P icop, Ionuț-And ei; Diaconu, Lau a
A icle
Households' (in)secu i y in he Eu opean Union: F om
p incipal componen s o causali y analysis
Economies
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
MDPI – Mul idisciplina y Digi al Publishing Ins i u e, Basel
Sugges ed Ci a ion: P icop, Ionuț-And ei; Diaconu, Lau a (2025) : Households' (in)secu i y in he
Eu opean Union: F om p incipal componen s o causali y analysis, Economies, ISSN 2227-7099,
MDPI, Basel, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, pp. 1-23,
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/economies13020033
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/329313
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/
Academic Edi o : Robe Czudaj
Recei ed: 11 Decembe 2024
Re ised: 23 Janua y 2025
Accep ed: 24 Janua y 2025
Published: 31 Janua y 2025
Ci a ion: P icop, I.-A., & Diaconu, L.
(2025). Households’ (In)Secu i y in he
Eu opean Union: F om P incipal
Componen s o Causali y Analysis.
Economies,13(2), 33. h ps://doi.o g/
10.3390/economies13020033
Copy igh : © 2025 by he au ho s.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license
(h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/).
A icle
Households’ (In)Secu i y in he Eu opean Union: F om P incipal
Componen s o Causali y Analysis
Ionu
,-And ei P icop and Lau a Diaconu (Maxim) *
Depa men o Economics and In e na ional Rela ions, Facul y o Economics and Business Adminis a ion,
“Alexand u Ioan Cuza” Uni e si y o Iasi, 700505 Iasi, Romania; [email p o ec ed]
*Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] o [email p o ec ed]
Abs ac : Economic secu i y is conside ed one o he p ima y aspec s o well-being and
i is usually closely associa ed wi h po e y. This a icle in ends o explo e he main
de e minan s o economic (in)secu i y in Eu opean Union coun ies and o in es iga e he
ela ionship be ween he le el o economic insecu i y and he deg ee o economic eedom.
In o de o achie e ou goal, we used P incipal Componen Analysis (PCA) o s ipula e
a composi e and s anda dized index o economic insecu i y in he Eu opean Union and,
a e wa ds, we u ilized panel da a eg essions o analyze i s co ela ion wi h he a iables
o he Index o Economic F eedom.
Keywo ds: economic secu i y; economic eedom; Eu opean Union coun ies; well-being
1. In oduc ion
His o ically, bo h policy-make s and socio-economic scien is s ha e cons an ly de o ed
conside able a en ion o well-being, adi ionally unde s ood as he quali ies o a good
li e o o a good socie y (Diene & Suh,1997). Such a wide concep has been his o ically
ela ed o an inc eased numbe o a iables, ei he objec i e o subjec i e (Li ings on
e al.,2022;Bel amo e al.,2024). The objec i e app oach o well-being la gely o igina es
om Sen’s wo ks in wel a e economics ega ding how o measu e po e y and inequali y
(Sen,1973;Sen,1976). Following his objec i e app oach, subsequen s udies ega ding
well-being ha e been pa icula ly ocused on assessing inequali y and po e y in o de o
p opose solu ions o educe hem (Böhnke & Kohle ,2010). I income was he p edominan
objec i e well-being indica o used in mos o he s udies conduc ed du ing he 20 h cen u y
(Wes e n & Tomaszewski,2016), he li e a u e om he la e 1990s s a ed o highligh he
p ominen ole o economic secu i y in he objec i e measu emen o well-being (Ande sen,
2002). Subsequen ly, he wo majo global c ises om he beginning o he 21s cen u y,
he 2007–2008 inancial c isis and he COVID-19 pandemics, inc eased he conce ns no
only o he esea che s bu also o he poli ical au ho i ies abou he ole o economic
insecu i y, and hus a ious s udies we e conduc ed in o de o cap u e i s dimensions
and e olu ion and o ind ways o measu e i . Fo example, he Rocke elle Founda ion
is one o he ins i u ions ha es ima es he economic secu i y o he Ame ican socie y
and eleases epo s abou i (Hacke e al.,2010). This economic secu i y index is mainly
ocused on household income, measu ing he sha e o he Ame icans who expe ience a
leas a 25 pe cen decline in hei in la ion-adjus ed “a ailable household income” om
one yea o he nex and who lack an adequa e inancial sa e y ne o eplace his los
income (Hacke e al.,2010). Resea che s om he Ins i u e o Women’s Policy Resea ch
(McMahon e al.,2018) ha e also s ipula ed a mul idimensional me hod o calcula ing
Economies 2025,13, 33 h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/economies13020033
Economies 2025,13, 33 2 o 23
economic secu i y. O he s udies p oposed di e en app oaches o he Economic Secu i y
Index (Hacke e al.,2012), some o hem ha ing a pa icula ocus on household income
ola ili y. Bosse and D’Amb osio (2013) de eloped an indica o o economic insecu i y
ha ep esen s a weigh ed combina ion o he weal h le els o indi iduals and he pas
weal h dynamics. Osbe g (2009) p oposed an Economic Secu i y Index based on ou majo
aspec s: unemploymen , amily b eakup, medical cos s, and po e y in old age.
Despi e he ac ha , up o now, se e al measu es ha e been p oposed o assess
economic secu i y, he p ecise de ini ion and measu emen o his concep emain unde
discussion. The e o e, i is legi ima e o ask ou sel es wha would be he essen ial cha ac e -
is ics o economic secu i y, and which a iables and in wha p opo ions should be included
in an index o economic secu i y in o de o cla i y how analys s, policy-make s, and s a is-
ical agencies could be e assess a c i ical ea u e o indi iduals’ li es wi h a undamen al
in luence on hei well-being? Howe e , economic secu i y can become di icul o quan i y
due o a lack o da a, which is why a alid al e na i e is o s udy he phenomenon om he
opposi e di ec ion, mo e speci ically by analyzing economic insecu i y. Conside ing hese
aspec s, he pu pose o he p esen pape is o explo e he main de e minan s o economic
(in)secu i y in he Eu opean Union coun ies and o in es iga e he ela ionship be ween
he le el o economic insecu i y and he deg ee o economic eedom. In o de o achie e
ou goal, we i s ly in end o p opose an agg ega e index o economic insecu i y o he
Eu opean Union coun ies based on he indica o s o e ed by Eu os a . The conside ed
a iables we e as ollows: Inabili y o ace unexpec ed inancial expenses, A ea s (mo -
gage o en , u ili y bills o hi e pu chase), Inabili y o make ends mee , Inabili y o keep
home adequa ely wa m, Inabili y o a o d a meal wi h mea , chicken, ish (o ege a ian
equi alen ) e e y second day, Inabili y o a o d paying o one week annual holiday away
om home, A - isk-o -po e y a e by po e y h eshold, Child en aged 0–17 li ing in
jobless households, Housing cos o e bu den a e, and he O e c owding a e. We used
P incipal Componen analysis o iden i y he in e dependence be ween hese a iables
and also he weigh hey may ha e in he economic insecu i y index. A e de ining he
composi ion o ou economic insecu i y index, we will es he co ela ion be ween he
s ipula ed index and economic eedom a iables (which we will selec om he Economic
F eedom Index, elabo a ed by he He i age Founda ion).
In o de o achie e ou pu pose, we s a ou s udy om he ollowing esea ch
ques ion: Is he e a co ela ion be ween ou economic insecu i y index and he deg ee o
economic eedom in he Eu opean coun ies?
2. Li e a u e Re iew
As no ed abo e, he ields o economic secu i y and economic insecu i y a e s ic ly
co ela ed. Economic secu i y can be ela ed o aspec s ega ding inancial s abili y, e en
hough hey a e essen ially di e en concep s. Financial s abili y may deal wi h house-
hold issues (Smy he,1968;P icop & Maxim,2024;P icop,2023), al hough in essence
i is mo e conce ned wi h he s abili y o he banking sys em and ma ke s (Albulescu,
2012;
Ca bó-Val e de & Sánchez,2013
;ˇ
Cihák,2007;Bundesbank,2023). A di e en ia ion
be ween he wo a eas is he e o e necessa y. Economic secu i y is conce ned wi h he
economic agili y o households (Hacke e al.,2010;Hacke e al.,2012) and hei abili y
o cope wi h unexpec ed expendi u es (Ba˘glı a¸s & A ik,2023;Boboc e al.,2019;Romague a
De la C uz,2019), wi h a pa icula ocus on ci izens, a he han banks and ma ke s. E en
hough bo h aspec s can be ela ed o he mac oeconomic a ea (especially i we compa e
coun ies), hei ocuses a e di e en : ma ke s and banks on he one hand ( inancial s abil-
i y) and ci izens on he o he (economic secu i y). In his s udy, we a e in e es ed in he
well-being o Eu opean Union ci izens om an objec i e pe spec i e.
Economies 2025,13, 33 3 o 23
A close look a he concep o economic secu i y highligh s a ious de ini ions ha
poin ou di e en o ms o sa ings ha ci izens can ob ain (Kosny & Pio owska,2013),
he educa ional le el and in e ne access (Ryso a & Kazansky,2021), and also he democ a-
iza ion le el (Mogyo ósi e al.,2022). Some o he mos known de ini ions o economic
secu i y belong o Be on e al. (2012), who conside s he impo ance o s able esou ces in
shaping an adequa e s anda d o li ing (in shaping economic secu i y in his sense), and o
Hacke e al. (2012), whe e economic secu i y is seen as he le el up o which indi iduals
a e p o ec ed agains any di icul y ha may lead o economic losses. The de ini ion gi en
by he In e na ional Commi ee o he Red C oss (2020) is also impo an , conside ing
economic secu i y as i al o he well-being no only o he people and households bu
also o communi ies a ec ed by di e en down u ns because i o e s hem he abili y o
wi hs and shocks and isks. We ei e a e he link be ween economic secu i y and inancial
s abili y, as his capaci y o “cope wi h isks” and “wi hs and shocks” is o en men ioned
by Cen al Banks when de ining inancial s abili y (Eu opean Cen al Bank,2023). Osbe g
and Sha pe (2005), in hei u n, add ess he subjec o economic secu i y by aking in o
conside a ion he isks om unemploymen , illness, single pa en hood, and old age. In
a subsequen s udy, conduc ed in 2009, hei majo hypo hesis was ha changes in he
subjec i e le el o anxie y abou a lack o economic sa e y a e p opo iona e o he changes
in he objec i e isk (Osbe g,2009).
In a globalized wo ld, Tang (2015) conside s ha he concep o economic secu i y
should emb ace issues beyond po e y and conside he eme gen h ea s a ec ing he
non-poo . The same idea was exp essed by Ingleha and Ab amson (1994), which a gued
ha people li ing in ich coun ies may expe ience a s onge sense o economic secu i y
han hose in poo na ions. The e o e, hey conside ed ha a high g oss na ional p oduc
pe capi a could be a ough indica o o a coun y’s le el o economic secu i y.
By con as , he “economic insecu i y” was de ined as “ he anxie y p oduced by a
lack o economic sa e y”, conside ed, in i s u n, o be he “inabili y o ob ain p o ec ion
agains subjec i ely signi ican po en ial economic losses” (Osbe g,1988). An al e na i e
de ini ion o “economic insecu i y” was o e ed by R. G. Ande son and Gascon (2007).
They s a ed ha i ep esen s “an indi idual’s pe cep ion o he isk o economic mis-
o une” (R. G. Ande son & Gascon,2007). The e o e, we can say ha while economic
insecu i y pu s he accen on he economic losses, economic secu i y is usually associ-
a ed wi h ce ain condi ions which could ensu e he well-being o he indi iduals. Ye
he e ha e been s udies which a gued ha he economic secu i y o he na ional com-
muni y (in e ms o na ional economic g ow h) is a ained h ough p ocesses ha depend
o some deg ee on he economic insecu i y o he indi idual (Liew,2000). The a gu-
men consis s o he ac ha he p esence o economic insecu i y o indi iduals p o ides
incen i es o people o seek wo k. The e o e, he indi iduals’ economic insecu i y is
a necessa y by-p oduc o he ‘c ea i e des uc ion’ om he Schumpe e ian model o
capi alis p og ess.
He nando De So o (2000) sugges s ano he impo an elemen ha has an impac
on he indi iduals’ economic secu i y: p ope y igh s. He a gues ha p ope y igh s
ha e been denied o as segmen s o he poo in pa s o Asia, A ica, and La in Ame ica.
These indi iduals ha e li le o no access o land and o he economic esou ces ha could
help hem ea n an income. Secu e p ope y igh s a e, hus, i al no only o indi idual
economic secu i y bu also o he wel a e o he en i e economy. Rod ik (2001) iden i ies
ou o he ypes o ma ke -suppo ing ins i u ions ha a e c i ical o he economic secu i y
a he mac o-le el: egula o y ins i u ions, ins i u ions o mac oeconomic s abiliza ion,
ins i u ions o social insu ance, and ins i u ions o con lic managemen . Mo eo e ,
he complemen a y na u e o hese ins i u ions could enhance he economic secu i y o
Economies 2025,13, 33 4 o 23
indi iduals since, o ins ance, social insu ance mechanisms help mi iga e he insecu i ies
people ace (Nesadu ai,2005).
F om all hese p e ious s udies, hose o Ba˘glı a¸s and A ik (2023), Boboc e al. (2019),
and Romague a De la C uz (2019) ha e a pa icula impo ance o ou s udy since hey
ocus on he “inabili y o make unexpec ed inancial expenses”. We conside his a iable
as de ining o he ield o economic insecu i y, since “su i ing” un o eseen economic
si ua ions is one o he cen al elemen s o a household ha manages o be in a s a e o
secu i y. The i s wo men ioned s udies, hose o Ba˘glı a¸s and A ik (2023) and Boboc
e al. (2019), u ilized P incipal Componen Analysis (PCA) in o de o de ine he s a e o
economic secu i y in he Eu opean Union coun ies.
Ba˘glı a¸s and A ik (2023) measu ed economic secu i y by using 14 a iables om he
Eu os a “Quali y o Li e Indica o s-Economic Secu i y and Physical Sa e y S a is ics”. Thei
s udy was s uc u ed in wo pa s: he i s one included a PCA, while he second one was
based on a clus e analysis, using wo ime pe iods: 2008 and 2021. The esul s o hei
analysis highligh ed how G eece would sco e he wo s in e ms o economic and physical
secu i y, wi h Ge many, Denma k, I aly, Slo enia, Finland, Po ugal, Czechia, Aus ia,
Es onia, Poland, and Slo akia being a he opposi e pole.
Boboc e al. (2019) used he Inabili y o make unexpec ed inancial expenses indica o
and o he eigh indica o s (Ma e ial dep i a ion a e, Employmen a e, Popula ion wi h
e ia y educa ion, Li e expec ancy, Social li e, T us in he poli ical sys em, Pollu ion, and
Li e sa is ac ion) o desc ibe he economic secu i y, conduc ing bo h a PCA and a Clus e
analysis. They di ided he analysis in o wo dimensions: social and ma e ial, and ound
ha Eas e n Eu opean coun ies end o ank low in bo h, while Wes e n and No he n
Eu opean coun ies ank high, especially in he ma e ial dimension.
Romague a De la C uz (2019) based he analysis on h ee Eu opean Union coun ies,
namely F ance, Spain, and Sweden, de eloping h ee subjec i e indica o s o insecu i y:
Household’s incapaci y o acing unexpec ed expenses, Household’s inancial dissa is-
ac ion, and Changes in he abili y o go on a holiday. The s udy demons a es how he
incidence o insecu i y diminishes as income inc eases, being signi ican ly p esen in he
middle-income households om Spain and F ance, bu no in Sweden.
Conside ing hese p e ious esul s, we ha e de eloped ou i s esea ch hypo hesis:
H1. No he n and Wes e n Eu opean coun ies ha e a high le el o economic secu i y han he
Eas e n s a es.
Rega ding he link be ween he economic secu i y and he economic eedom, he as
majo i y o he s udies sugges s ha , in o de o ma e ialize his ela ionship, i mus i s
“pass” h ough he il e o ins i u ions (Be gh & Bjø nsko ,2021), as hey de ac o decide he
deg ee o economic eedom. Acemoglu e al. (2005) sugges ha economic eedom would
de e mine he space in which di e en economic agen s shape hei economic secu i y, in
his sense, he “ eedom o choose” (F iedman & F iedman,1980) being he means o a oid
po e y. I is impo an o men ion ha ins i u ions a e changeable (No h,1990) and hei
changes a ec he link be ween economic eedom and economic secu i y.
The bene i s o economic eedom a e men ioned by Ca e (2007) in a s udy in ol ing
39 coun ies and 104 obse a ions, in which he esul s showed how economic eedom
would educe inequali y. Ye S anko (2017) a i ms ha he e would be a gene al non-linea
associa ion be ween he economic eedom and he ci izens’ wel a e. Ape gis and Coo ay
(2015) conside ha he impac o inc easing eedoms on he inequali y deg ee depends on
he exis ing le el o economic eedom. The e o e, in he case o hose s a es wi h low le els
o economic eedom, inc easing eedom may lead o an inc ease in inequali y. Meanwhile,
Economies 2025,13, 33 5 o 23
in oducing new e o ms in coun ies wi h high le els o eedom makes he economies
mo e equal.
The co ela ion be ween economic eedom and wel a e is also ei e a ed by F impong
e al. (2023) in a s udy conduc ed on 39 A ican coun ies in which hey use eg ession
equa ions wi h panel da a o he pe iod 2004–2017. Following he s a is ical analysis,
he au ho s con i m he hypo hesis ha a highe le el o economic eedom will lead o
a s onge co ela ion be ween inancial inclusion and inancial s abili y in Sub-Saha an
A ican coun ies. A di e en opinion is s a ed by A es is and Ka aki sos (2013), who
would a he op o inc eased con ol o he inancial sec o in an a emp o enhance he
economic secu i y o he ci izens. In es iga ing he inancial sec o and banking p ac ices
in he Malaysian economy, Abdullah (2015) concludes ha economic secu i y equi es ee
p icing and mone a y s abili y. Calda a and He bs (2019) also ound ha mone a y policy
shocks signi ican ly supp ess eal economic ac i i y and he inancial clima e, hus leading
o economic insecu i y. Reducing he le el o nonpe o ming loans and inc easing he
s abili y o he banking sys em we e conside ed o be impo an mone a y s a egies o
enhancing economic secu i y in Uk aine (Ko alenko e al.,2023).
Apa om ee p icing and s able mone a y policy, ano he impo an componen
o economic eedom is ela ed o ma ke openness, and mo e p ecisely o he eedom o
ade and in es men . The ela ionship be ween ma ke openness and economic secu i y
has led o i id deba es among esea che s. By o e ing he example o Singapo e, a
coun y ha lacks na u al esou ces and la gely elies on impo s, Den (2001) a gues
ha he open-in es men egime and open o eign ade policy enhanced he economic
secu i y o he people li ing in his coun y. Ye he ad oca es o economic secu i y make a
dis inc ion be ween de eloped and de eloping s a es when explo ing he consequences o
ma ke eedom. They a gue ha while ee ade i sel os e s economic secu i y, in some
de eloping s a es, his does no occu because he ee ade is no en i ely ee, as ade
es ic ions un ai ly a o he al eady-de eloped na ions (Ho igan e al.,2008). The e o e,
in hese cases, he p oblem is no ela ed o he insecu i y b ough abou by ee ade bu
by an un ai ading sys em.
Taking in o accoun all hese esul s o he p e ious s udies, we de eloped ou second
esea ch hypo hesis:
H2. A highe le el o economic eedom, in ol ing highe mone a y eedom and s abili y, highe
in es men , and ade eedom, inc eases he economic secu i y deg ee o he analyzed s a es.
3. Me hodology
In o de o achie e ou goal, and conside ing he esul s o p e ious s udies, we
will i s de elop a composi e index o economic insecu i y (we decided o analyze eco-
nomic insecu i y because, as shown in Table 1, he a iables p o ided by Eu os a a e
synonymous wi h economic insecu i y a he han economic secu i y) wi h he help o
PCA. Subsequen ly, we will p oceed wi h panel da a eg ession analysis.
To s ipula e a p ope index o he economic insecu i y, we will use P incipal Com-
ponen s Analysis (1), which is an al e na i e o me hods p e iously used o cons uc an
agg ega e index o he economic secu i y (Rohde & Tang,2018). The o mula o he me hod
is as ollows:
PCn=bn1X1+bn2X2+ . . .. . . + bnnXn(1)
PCn= P incipal Componen s Analysis
bn= coe icien s o p incipal componen s
X= a iables o he P incipal Componen s Analysis
Economies 2025,13, 33 6 o 23
The main ad an age ha PCA o e s is ha his ype o me hod is no jus abou
educing he a iables in an agg ega e index bu a he abou elimina ing a iables ha
a e insigni ican o he composi e index we wan o c ea e (Kha un,2009). I he e a e no
co ela ions, i means ha hese a iables measu e o he dimensions o he phenomenon
unde in es iga ion (Manly & Na a o Albe o,2017). These a iables ha e been selec ed
and collec ed in Table 1.
Table 1. Desc ip ion o a iables wi h abb e ia ions and Eu os a codes.
De ini ion Abb e ia ion Eu os a Code
A ea s (mo gage o en , u ili y bills o hi e pu chase) A ea s ilc_mdes05
Child en aged 0–17 li ing in jobless households CJH l si_jhh_a
Housing cos o e bu den a e HCO ilc_l ho07a
Inabili y o a o d paying o one-week annual holiday away om home IAH ilc_mdes02
Inabili y o a o d a meal wi h mea , chicken, ish e e y second day IAM ilc_mdes03
Inabili y o make ends mee IMEM ilc_mdes09
Inabili y o ace unexpec ed inancial expenses IFUFE ilc_mdes04
O e c owding a e O e c owding ilc_l ho05a
Inabili y o keep home adequa ely wa m IWH ilc_mdes01
A - isk-o -po e y a e by po e y h eshold RPR ilc_li02
When choosing he a iables, he ollowing aspec s we e aken in o accoun :
-
“Child en in jobless households” was added o ou indica o by aking in o accoun a
e ised e sion o Osbe g and Sha pe’s conside a ions (Osbe g & Sha pe,2005): hey
conside ed single pa en hood, bu we p e e ed o ocus on child en whose pa en s
a e no wo king, pe haps being in an e en mo e disad an aged economic si ua ion
han single-pa en amilies.
-
We selec ed he a iable “Inabili y o a o d o pay o a one-week annual aca ion
away om home” o he same easons as Romague a De la C uz (2019) did.
-
Fo “Inabili y o make ends mee ”, we conside ed he pe cen age o households
making ends mee wi h g ea di icul y.
-
In he case o “Pe sons a isk o po e y”, we conside ed “A isk o po e y a e
(cu -o poin : 60% o median equalized income a e social ans e s)”.
We p e e ed no o s anda dize he a iables (wi h alues be ween 0 and 1) because
we no ed ha all he a iables ha e he pe cen age o he popula ion as he s udy i em.
In Tables 2–4can be seen he sco e o each a iable o all 27 coun ies o he Eu opean
Union in h ee impo an ime ames o he economic insecu i y a he beginning o he
21s cen u y: 2010, 2017, and 2023.
Table 2. Eu opean Union coun ies’ sco es o each o he en a iables—yea 2010.
A ea s IFUFE IMEM PRP CJH IWH IAM IAH HCO
O e c owding
Belgium 7.8 25.4 7.7 14.6 12.2 5.6 5.0 26.9 8.9 4.2
Bulga ia 33.8 65.0 29.0 20.7 13.6 66.5 43.2 62.4 5.9 47.4
Czechia 6.0 37.9 8.4 9.0 7.8 5.2 9.7 39.5 9.7 22.5
Denma k 6.2 23.7 3.7 13.3 8.2 * 1.9 2.1 11.8 21.9 7.3
Ge many 4.9 33.7 2.8 15.6 9.5 5.0 8.6 23.7 14.5 7.1
Es onia 13.3 43.6 8.5 15.8 12.9 3.1 10.1 50.6 6.0 39.7
I eland 16.7 49.1 15.2 15.2 19.7 6.8 3.0 41.7 4.9 3.4
G eece 30.9 28.2 24.2 20.1 6.3 15.4 7.9 46.3 18.1 25.5
Spain 11.7 38.7 15.5 20.7 10.1 7.5 2.6 42.6 9.7 5.0
Economies 2025,13, 33 7 o 23
Table 2. Con .
A ea s IFUFE IMEM PRP CJH IWH IAM IAH HCO
O e c owding
F ance 10.8 33.0 4.4 13.3 9.6 5.7 6.9 28.7 5.1 9.2
C oa ia 30.1 62.3 18.3 20.6 9.7 8.3 15.7 67.3 14.1 43.7
I aly 13.5 33.8 17.4 18.7 8.2 11.6 7.0 40.5 7.7 24.3
Cyp us 28.0 49.9 23.3 15.6 5.0 27.3 4.4 47.8 3.1 3.5
La ia 25.2 78.1 23.5 20.9 12.0 19.1 26.8 62.7 9.8 55.7
Li huania 11.9 62.3 12.0 20.5 14.8 25.2 23.5 63.1 10.6 45.5
Lux 3.3 24.4 1.9 14.5 2.8 0.5 0.9 13.6 4.7 7.8
Hunga y 24.3 73.9 25.3 12.3 16.7 10.7 27.6 64.9 11.3 47.2
Mal a 7.8 28.2 19.7 15.5 9.7 14.3 10.8 60.8 3.7 4.0
Ne 4.9 22.2 3.8 10.3 6.2 2.3 2.6 15.8 14.0 2.0
Aus ia 7.0 25.0 5.9 14.7 5.8 3.8 8.7 22.3 7.5 12.0
Poland 15.3 50.6 14.1 17.6 8.7 14.8 15.5 59.9 9.1 47.5
Po ugal 8.6 27.2 20.3 17.9 7.1 30.1 3.3 64.6 4.2 14.6
Romania 29.0 44.8 21.1 21.6 9.9 20.1 21.4 77.4 15.8 52.0
Slo enia 19.5 45.1 8.9 12.7 3.9 4.7 8.5 31.4 4.3 34.9
Slo akia 12.1 38.2 11.5 12.0 10.2 4.4 23.0 55.7 7.6 40.1
Finland 10.3 28.1 2.4 13.1 4.4 1.4 2.9 14.7 4.2 6.1
Sweden 7.7 18.8 3.6 14.8 9.4 2.1 2.7 11.0 7.8 13.1
* Fo Denma k, we u ilized he sco e o 2011 o Child en in Jobless Households because he e we e no da a o
2010. Sou ce: Eu os a .
Table 3. Eu opean Union coun ies’ sco es o each o he en a iables—yea 2017.
A ea s IFUFE IMEM PRP CJH IWH IAM IAH HCO
O e c owding
Belgium 5.4 25.5 8.6 15.9 12.3 5.8 5.7 25.3 9.4 4.8
Bulga ia 33.3 53.2 28.0 23.4 10.9 36.5 31.7 52.6 18.9 41.9
Czechia 3.2 28.1 7.4 9.1 6.2 3.1 7.1 25.0 8.7 16.0
Denma k 6.0 25.1 3.4 12.4 8.9 2.7 2.1 13.8 15.7 8.6
Ge many 4.4 29.3 2.1 16.1 9.4 3.3 7.0 15.3 14.5 7.2
Es onia 7.3 36.3 3.7 21.0 6.4 2.9 5.3 27.9 4.8 13.5
I eland 13.0 41.6 8.7 15.6 11.8 4.4 1.7 35.5 4.5 2.8
G eece 44.9 52.7 39.9 20.2 9.2 25.7 13.2 50.9 39.6 29.0
Spain 9.3 36.6 9.5 21.6 8.8 8.0 3.7 34.3 9.8 5.1
F ance 9.1 29.6 4.1 13.2 11.9 4.9 7.1 23.1 5.0 7.7
C oa ia 21.9 56.2 15.5 20.0 8.4 7.4 10.5 58.2 5.8 39.9
I aly 6.1 38.3 8.6 20.3 9.6 15.2 13.4 43.0 8.2 27.1
Cyp us 24.8 50.1 22.2 15.7 9.5 22.9 3.8 52.3 2.8 2.8
La ia 14.0 59.9 13.5 22.1 7.5 9.7 13.0 37.3 6.9 41.9
Li huania 8.7 50.6 7.1 22.9 9.8 28.9 16.5 41.8 7.2 23.7
Lux 3.0 20.4 5.1 16.4 7.6 1.9 2.2 10.9 7.1 8.3
Hunga y 15.7 31.5 15.7 13.4 7.5 6.8 16.4 48.2 10.7 40.5
Mal a 6.5 15.6 4.6 16.7 7.7 6.3 5.6 33.9 1.4 3.0
Ne 4.6 20.7 3.2 13.2 6.5 2.4 1.9 15.2 9.4 4.1
Aus ia 5.9 20.6 4.5 14.4 6.7 2.4 5.5 14.2 7.1 15.1
Poland 10.3 34.8 6.8 15.0 8.3 6.0 6.3 38.4 6.7 40.5
Po ugal 7.7 36.9 15.2 18.3 5.9 20.4 3.0 44.3 6.7 9.3
Romania 17.3 52.5 14.7 23.6 9.4 11.3 19.2 65.0 12.3 47.0
Slo enia 15.2 37.1 6.5 13.3 3.0 3.9 6.5 23.1 5.2 12.8
Slo akia 7.4 34.6 8.1 12.4 8.0 4.3 14.8 42.3 8.4 36.4
Finland 10.8 28.5 2.3 11.5 5.1 2.0 2.6 15.4 4.3 6.1
Sweden 5.1 19.7 2.9 15.8 5.8 2.1 1.8 8.8 8.4 13.5
Sou ce: Eu os a .
Economies 2025,13, 33 8 o 23
Table 4. Eu opean Union coun ies’ sco es o each o he en a iables—yea 2023.
A ea s IFUFE IMEM PRP CJH IWH IAM IAH HCO
O e c owding
Belgium 4.6 21.4 6.0 12.3 11.9 6.0 4.2 21.5 7.7 5.7
Bulga ia 18.8 46.7 10.1 20.6 8.8 20.7 19.9 44.2 11.1 34.9
Czechia 2.9 19.7 3.7 9.8 4.4 6.1 6.8 20.3 9.1 15.9
Denma k 7.8 23.1 4.5 11.8 6.0 6.9 3.8 15.4 15.4 8.7
Ge many 8.3 35.0 3.1 14.4 9.2 8.2 13.3 22.8 13.0 11.4
Es onia 5.8 30.4 2.7 22.5 7.8 4.1 5.7 23.0 7.6 17.0
I eland 10.6 34.3 6.4 12.0 6.5 7.2 1.6 23.7 4.7 3.9
G eece 47.3 44.3 36.7 18.9 4.7 19.2 10.9 43.1 28.5 26.9
Spain 13.6 37.2 9.4 20.2 8.0 20.8 6.4 33.2 8.2 7.6
F ance 10.0 29.4 7.8 15.4 10.0 12.1 12.2 25.1 6.5 9.9
C oa ia 12.7 41.4 6.7 19.3 4.6 6.2 5.5 39.4 4.0 31.3
I aly 5.0 28.8 5.5 18.9 9.1 9.5 8.4 32.3 5.7 25.4
Cyp us 14.3 37.6 7.1 13.9 4.5 16.9 1.3 36.0 2.6 2.2
La ia 7.9 44.8 7.7 22.5 7.5 6.6 7.7 31.4 7.2 40.9
Li huania 7.1 40.5 2.5 20.6 8.0 20.0 11.1 34.0 5.2 26.0
Lux 8.7 24.1 2.2 18.8 5.1 2.1 3.3 10.6 22.7 7.4
Hunga y 10.8 31.5 7.9 13.1 4.7 7.2 14.7 43.3 8.7 15.6
Mal a 5.7 15.9 5.6 16.6 9.3 6.8 9.4 30.0 6.0 2.4
Ne 2.4 15.3 1.6 15.0 4.6 6.9 2.8 12.6 11.1 3.7
Aus ia 6.9 22.8 5.0 14.9 6.0 3.9 4.6 19.7 6.0 14.5
Poland 5.1 25.7 3.8 14.0 4.2 4.7 3.5 27.6 5.9 33.9
Po ugal 5.2 30.5 10.0 17.0 5.8 20.8 2.3 38.9 4.9 12.9
Romania 14.4 46.4 9.8 21.1 13.4 12.5 23.3 59.5 9.1 40.0
Slo enia 7.3 22.7 4.4 12.7 2.7 3.6 3.3 16.4 3.7 10.3
Slo akia 8.8 29.3 10.4 14.3 6.0 8.1 17.8 36.2 5.9 30.5
Finland 9.5 26.0 2.0 12.2 6.9 2.6 3.9 12.9 5.5 8.8
Sweden 6.7 21.8 3.5 16.1 3.9 5.9 2.8 11.2 10.9 16.4
Sou ce: Eu os a .
We selec ed he yea 2010 o wo main easons: i s o all because in 2008 and 2009, he
e ec s o he global inancial c isis we e no ully el in all he Eu opean Union, especially
in he Cen al and Eas e n pa s, when he nega i e consequences appea ed on a la ge
scale in 2010, and secondly, because C oa ia has da a o hese a iables only a e 2010.
The yea 2023 is impo an in ou s udy because i is he mos ecen yea o he da a and
i is e y close o he cu en economic and poli ical si ua ion, ma ked by he e ec s o
bo h 2020’s COVID-19 c isis and he pos -2022 ene gy and secu i y c isis su ounding he
Russia-Uk aine wa . The yea 2017 was selec ed because i could indica e he Eu opean
economic secu i y si ua ion in he pos -2015–2016 mig a ion c isis pe iod.
Fu he , we will p oceed wi h subjec ing he indica o o a eg ession equa ion, he
independen a iables being a ious a iables ob ained om he Index o Economic F ee-
dom (see Table 5) o he las en yea s (pe iod 2014–2023) and including 26 ou o 27 EU
coun ies (Luxembou g being excluded due o lack o da a).
Table 5. Desc ip ion o he independen a iables.
Va iable Name Symbol Composi ion and Calcula ion Sou ce
Financial F eedom FINANCIAL FD
The ex en o go e nmen egula ion o inancial se ices,
The deg ee o s a e in e en ion in banks and o he
inancial i ms h ough di ec and indi ec owne ship,
Go e nmen in luence on he alloca ion o c edi ,
The ex en o inancial and capi al ma ke de elopmen ,
and
Openness o o eign compe i ion.
(The He i age
Founda ion,2024)
Economies 2025,13, 33 15 o 23
4.2.1. Panel Roo Tes
Panel oo es s a e mos ly used in ime-se ies eg ession analysis and a e necessa y o
make su e ha he se o da a is s a iona y (Pe icăe al.,2017). We decided o unde ake
s a iona i y es s such as Le in, Lin, and Chu and PP-Fishe o con i m he s a iona i y
a le el 0. Table 15 shows ha we can use ou economic insecu i y index wi hou u he
di e en ia ion.
Table 15. Panel uni oo es .
Va iables Le in, Lin, and Chu PP—Fishe Chi-Squa e
Economic Insecu i y −8.16207 *** 136.624 ***
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV. No es: Signi icance le els a e *** o 1%, ** o 5% and * o 10%.
4.2.2. Co ela ion Ma ix
The co ela ion ma ix (Table 16) shows how he di e en a iables ela e o each o he
(Guja a i,2003), in his case how he economic insecu i y index ela es o he IEF a iables.
The alidi y o hese co ela ions will also be con i med by he G ange es , as we will see
in Table 18.
Table 16. Co elog am.
EI
Financial
In es men Tax
Bu den
Mone a y
FD
Go
Spending
Labo
F
Business
F
Go
In
T ade
F
P op
R
EI 1.000
Financial −0.638 1.000
In es men
−0.603 0.612 1.000
Tax
Bu den 0.511 −0.224 −0.304 1.000
Mone a y
F−0.147 0.099 0.217 −0.087 1.000
Go Sp 0.252 −0.153 −0.028 0.732 0.048 1.000
Labo F −0.133 0.199 0.234 0.135 0.203 0.201 1.000
Business
F −0.431 0.406 0.358 −0.489 0.186 −0.399 0.093 1.000
Go in −0.706 0.572 0.512 −0.534 0.098 −0.351 0.098 0.697 1.000
T ade 0.133 0.105 0.246 0.027 0.264 0.099 0.022 −0.072 −
0.257
1.000
P ope y R −0.764 0.517 0.499 −0.446 0.130 −0.255 0.131 0.569 0.808 −
0.369
1.000
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV.
4.2.3. VIF Tes
In o de o a oid edundancy in he in o ma ion, i is necessa y o pe o m VIF es s
o all he a iables. A VIF alue g ea e han 10 indica es he p esence o mul icollinea i y
(Büyükuysal & Öz,2016), which is no he case in ou analysis, as can be seen in Table 17.
Table 17. VIF es .
Va iables VIF
Financial 2.124704
In es men 2.408889
Tax Bu den 3.161964
Mone a y F 1.230744
Go Sp 2.608080
Labo F 1.183566
T ade F 1.968572
Business F 2.189030
Go In 4.543470
P ope y R 3.830326
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV.
Economies 2025,13, 33 16 o 23
4.2.4. G ange Causali y Tes
As p e iously men ioned, we a e in e es ed in he alida ion o he co ela ion be ween
he economic insecu i y index and he economic eedom a iables, bu , a he same ime,
we a e also in e es ed in he di ec ion o such co ela ions, which is why i is necessa y
o s ipula e a G ange es , as can be seen in Table 18. Looking a he p- alues, we can
elabo a e a ious co ela ions be ween economic insecu i y and he a ious economic
eedom a iables. Fi s ly, we can obse e a unidi ec ional causali y be ween In es men
F eedom and Economic Insecu i y. Economic insecu i y can also be he dependen a iable
o Mone a y F eedom o T ade F eedom.
The o mula o a panel da a eg ession model is as ollows:
Yi =α0 + β1×Xi +µ(2)
whe e Y
i
(
I
ep esen ing coun ies and ime) will be he dependen a iable (in ou case
economic insecu i y),
α
0 he coun y-speci ic cons an ,
β
1
×
X
i
he eg esso , and
µ
he
e o e m (Guja a i,2003).
P e ious esea ch, such as ha unde aken by Sabău-Popa e al. (2020), had used
he same me hodology, c ea ing an agg ega e indica o using he PCA me hod and hen
p oposing he indica o c ea ed o independen a iables, hus c ea ing a s a is ical model.
Conside ing his, he model we will p opose is a model in which he h ee a iables
will be he independen a iables (2).
EIi =α0 + β1MONETARYi +β2INVESTMENTi +β3TRADEi +µ(3)
Economic insecu i y can also be he independen a iable, as he G ange es shows
us in a ious o ms such as in co ela ion wi h Mone a y F eedom, Go e nmen Spending,
Go e nmen In eg i y, Business F eedom, o T ade F eedom. All hese models in which
economic insecu i y ac ually causes he a ia ions o hese a iables a e summa ized in
Table 22. Howe e , we a e in e es ed in ha ing economic insecu i y as he dependen
a iable in he p esen analysis, because he aim o his esea ch is o iden i y which
a iables could inc ease i and which a iables could dec ease i .
Table 18. G ange causali y es .
Null Hypo hesis Obs F-S a is ic P ob. Conclusion
FINANCIAL FD does no G ange Cause EI 208 2.38464 0.0947 No Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause FINANCIAL FD 1.77075 0.1728 No Causali y
INV FD does no G ange Cause EI 208 4.76750 0.0095 Unidi ec ional Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause INV FD 0.36622 0.6938 No Causali y
TAX BURDEN does no G ange Cause EI 208 0.29224 0.7469 No Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause TAX BURDEN 0.41445 0.6613 No Causali y
MONETARY FD does no G ange Cause EI 208 5.30205 0.0057 Bi-di ec ional Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause MONETARY FD 12.3785 8×10−6
GOV SPEN does no G ange Cause EI 208 0.94310 0.3911 No Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause GOV SPEN 3.14785 0.0450 Unidi ec ional Causali y
GOV INTEG does no G ange Cause EI 208 0.44410 0.6420 No Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause GOV INTEG 13.9559 2×10−6Unidi ec ional Causali y
BUSIN FD does no G ange Cause EI 208 1.56942 0.2107 No Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause BUSIN FD 8.72311 0.0002 Unidi ec ional Causali y
Economies 2025,13, 33 17 o 23
Table 18. Con .
Null Hypo hesis Obs F-S a is ic P ob. Conclusion
LABOR FD does no G ange Cause EI 208 1.12082 0.3280 No Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause LABOR FD 0.38731 0.6794 No Causali y
TRADE FD does no G ange Cause EI 208 11.8206 1×10−5Bi-di ec ional Causali y
EI does no G ange Cause TRADE FD 3.18292 0.0435
PROPERTY R does no G ange Cause EI 208 0.44094 0.6440
EI does no G ange Cause PROPERTY R 2.71910 0.0683
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV.
4.2.5. Reg ession Models
Reg ession models a e necessa y in o de o de e mine how he independen a iables
( he selec ed ones being Mone a y F eedom, In es men F eedom, and T ade F eedom)
in luence he dependen a iable. The esul s a e ep esen ed in Table 19, showing how a
dec ease in Mone a y and In es men F eedom sco es can cause an inc ease in economic
insecu i y, while an inc ease in T ade F eedom causes an inc ease in economic insecu i y.
Table 19. Models wi h economic insecu i y as dependen a iable.
Independen Va iable
OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Mone a y FD −0.163 (0.089) * −0.222 (0.052) *** −0.221 (0.052) ***
In es men FD −0.461 (0.033) *** −0.214 (0.042) *** −0.155 (0.046) ***
T ade FD 0.585 (0.089) *** 0.516 (0.045) *** 0.501 (0.045) ***
Cons an 14.767 (8.882) * 5.830 (5.462) 2.338 (5.560)
Adj R-squa ed 0.449 0.337 0.873
Obse a ions 260 260 260
Hausman Tes Chi-Sq. = 9.377065 (P ob. 0.0247)
Chi-Sq. d. . = 3
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV. No es: Signi icance le els a e *** o 1%, ** o 5% and * o 10%.
As o he a iables ha co ela e nega i ely wi h inc eased economic insecu i y,
he e a e se e al explana ions. In Table 5, we no e how Mone a y F eedom is calcula ed
by The He i age Founda ion u ilizing bo h in la ion and subsidies, while he sco es o
In es men F eedom a e poin s en i ely p oposed by he He i age esea che s. Excessi e
s a e con ol o he money supply has always been a undamen al conce n o economis s
such as Ro hba d (1963,1994) and F iedman (1962), ad oca ing awa eness o he damage
caused by he cen al banks’ monopoly o he money supply and on unde s anding he
di e ences be ween eal and “in la ed” economic g ow h. This analysis, he e o e, con i ms
hei hypo hesis, unde lining ha economic g ow h is no always synonymous wi h g ea e
economic secu i y o ci izens p ecisely because o in la ion. On he o he hand, lowe
In es men F eedom sco es mean g ea e economic insecu i y. In es men s a e he main
way a coun y can achie e economic g ow h (Ande son,1990), whe he we a e alking
abou o eign in es men (Ozawa,1992) o in a-na ional in es men (Popescu & Diaconu,
2021). I he e o e di ec ly in luences economic secu i y.
The mos in e es ing aspec o he eg ession equa ion, howe e , is ha he T ade
F eedom a iable is posi i ely co ela ed wi h economic insecu i y, showing how mo e
ade eedom would cause mo e insecu i y. An impo an no e needs o be made, namely
ha he He i age Founda ion calcula es T ade F eedom based on ade a i s (see Table 5).
This co ela ion, he e o e, ei e a es he idea ha he p o ec ionis policy o he Eu opean
Union, which has become inc easingly impo an a e he C imean wa in 2014 and he
COVID-19 pandemic (S anoje ic,2021), would ansla e in o mo e economic secu i y,
bea ing in mind, howe e , ha he posi i e e ec s o Eu opean p o ec ionism may only
Economies 2025,13, 33 18 o 23
be in he sho e m (Bau & Flach,2023). Ano he impo an aspec o men ion is ha
i would be mo e accu a e o say ha he Eu opean Union is no p o ec ionis bu a he
p e e s o p io i ize i s ma ke (Pelkmans,2024).
Conside ing ou esul s, ou second hypo hesis (H2) is only pa ially accep ed.
4.2.6. Robus ness Tes
Robus ness es s a e needed o es he alidi y o he model, which is why we pe o m
wo di e en obus ness es s o obse e whe he he ixed-e ec s eg ession equa ion
shows subs an ial changes. The i s obus ness es will aim a excluding he coun ies
wi h he highes economic insecu i y sco es, namely Romania and G eece. As can be seen
om he hi d column o Table 20, he esul s o he FEM Model a e unchanged.
Table 20. Robus ness checks—G eece and Romania excluded.
Independen Va iable
OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Mone a y FD −0.059 (0.086) −0.200 (0.053) *** −0.207 (0.054) ***
In es men FD −0.364 (0.036) *** −0.228 (0.045) *** −0.198 (0.049) ***
T ade FD 0.572 (0.086) *** 0.514 (0.046) *** 0.506 (0.046) ***
Cons an −0.911 (8.954) 4.672 (5.697) 3.541 (5.783)
Adj R-squa ed 0.340 0.348 0.828
Obse a ions 240 240 240
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV. No es: Signi icance le els a e *** o 1%, ** o 5% and * o 10%.
In Table 21, on he o he hand, Romania and G eece ha e been eins a ed, bu he en
coun ies wi h e y low economic insecu i y sco es ha e been excluded. He e again, we
see ha he alues o he ixed e ec s model emain unchanged.
Table 21. Robus ness checks – op coun ies excluded.
Independen Va iable
OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Mone a y FD −0.079 (0.093) −0.264 (0.062) *** −0.272 (0.063) ***
In es men FD −0.405 (0.038) *** −0.222 (0.049) *** −0.176 (0.054) ***
T ade FD 0.649 (0.103) *** 0.627 (0.058) *** 0.619 (0.059) ***
Cons an −0.263 (9.570) 2.517 (6.609) 0.303 (6.760)
Adj R-squa ed 0.411 0.394 0.827
Obse a ions 180 180 180
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV. No es: Signi icance le els a e *** o 1%, ** o 5% and * o 10%.
Table 22. Economic insecu i y as independen a iable.
Go e nmen Spending
Va iable OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Economic insecu i y 0.803 (0.192) *** −0.753 (0.159) *** −0.886 (0.165) ***
Cons an 25.451 (3.023) *** 48.069 (4.177) *** 50.000 (2.439) ***
Adj R 0.059 0.073 0.879
Obse a ions 260 260 260
Hausman es Chi-Sq. = 32.279628 (P ob. 0.0016) Chi-Sq. d. . = 5
Mone a y F eedom
Va iable OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Economic insecu i y −0.080 (0.033) ** −0.088 (0.049) * −0.098 (0.067)
Cons an 83.010 (0.526) *** 83.127 (0.821) *** 83.278 (0.997) ***
Adj R 0.018 0.008 0.303
Obse a ions 260 260 260
Hausman es Chi-Sq. = 0.050634 (P ob. 0.8220) Chi-Sq. d. . = 1
Economies 2025,13, 33 19 o 23
Table 22. Con .
Go e nmen In eg i y
Va iable OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Economic insecu i y −2.055 (0.128) *** −1.375 (0.174) *** −1.087 (0.201) ***
Cons an 95.164 (2.018) *** 85.284 (3.180) *** 80.970 (2.970) ***
Adj R 0.497 0.186 0.784
Obse a ions 260 260 260
Hausman es Chi-Sq. = 8.645991 (P ob. 0.0033) Chi-Sq. d. . = 1
Business F eedom
Va iable OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Economic insecu i y −0.637 (0.082) *** 0.168 (0.094) * 0.354 (0.102) ***
Cons an 85.565 (1.305) *** 73.862 (1.908) *** 71.164 (1.514) ***
Adj R 0.183 0.007 0.782
Obse a ions 260 260 260
Hausman es Chi-Sq. = 21.110658 (P ob. 0.0000) Chi-Sq. d. . = 1
T ade F eedom
Va iable OLS Model REM Model FEM Model
Economic insecu i y 0.072 (0.033) ** 0.084 (0.030) *** 0.652 (0.070) ***
Cons an 83.878 (0.531) *** 83.708 (0.484) *** 75.453 (1.038) ***
Adj R 0.013 0.018 0.255
Obse a ions 260 260 260
Hausman es Chi-Sq. = 80.277066 (P ob. 0.0000) Chi-Sq. d. . = 1
Sou ce: own elabo a ion using EViews 12 SV. No es: Signi icance le els a e *** o 1%, ** o 5% and * o 10%.
5. Conclusions
Coun ies all a ound he wo ld ha e been acing many ups and downs du ing he las
wo decades, in a global economy which has become mo e and mo e in eg a ed, s imula ed
in e es in economic secu i y, and o ced i s ede ini ion. The e o e, ou s udy aimed o
ede ine he concep o economic insecu i y by p oposing a new index ha we es ed on
Eu opean Union s a es.
Ou esea ch p oposes a s a is ical app oach sligh ly di e en om he adi ional
ones because he agg ega ed index o economic insecu i y was de eloped by u ilizing, in
he i s phase, PCA, p oposing an index based on PC1 and PC2, wi h a o al signi icance o
65.83% (we chose he Kaise c i e ion a he han he Benzéc i one), which comp ises six
di e en a iables.
Mo eo e , when ying o iden i y he le el o economic insecu i y o he yea 2023,
ou index shows he exis ence o a double egional dicho omy wi hin he Eu opean Union:
No he n and Wes e n Eu ope a e he egions wi h he lowes deg ee o economic insecu i y,
while he coun ies o Sou he n and Eas e n and Cen al Eu ope emain he s a es wi h he
highes deg ee, wi h he Medi e anean a ea (excep Mal a) being he mos sensi i e poin
o he Eu opean Union (e en mo e han he Cen al–Eas e n pa ). Many easons could be
ound o such la ge di e ences be ween he No hwes e n Eu ope and he Sou heas e n
egion. One o hem could be ela ed o he his o ical pa h ollowed by s a es. While some
coun ies ha e enjoyed decades o ma ke economy, o he s ha e been o ced o con o m
o he So ie model and, e en a e he collapse o he communism, in ce ain s a es, he
e o ms we e incohe en and implemen ed a a e y slow pace du ing he ansi ion pe iod.
Since hese esul s a e o 2023, ano he possible explana ion could be ela ed o he di e en
ways in which coun ies deal wi h he nega i e consequences o he pandemic. Howe e ,
his aspec equi es u he in es iga ion.
Aiming a in es iga ing he ela ionship be ween economic insecu i y and economic
eedom in Eu opean Union s a es, ou esul s showed bo h posi i e and nega i e co -
ela ions. The eg ession esul s may sugges ha an an i-in la iona y mone a y policy,
doubled by he ull eedom o in es men and a p io i iza ion o he Eu opean Union
Economies 2025,13, 33 20 o 23
in e nal ma ke , would allow ci izens o achie e a highe deg ee o economic secu i y in
hei households. Robus ness checks con i med he p oposed model.
The limi s o ou s udy could be ela ed o he ac ha ou index was de eloped by
aking in o accoun only objec i e indica o s, and, hus, we conduc ed ou esea ch based
on seconda y da a. We in end, in a u u e s udy, o ex end ou index by also including
subjec i e ac o s, such as indi iduals’ pe cep ion o economic secu i y. This will in ol e a
su ey, based on a ques ionnai e, which will allow us o collec p ima y da a in o de o
ha e a mo e comple e ep esen a ion o he economic (in)secu i y phenomenon.
S a ing om his new index, a second u u e esea ch di ec ion could be ela ed
o in es iga ing u he ela ions wi h o he indexes (such as, o example, he human
de elopmen index) o indica o s e lec ing economic g ow h.
A hi d u u e esea ch di ec ion will ocus on speci ic policy in e en ions a e he
COVID-19 pandemic, especially in he Cen al and Eas e n Eu opean Union coun ies,
whe e he isk o inc easing economic insecu i y was highe . Mo e p ecisely, we in end
o in es iga e he ela ionship be ween ou economic insecu i y index and he ins i u-
ional a iables.
Au ho Con ibu ions: Concep ualiza ion, I.-A.P. and L.D.; me hodology, I.-A.P. and L.D.; so wa e,
I.-A.P.; alida ion, I.-A.P. and L.D.; o mal analysis, I.-A.P. and L.D.; in es iga ion, I.-A.P. and L.D.;
esou ces, I.-A.P. and L.D.; da a cu a ion, I.-A.P.; w i ing—o iginal d a p epa a ion, I.-A.P. and
L.D.; w i ing— e iew and edi ing, L.D.; isualiza ion, I.-A.P. and L.D.; supe ision, L.D.; p ojec
adminis a ion, L.D. All au ho s ha e ead and ag eed o he published e sion o he manusc ip .
Funding: This esea ch ecei ed no ex e nal unding.
In o med Consen S a emen : No applicable.
Da a A ailabili y S a emen : Da a u ilized in his esea ch can be ound a h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/
eu os a and h ps://www.he i age.o g/index/ (accessed on 2 Decembe 2024).
Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic s o in e es .
Re e ences
Abdullah, A. (2015). Economic secu i y equi es mone a y and p ice s abili y: Analysis o Malaysian mac oeconomic and c edi da a.
Al-Shaja ah: Jou nal o he In e na ional Ins i u e o Islamic Though and Ci ilisa ion (ISTAC),20, 205–248.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. (2005). Ins i u ions as undamen al cause o long- un g ow h. In Handbook o economic g ow h
(Vol. 1, pp. 385–472). Else ie .
Albulescu, C. T. (2012). Financial s abili y, mone a y policy and budge a y coo dina ion in EMU. Theo e ical and Applied Economics,
XIX(8), 85–96.
Ande sen, J. G. (2002). Coping wi h long– e m unemploymen : Economic secu i y, labou ma ke in eg a ion and well–being. Resul s
om a Danish panel s udy, 1994–1999. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e,11(3), 178–190. [C ossRe ]
Ande son, D. (1990). In es men and economic g ow h. Wo ld De elopmen ,18(8), 1057–1079. [C ossRe ]
Ande son, R. G., & Gascon, S. C. (2007). The pe ils o globaliza ion: O sho ing and economic insecu i y o he Ame ican wo ke (Wo king
pape s 2007-004). Fede al Rese e Bank o S . Louis.
An onucci, L., Seo, H., & S obl, M. (2024). Quan i y o e quali y? How economic ac o s and wel a e s a e in e en ions a ec ed job
insecu i y and job quali y be o e, du ing and a e he economic c ises. Social Policy Adminis a ion,58, 277–298. [C ossRe ]
An iyanda i, E., Ba okah, U., Rahayu, W., He diansyah, H., Ihsannudin, I., & Nug aha, F. A. (2024). The economic secu i y o
households a ec ed by he COVID-19 pandemic in u al ja a and madu a. Sus ainabili y,16(5), 2091. [C ossRe ]
Ape gis, N., & Coo ay, A. (2015). Economic eedom and income inequali y: E idence om a panel o global economies—A linea and
a non-linea long- un analysis. The Manches e School,85(1), 88–105. [C ossRe ]
A es is, P., & Ka aki sos, E. (2013). Financial s abili y in he a e ma h o he ‘G ea Recession’. Palg a e Macmillan.
Ba˘glı a¸s, H. H., & A ik, H. (2023). Economic secu i y and physical sa e y in he Eu opean Union: A mul i a ia e s a is ical analysis.
Nicel Bilimle De gisi,5(1), 64–89. [C ossRe ]
Bau , A., & Flach, L. (2023). P o ec ionism on he ise? New challenges o EU ade policy. EconPol Fo um,24(5), 32–35.
Economies 2025,13, 33 21 o 23
Bel amo, R., Pei a, G., Pasino, G., & Bonadonna, A. (2024). Quali y o li e in u al a eas: A se o indica o s o imp o ing wellbeing.
Sus ainabili y,16, 1804. [C ossRe ]
Benzéc i, J., & Benzéc i, F. (1980). L’analyse des donnéesi. Dunod.
Be gh, A., & Bjø nsko , C. (2021). Does economic eedom boos g ow h o e e yone? Kyklos,74, 170–186. [C ossRe ]
Be on, F., Richia di, M., & Sacchi, S. (2012). The poli ical economy o wo k secu i y and lexibili y: I aly in compa a i e pe spec i e. Policy
P ess.
Boboc, C., Ghi ă, S.-I., Popescu, A., & Săseanu, A.-S. (2019). Wha is he quali y o li e in Romania compa ed o o he EU coun ies?
P oceedings o he In e na ional Con e ence on Applied S a is ics,1(1), 123–134. [C ossRe ]
Bosse , W., & D’Amb osio, C. (2013). Measu ing economic insecu i y. The In e na ional Economic Re iew,54(3), 1017–1030. [C ossRe ]
Böhnke, P., & Kohle , U. (2010). Well-being and inequali y. In S. Imme all, & G. The bo n (Eds.), Handbook o Eu opean socie ies (pp.
629–666). Sp inge . [C ossRe ]
B adshaw, J., & Finch, N. (2023, May 5–7). Child bene i packages in 22 coun ies. ISSA 4 h In e na ional Resea ch Con e ence on Social
Secu i y “Social Secu i y in a Long Li e Socie y”, An we p, Belgium.
B odeu , A., G ay, D., Islam, A., & Bhuiyan, S. (2021). A li e a u e e iew o he economics o COVID-19. Jou nal o Economic Su eys,35,
1007–1044. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Bundesbank. (2023). Financial s abili y e iew. Bundesbank.
Büyükuysal, M., & Öz, I. J. (2016). An al e na i e me hod o leas squa es in p esence o mul icollinea i y: Ridge eg ession. Jou nal o
Duzce Uni e si y Heal h Sciences Ins i u e,6, 110–114.
Calda a, D., & He bs , E. (2019). Mone a y policy, eal ac i i y, and c edi sp eads: E idence om bayesian p oxy SVARs. Ame ican
Economic Jou nal: Mac oeconomics,11(1), 157–192. [C ossRe ]
Ca bó-Val e de, S., & Sánchez, L. P. (2013). Financial s abili y and economic g ow h in c isis, isk and s abili y in inancial ma ke s. Palg a e
Macmillan.
Ca e , J. R. (2007). An empi ical no e on economic eedom and income inequali y. Public Choice,130(1–2), 163–177. [C ossRe ]
Chen, H., Qian, W., & Wen, Q. (2020). The impac o he COVID-19 pandemic on consump ion: Lea ning om high equency
ansac ion da a. SSRN Elec onic Jou nal,111, 307–311. [C ossRe ]
ˇ
Cihák, M. (2007). Sys emic loss: A measu e o inancial s abili y. Czech Jou nal o Economics and Finance,57(1–2), 5–26. A ailable online:
h ps://jou nal. s .cuni.cz/s o age/1073_ au_1_2_07_00000000005.pd (accessed on 10 Decembe 2024).
De So o, H. (2000). The mys e y o capi al. Black Swan.
Dehisa , M., & Awang, Z. (2020). Explo ing i ems and de eloping ins umen o measu ing o ganiza ional pe o mance among small
medium en e p ises in Jo dan. In e na ional Re iew o Managemen and Ma ke ing,10, 51–57. [C ossRe ]
Den , C. M. (2001). Singapo e’s o eign economic policy: The pu sui o economic secu i y. Con empo a y Sou heas Asia,23(1), 1–23.
[C ossRe ]
Diene , E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measu ing quali y o li e: Economic, social and subjec i e indica o s. Social Indica o s Resea ch,40, 189–216.
[C ossRe ]
Dudek, H. (2022). The isk and se e i y o ood insecu i y in V4 coun ies: Insigh om he uzzy app oach. Inzine ine Ekonomika-
Enginee ing Economics,33(2), 132–142. [C ossRe ]
Eu opean Cen al Bank. (2023). Financial s abili y. Eu opean Cen al Bank. A ailable online: h ps://www.ecb.eu opa.eu/pub/
inancial-s abili y/h ml/index.en.h ml (accessed on 1 Sep embe 2024).
Eu os a . (2024). A isk o po e y o social exclusion (AROPE). Eu os a . A ailable online: h ps://ec.eu opa.eu/eu os a /s a is ics
-explained/index.php? i le=Glossa y:A _ isk_o _po e y_o _social_exclusion_(AROPE) (accessed on 2 Decembe 2024).
Eu o oc. (2024). Eu o oc. EUR-Lex. A ailable online: h ps://eu -lex.eu opa.eu/b owse/eu o oc.h ml (accessed on 1 Sep embe
2024).
F iedman, M. (1962). Capi alism and eedom. The Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
F iedman, M., & F iedman, R. (1980). F ee o choose: A pe sonal s a emen . Ha cou .
F impong, S., Yusu , M. A., Boa eng, E., Ankomah, K., & Abeka, M. J. (2023). Financial inclusion, economic eedom and inancial s a-
bili y in sub-Saha an A ica. Thunde bi d In e na ional Business Re iew,65(4), 429–441. A ailable online: h ps://www.econbiz.de/
Reco d/ inancial-inclusion-economic- eedom-and- inancial-s abili y-in-sub-saha an-a ica- impong-siaw/10014326517 (ac-
cessed on 10 Decembe 2024). [C ossRe ]
Golinowska, S. (1999). Poli ical ac o s and e o m pa adigms in old-age secu i y in Poland. In K. Mülle , A. Ryll, & H. J. Wagene (Eds.),
T ans o ma ion o social secu i y: Pensions in cen al-Eas e n Eu ope. Con ibu ions o economics (pp. 173–199). Physica. [C ossRe ]
Golinowska, S. (2009). A case s udy o he Eu opean wel a e sys em model in he pos -communis coun ies—Poland. Polish Sociological
Re iew,166(2), 273–296.
Guja a i, D. (2003). Basic econome ics. McG aw-Hill.
Hacke , J. S., Hube , G. A., Rehm, P., Schlesinge , M., & Valle a, R. (2010). Economic secu i y a isk: Findings om he economic secu i y
index. Rocke elle Founda ion.
Economies 2025,13, 33 22 o 23
Hacke , J. S., Hube , G., Nichols, A., Rehm, P., Schlesinge , M., Valle a, R., & C aig, S. (2012). The economic secu i y index: A new measu e
o esea ch and policy analysis. Ins i u e o he S udy o Labo .
Ho igan, B. L., Ka asik, T., & Lalgee, R. (2008). Secu i y s udies. In L. Ku z (Ed.), Encyclopedia o iolence, peace, & con lic (2nd ed., pp.
1892–1900). Else ie .
Ingleha , R., & Ab amson, P. R. (1994). Economic secu i y and alue change. Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew,88(2), 336–354. [C ossRe ]
In e na ional Commi ee o he Red C oss. (2020). Economic secu i y s a egy 2020–2023. In e na ional Commi ee o he Red C oss.
Jiménez, M. (2021). Wha igge s economic insecu i y and who is mos a isk? UN.
Kaise , H. F. (1960). The applica ion o elec onic compu e s o ac o analysis. Educa ional and Psychological Measu emen ,20, 141–151.
[C ossRe ]
Kalinowski, S., & Łuczak, A. (2021). Social (in)secu i y—The ambi alence o illage s’ pe cep ions du ing COVID-19. P oblemy Poli yki
Społecznej. Social Policy Issues,54(3), 48–67. [C ossRe ]
Kha un, T. (2009). Measu ing en i onmen al deg ada ion by using p incipal componen analysis. En i onmen De elopmen and
Sus ainabili y,11(2), 439–457. [C ossRe ]
Kosny, M., & Pio owska, M. (2013). Economic secu i y o households and hei sa ings and c edi s (Na ional Bank o Poland Wo king Pape
No. 146). Na ional Bank o Poland. [C ossRe ]
Ko alenko, V., Sla inska, M., Sheludko, S., Makukha, S., & Valihu a, V. (2023). The mone a y componen in ensu ing he inancial
secu i y o he s a e. Financial and C edi Ac i i y: P oblems o Theo y and P ac ice,1(48), 8–22. [C ossRe ]
Liew, L. (2000). Human and economic secu i y: Is he e a nexus? In T. T. William, T. Ramesh, & H. In-Taek (Eds.), Asia’s eme ging
egional o de : Reconciling adi ional and human secu i y (pp. 192–208). Uni ed Na ions Uni e si y P ess.
Li ings on, V., Jackson-Ne els, B., & Reddy, V. V. (2022). Social, cul u al, and economic de e minan s o well-being. Encyclopedia,2(3),
1183–1199. [C ossRe ]
Manly, B. F., & Na a o Albe o, J. A. (2017). Mul i a ia e s a is ical me hods. CRC P ess.
McMahon, S., Ho ning, J., & Suh, J. Y. (2018). The basic economic secu i y ables. Ins i u e o Women’s Policy Resea ch.
Mogyo ósi, M., Bella, K. M., Kazimi , I. R., & Cseh, T. (2022, Augus 22–26). Measu emen o economic insecu i y in he Eu opean Union
be ween 2005 and 2020. 37 h IARIW Gene al Con e ence, Luxembou g. A ailable online: h ps://ia iw.o g/wp-con en /uploads/
2022/08/Mogyo osi-e -al-IARIW-2022.pd (accessed on 1 Sep embe 2024).
Mo enikeji, W., Uma u, E., Pai, H., Jiyab, S., Idowu, O., & Adeleye, B. (2017). Spa ial analysis o housing quali y in Nige ia. In e na ional
Jou nal o Sus ainable Buil En i onmen ,6, 309–316. [C ossRe ]
Mussida, C., & Pa isi, M. L. (2019). Risk o po e y in Sou he n Eu ope. Me oeconomica,71(2), 294–315. [C ossRe ]
Nesadu ai, H. E. S. (2005). Concep ualising economic secu i y in an e a o globalisa ion: Wha does he Eas Asian expe ience e eal? (CSGR
Wo king Pape No. 157/05). CSGR.
No h, D. (1990). Ins i u ions, ins i u ional change and economic pe o mance. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Osbe g, L. (1988). The ‘Disappea ance’ o in olun a y unemploymen . Jou nal o Economic Issues,22, 707–728. [C ossRe ]
Osbe g, L. (2009). Measu ing economic secu i y in insecu e imes: New pe spec i es, new e en s, and he index o economic well-being
(CSLS Resea ch Repo s 2009-12). Cen e o he S udy o Li ing S anda ds. A ailable online: h ps://ci esee x.is .psu.edu/
documen ? epid= ep1& ype=pd &doi=17642b27b93851a6e779b17199020b745147c9aa (accessed on 12 Decembe 2024).
Osbe g, L., & Sha pe, A. (2005). How should we measu e he “economic aspec s” o well-being? Re iew o Income and Weal h,51(2),
311–336. [C ossRe ]
Ozawa, T. (1992). Fo eign di ec in es men and economic de elopmen . T ansna ional Co po a ions,1(1), 27–54.
Pelkmans, J. (2024). Empowe ing he single ma ke . CEPS In-Dep h Analysis. A ailable online: h ps://cdn.ceps.eu/wp-con en /
uploads/2024/01/CEPS-InDep hAnalysis-2024-03_Empowe ing- he-Single-Ma ke .pd (accessed on 2 Decembe 2024).
Pe ică, A.-C., S ancu, S., & Ghi
,
ulescu, V. (2017). S a iona i y—The cen al concep in ime se ies analysis. In e na ional Jou nal o
Eme ging Resea ch in Managemen &Technology,6(1), 6–16. [C ossRe ]
Pillai, S., Siddika, N., Hoque Apu, E., & Kabi , R. (2020). COVID-19: Si ua ion o Eu opean coun ies so a . A chi es o Medical Resea ch,
51(7), 723–725. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Popescu, C. C., & Diaconu, L. (2021). Go e nmen spending and economic g ow h: A coin eg a ion analysis on omania. Sus ainabili y,
13(12), 6575. [C ossRe ]
P icop, I.-A. (2023). Explo ing inancial s abili y: The dicho omy be ween he G eek and he Czech model. Jou nal o Public Adminis a ion,
Finance and Law, 185–196. [C ossRe ]
P icop, I.-A., & Maxim, L. (2024). Why economic eedom ma e s in de e mining inancial s abili y: A case s udy on six eas e n
Eu opean coun ies. Eas e n Eu opean Jou nal o Regional S udies,10(1), 31–43. [C ossRe ]
Rod ik, D. (2001). De elopmen s a egies o he nex cen u y, Sede de la CEPAL en San iago (Es udios e in es igaciones) 33124. Naciones
Unidas Comisión Económica pa a Amé ica La ina y el Ca ibe (CEPAL).
Rohde, N., & Tang, K. (2018). Economic insecu i y: Theo e ical app oaches. In C. D’Amb osio (Ed.), Handbook o esea ch on economic and
social well-being (pp. 300–315). Edwa d Elga Publishing.
Economies 2025,13, 33 23 o 23
Romague a De la C uz, M. (2019). Measu ing economic insecu i y using a coun ing app oach. An applica ion on h ee EU coun ies.
The Re iew o Income and Weal h,66(3), 558–583. [C ossRe ]
Ro hba d, M. N. (1963). Wha has go e nmen done o ou money? Ludwig on Mises Ins i u e.
Ro hba d, M. N. (1994). The case agains he ed. Ludwig on Mises Ins i u e.
Ryso a, L., & Kazansky, R. (2021). Economic secu i y o he Eu opean Union in he con ex o he dynamics o de elopmen o
globalized wo ld economy. Secu i y Dimensions,39, 22–52. [C ossRe ]
Sabău-Popa, C. D., Simu , R., D oj, L., & Ben
,
e, C. C. (2020). Analyzing inancial heal h o he SMES lis ed in he AERO ma ke o
bucha es s ock exchange using p incipal componen analysis. Sus ainabili y,12(9), 3726. [C ossRe ]
Sánchez, A., & Na a o, M. (2021). Public policies o wel a e s a e and child po e y in he Eu opean Union. Sus ainabili y,13(5), 2725.
[C ossRe ]
Sen, A. (1973). On economic inequali y. Cla endon P ess. [C ossRe ]
Sen, A. (1976). Po e y: An o dinal app oach o measu emen . Econome ica,44, 219–231. [C ossRe ]
Smy he, K. D. (1968). An app oach o de e mining “sa e” le els o amily c edi commi men s. Jou nal o Consume A ai s,2(2), 167–181.
[C ossRe ]
S anko , P. (2017). Economic eedom and wel a e be o e and a e he C isis. Palg a e Macmillan.
S anoje ic, N. (2021). The ise o Eu opean p o ec ionism. In Eu ope in changes: The old con inen a a new c oss oads (pp. 407–424).
Ins i u e o In e na ional Poli ics and Economics: Facul y o Secu i y S udies a he Uni e si y. [C ossRe ]
Tang, S. M. (2015). Re hinking economic secu i y in a globalized wo ld. Con empo a y Poli ics,21(1), 40–52. [C ossRe ]
The He i age Founda ion. (2024). 2024 index o economic eedom. The He i age Founda ion.
an Oo scho , W., & Chung, H. (2015). Feelings o dual-insecu i y among Eu opean wo ke s: A mul i-le el analysis. Eu opean Jou nal o
Indus ial Rela ions,21(1), 23–37. [C ossRe ]
Vijaya, K. (2010, May 20–22). Cons uc ing an a ea-based socioeconomic index: A p incipal componen s analysis app oach. Ea ly Childhood
In e en ion Aus alia (ECIA) 2010 Con e ence, “E e y Day in E e y Way: C ea ing Lea ning Expe iences o E e y Child”,
Canbe a, Aus alia.
Wes e n, M., & Tomaszewski, W. (2016). Subjec i e wellbeing, objec i e wellbeing and inequali y in aus alia. PLoS ONE,11(10),
e0163345. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Zamo a-Kapoo , A., & Colle , X. (2014). The e ec s o he c isis: Why Sou he n Eu ope? Ame ican Beha io al Scien is ,58(12), 1511–1516.
[C ossRe ]
Disclaime /Publishe ’s No e: The s a emen s, opinions and da a con ained in all publica ions a e solely hose o he indi idual
au ho (s) and con ibu o (s) and no o MDPI and/o he edi o (s). MDPI and/o he edi o (s) disclaim esponsibili y o any inju y o
people o p ope y esul ing om any ideas, me hods, ins uc ions o p oduc s e e ed o in he con en .
