion bias (Heck-
man 1979). In his sense, non- ake-up e e s o a highly
selec i e demog aphic g oup o he a ge popula ion. We
a he could assume ha he eligible popula ion has spe-
ci ic social cha ac e is ics and beha iou s compa ed o
he non-eligible popula ion. S anda d logi /p obi models
maybe canno con ol o such a bias and, he e o e, we
ied he Heckp obi as a obus ness con ol, which is spe-
ci ically designed o handle his p oblem. These models
ha e been widely used in he economic li e a u e (Ayala
and Paniagua 2019; Oli e and Spada o 2017; Fuenmayo
e al. 2024) and also in he speci ic con ex o analysing
non- ake-up (F ick and G oh-Sambe g 2007; Fuchs e
al. 2020) o con ol o he po en ial selec ion bias o he
sample.
The esul s demons a e he p esence o selec ion bias
in he sample. Howe e , his does no a ec he ou comes
o he models, as he di ec ion and signi icance o he
coe icien s emain consis en . Consequen ly, we ha e
decided o e ain a s aigh o wa d p obi model, as i is
easily in e p e able.
Supplemen a y In o ma ion
The online e sion con ains supplemen a y ma e ial a ailable a h p s : / / d o i . o
g / 1 0 . 1 1 8 6 / s 1 2 6 5 1 - 0 2 4 - 0 0 3 8 5 - 8 .
Supplemen a y Ma e ial 1
Acknowledgemen s
We a e also g a e ul o he UCD Gea y Ins i u e o Public Policy o acili a e a
gues esea che exchange. This a icle is based on da a om Eu os a , EU-SILC,
2014–2019, unde he esea ch p oposal RPP 201/2020-EU-SILC-HBS. The
esponsibili y o all conclusions d awn om he da a lies en i ely wi h he
au ho s.
Au ho s con ibu ion
CRediT ma ix by au ho . DM: Diego Muñoz-Higue as; SK: S ephan Köppe; RG:
Ra ael G anell Pé ez; AF: Amadeo Fuenmayo Fe nández.
Funding
This wo k was suppo ed by p ojec HIECPU/2019/2 o Regional Minis y o
Finance and Economic Model o he Gene ali a Valenciana.
Da a a ailabili y
The da a ha suppo he indings o his s udy a e a ailable om Eu os a
bu es ic ions apply o he a ailabili y o hese da a, which we e used unde
license o he cu en s udy, and so a e no publicly a ailable.
Decla a ions
E hics app o al and consen o pa icipa e
The esea ch has been app o ed by he Eu os a E hics e iew p ocess (RPP
201/2020-EU-SILC-HBS).
Consen o publica ion
All au ho s consen he publica ion o his esea ch.
Compe ing in e es s
The au ho s epo he e a e no compe ing in e es s o decla e.
Recei ed: 24 No embe 2023 / Accep ed: 13 Oc obe 2024
Re e ences
Aize , A., Cu ie, J.: Ne wo ks o neighbo hoods? Co ela ions in he use o publicly-
unded ma e ni y ca e in Cali o nia. J. Public. Econ., 88(12) (2004)
Ayala, L., Paniagua, M.: The impac o ax bene i s on emale labo supply and
income dis ibu ion in Spain. Re . Econ. Househ. 17(3), 1025–1048 (2019)
Ba gain, O., Doo ley, K.: In-wo k ans e s in good imes and bad: Simula ions o
I eland. In S. W. Polachek & K. Ta si amos (Eds.), Resea ch in Labo Economics
(Vol. 33, pp. 307–339). Eme ald (2011a)
Ba gain, O., Doo ley, K.: In-wo k ans e s in good imes and bad: Simula ions o
I eland. Res. Labo Econ., 33 (2011b)
Ba gain, O., Imme oll, H., Vii amäki, H.: No claim, no pain. Measu ing he non-
ake-up o social assis ance using egis e da a. J. Economic Inequal. 10(3),
375–395 (2012a)
Baumbe g, B.: The s igma o claiming bene i s: A quan i a i e s udy. J. Social Policy.
45(2), 181–199 (2016)
Be and, M., Lu me , E.F.P., Mullaina han, S.: Ne wo k e ec s and wel a e cul u es.
Qua . J. Econ., 115(3) (2000)
Bouckae , N., Schokkae , E.: A Fi s Compu a ion o Non-Take-Up Beha iou in he
‘Lee loon’. KU Leu en, Cen um oo Economische S udiën, Leu en (2011)
B uckmeie , K., Wieme s, J.: A new a ge ing: A new ake-up? Non- ake-up o social
assis ance in Ge many a e social policy e o ms. Empi . Econ., 43(2) (2012)
B uckmeie , K., Wieme s, J.: Bene i Take-Up and Labo Supply Incen i es o In e de-
penden Means-Tes ed Bene i P og ams o low-income households. Comp.
Econ. S ud., 60(4) (2018)
B uckmeie , K., Riphahn, R.T., Wieme s, J.: Mis epo ing o p og am ake-up in
su ey da a and i s consequences o measu ing non- ake-up: New e idence
om linked adminis a i e and su ey da a. Empi . Econ. 61(3), 1567–1616
(2021)
Callan, T., O’Neil, C., O’Donoghue, C.: Supplemen ing Family Income, Policy
Resea ch Se ies 23. ESRI (1995)
Can illon, B., an Mechelen, N., Pin elon, O., an den Heede, A.: Social Redis ibu-
ion, Po e y, and he Adequacy o Social P o ec ion. In: Can illon, B., Vanden-
b oucke, F. (eds.) Reconciling Wo k and Po e y Reduc ion: How Success ul
A e Eu opean Wel a e S a es? pp. 157–184. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess (2013)
Cen al S a is ics O ice: A e age Annual Ea nings and O he Labou Cos s. Co k:
Cen al S a ics O ice: (2023). h ps:/ /da a.c so.ie/ able /EHA05
Ci izens In o ma ion. Wo king Family Paymen : (2023). h p s : / / w w w . c i i z e n s i n o m
a i o n . i e / e n / s o c i a l - w e l a e / s o c i a l - w e l a e - p a y m e n s / a m i l i e s - a n d - c h i l d e n / w o
k i n g - a m i l y - p a y m e n /
Daly, M.: ESPN Thema ic Repo on In-wo k Po e y – I eland. Eu opean Commis-
sion (2019)
Depa men o Social P o ec ion: Ra es o Paymen – SW19. Depa men o Social
P o ec ion: (2019). h p s : / / w w w . g o . i e / e n / c o l l e c i o n / 1 a 6 c a - a e s - o - p a y m e
n - s w 1 9 /
Page 18 o 19D. Muñoz-Higue as e al. (2024) 58:22
Depa men o Employmen A ai s and Social P o ec ion: Re iew o he Ope a ion
o he Wo king Family Paymen : Depa men o Employmen A ai s and
Social P o ec ion. (2018). h p s : / / w w w . g o . i e / e n / p u b l i c a i o n / c 1 5 d 9 - e i e w - o
- h e - o p e a i o n - o - h e - w o k i n g - a m i l y - p a y m e n /
Doo ley, K., Kakoulidou, T.: The ouble wi h ake-up. ESRI Wo king Pape , No. 750.
(2023). h ps:/ /www.es i.ie/s ys e m/ iles/publica ions/WP750.pd
Doo ley, K., Kakoulidou, T., O’Malley, S., Russell, H., Maî e, B.: Headline Po e y
Ta ge Reduc ion in I eland and he Role o Wo k and Social Wel a e. ESRI and
Depa men o Social P o ec ion (2022)
Dubois, H., Ludwinek, A.: Access o Bene i s. Dublin: Eu o ound (2014)
Eu o ound: Access o Social Bene i s: Reducing non- ake-up. Publica ions O ice o
he Eu opean Union, Luxembou g (2015)
Eu o ound: In-wo k Po e y in he EU. Publica ions O ice o he Eu opean Union,
Luxembou g (2017)
Eu os a : A - isk-o -po e y h esholds - EU-SILC and ECHP su eys. Luxembou g:
Eu os a . (2023). h ps:/ /ec.eu opa.eu/ u os a /da ab owse / iew/ILC_LI01/
Fahey, T., Nixon, E.: Family Policy in I eland. In: Robila, M. (ed.) Handbook o Family
Policies ac oss he Globe, pp. 125–136. Sp inge (2014)
Finn, D., Goodship, J.: Take-up o Bene i s and Po e y: An E idence and Policy
Re iew. JRF/CESI Repo (2014)
F ick, J.R., G oh-Sambe g, O.: To claim o no o claim: es ima ing non- ake-up o
social assis ance in Ge many and he ole o measu emen e o (2007)
Fuchs, M., Gasio , K., P em o , T., Hollan, K., Scoppe a, A.: Falling h ough he social
sa e y ne ? Analysing non- ake-up o minimum income bene i and mon-
e a y social assis ance in Aus ia. Social Policy Adm. 54(5), 827–843 (2020)
Fuenmayo , A., G anell, R., Sa all, T.: Labou supply esponses o a nega i e income
ax in Spain. J. Policy Model. (2024). h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . j p o l m o d . 2 0 2 4 .
0 2 . 0 0 7
Goedemé, T., Janssens, J.: The Concep and Measu emen o non- ake-up: An o e -
iew, wi h a ocus on he non- ake-up o social bene i s. 730998 (2020)
G ay, J., Rooney, C.: Suppo ing Low Income Wo king Families: Enabling Resilience.
MUSSI Wo king Pape Se ies No. 2 (2018)
Hä könen, J.: Child en and Dual Wo klessness in Eu ope: A compa ison o nine
coun ies. Eu . J. Popul. / Re ue Eu opéenne De Démog aphie. 27(2), 217–241
(2011)
Heckman, J.J.: Sample selec ion Bias as a speci ica ion e o . Econome ica: J.
Economec ic Soc. 47(1), 153–161 (1979)
He nanz, V., Malhe be , M.P.: Take-Up o Wel a e bene i s in OECD coun ies: A
e iew o he e idence. Science. 146(3651), 1527 (2004)
Higue as, D.M., Pé ez, R.G.: E aluación Cuan i a i a De La Ren a Valenciana De
Inclusión. S ud. Appl. Econ., 38(3). (2020). h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 2 5 1 1 5 / e e a . 3 8 i
3 . 3 4 0 4
Hümbelin, O.: Non- ake-up o social assis ance: Regional di e ences and he ole
o social no ms. Swiss J. Sociol. 45(1), 7–33 (2019)
Janssens, J., an Mechelen, N.: To ake o no o ake? An o e iew o he ac o s
con ibu ing o he non- ake-up o public p o isions. Eu . J. Social Secu .
24(2), 95–116 (2022)
Janssens, J., Goedeme, T., Ponne , K.: The claiming cos s scale: A new ins umen
o measu ing he cos s po en ial bene icia ies ace when claiming social
bene i s. PLoS ONE, 16 (2021)
Keane, C., Regan, M., Walsh, B.: Failu e o ake-up public heal hca e en i lemen s:
E idence om he Medical Ca d sys em in I eland. Soc. Sci. Med. 281, 114069
(2021)
Ke , S.A.: Deciding abou supplemen a y pensions: A P o isional Model. J. Social
Policy, 11(4) (1982)
Kon ad, A.M., Yang, Y.: Is using wo k-li e in e ace bene i s a ca ee -limi ing mo e?
An examina ion o women, men, lone pa en s, and pa en s wi h pa ne s. J.
O ganiza ional Beha ., 33(8) (2012)
Kopczuk, W., Pop-Eleches, C.: Elec onic iling, ax p epa e s and pa icipa ion in he
ea ned income Tax C edi . J. Public. Econ. 91, 7–8 (2007)
Köppe, S.: I eland’s pa e ni y lea e: Sluggish bene i ake-up and occupa ional
inequali ies. J. Family S ud. ea ly iew (2023). h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 1 3 2 2 9 4
0 0 . 2 0 2 3 . 2 1 7 9 5 2 7
Köppe, S., MacCa haigh, M.: Public se ice in eg a ion in ha d imes: Me ging
unemploymen bene i and labou ac i a ion measu es. Adminis a ion.
67(2), 137–160 (2019)
LMAC, Labou Ma ke Ad iso y Council: An Examina ion o Employmen A ange-
men s. Depa men o Social P o ec ion (2022)
Lohmann, H., Ma x, I.: Handbook on In-Wo k Po e y. Edwa d Elga , Chel enham
(2018)
Ma saganis, M., Le y, H., Fle o omou, M.: Non ake up o social bene i s in G eece
and Spain. Social Policy Adm. 44(7), 827–844 (2010)
Milla , M., G ay, J., Rooney, C., C osse, R.: The (in)adequacy o in-wo k bene i s in
I ish lone pa en labou ma ke ac i a ion policy. J. Po e y Social Jus ice.
26(3), 379–400 (2018)
Muñoz-Higue as, D., G anell, R., Fuenmayo , A.: Could he impac o a public policy
help us o e alua e he changes implemen ed? An analysis o non- ake-up
o he Spanish minimum income schemes. Re . Economic Anal. 15(3–4),
185–213 (2023). h ps:/ /doi.o g/10.15 353/ ea. 15i3-4.5097
Nelson, K.: Uni e salism e sus a ge ing: The ulne abili y o social insu ance and
means- es ed minimum income p o ec ion in 18 coun ies, 1990–2002. In .
Social Secu . Re . 60(1), 33–58 (2007)
NESC: The Fu u e o he I ish Social Wel a e Sys em: Pa icipa ion and P o ec ion.
Resea ch Repo 151. Na ional Economic and Social Council: (2020)
Nolan, B.: Low Pay and Household Po e y du ing I eland’s Economic Boom. In:
And eß, H.-J., Lohmann, H. (eds.) The Wo king Poo in Eu ope: Employmen ,
Po e y and Globaliza ion. Edwa d Elga (2008)
O’Hagan, J., O’Toole, F.: The Economy o I eland: Policy-Making in a Global Con ex .
Palg a e (2017)
OECD: Labou o ce (indica o ). O ganisa ion o Economic Coope a ion and
De elopmen : (2023). h ps:/ /doi.o g/10.17 87/e 2e7159-en (Accessed on 04
July 2023)
Oli e , X., Spada o, A.: Ac i e wel a e s a e policies and labou supply in Spain.
Hacienda Publica Esp., 222(3) (2017)
Paulus, A., Su he land, H., Tasse a, I.: Indexing ou o po e y? Fiscal d ag and ben-
e i E osion in c oss-na ional pe spec i e. Re . Income Weal h, 66(2) (2020)
Pee e s, R.: The Poli ical Economy o Adminis a i e bu dens: A heo e ical F ame-
wo k o analyzing he O ganiza ional o igins o adminis a i e bu dens. Adm.
Soc., 52(4) (2020)
Pemb oke, S.: P eca ious wo k P eca ious Li es: how Policy can C ea e mo e Secu-
i y. Founda ion o Eu opean P og essi e S udies, TASC (2018)
Raeymaecke s, P., Die ckx, D.: How can we s udy he in eg a ion o ne wo ks
among human se ice o ganiza ions? Some lessons om o ganiza ional
sociology. Eu . J. Social Wo k, 15(4) (2012)
Regan, M., Keane, C., Walsh, J.R.: Lone-pa en incomes and wo k incen i es. ESRI
(2018)
Reijnde s, M., Schalk, J., S een, T.: Se ices wan ed? Unde s anding he non- ake-up
o Social Suppo a he local le el. Volun as, 29(6) (2018)
Riphahn, R.T.: Ra ional po e y o poo a ionali y? The ake-up o social assis ance
bene i s. Re . Income Weal h. 47(3), 379–398 (2001)
Roan ee, B., Doo ley, K.: Po e y, Income Inequali y and Li ing S anda ds in
I eland: Thi d Annual Repo . ESRI (2023)
Roan ee, B., Maî e, B., McTague, A., P i alko, I.: Po e y, Income Inequali y and Li -
ing S anda ds in I eland. ESRI; The Communi y Founda ion o I eland (2021)
Roche, W.K., O’Connell, P.J., P o he o, A.: Aus e i y and Reco e y in I eland. Eu ope’s
Pos e Child and he G ea Recession. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess (2017)
Rooney, C., G ay, J.: Changing Family dynamics and In-Wo k bene i s. Social Policy
Soc. 19(2), 185–205 (2020)
Sa age, M., Callan, T., Walsh, J.R.: A p o ile o inancial incen i es o wo k in I eland.
J. S a . Soc. Inq. Soc. I el. 44, 124–140 (2015)
Schanzenbach, D.: Expe imen al Es ima es o he Ba ie s o Food S amp En oll-
men . Ins i u e o Resea ch on Po e y, Uni e si y o Wisconsin-Madison
(2009)
Selec Commi ee o Budge a y O e sigh : Repo on Indexa ion o he Taxa ion
and Social P o ec ion Sys em. Repo no: 33/CBO/014. Houses o he Oi each-
as, Dublin (2022)
S ube , J., Schlesinge , M.: Sou ces o s igma o means- es ed go e nmen p o-
g ams. Soc. Sci. Med. 63(4), 933–945 (2006)
an Ges el, R., Goedemé, T., Janssens, J., Le e e e, E., Lemkens, R.: Imp o ing Take-
Up by eaching ou o po en ial bene icia ies. Insigh s om a la ge-scale ield
expe imen in Belgium. J. Social Policy, 1–21 (2022)
an Oo scho , W.: Non- ake-up o Social Secu i y bene i s in Eu ope. J. Eu . Social
Policy, 1(1) (1991)
an Oo scho , W.: Modelling non- ake-up New Pe spec i es on he non- ake-up o
Social Secu i y Bene i s. Tilbu g Uni e si y (1996)
an Oo scho , W.: Ta ge ing wel a e: On he unc ions and dys unc ions o means
es ing in social policy. In: Wo ld Po e y, pp. 171–194. Policy (2022)
Page 19 o 19Non- ake-up o in-wo k bene i s: de e minan s, bene i e osion and indexing (2024) 58:22
Wilke, F.: De Ve zich au G undsiche ungsleis ungen: Kalkül, S igma und soziale
Einbe ung. Soziale Fo sch i (ea ly iew), 1–23 (2023). h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 3
7 9 0 / s o . 2 0 2 3 . 0 2 . W i l k e
Publishe ’s no e
Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in
published maps and ins i u ional a ilia ions.