Intra-EU Labour Mobility and the Welfare State 91 Δ Old Age Δ Incapacity Δ Family Δ ALMP Δ Unemployment Δ Old dependency 0.14 ratio (0.08) Old dependency 0.00 ratiot-1 (0.01) Δ Disability rate –0.00 (0.01) Disability ratet-1 –0.01 (0.01) Δ Young dependency 0.06 ratio (0.05) Young dependency 0.02 ratiot-1 (0.01) 2004 expansion 0.01 –0.08*** –0.06*** –0.01 0.00 “restrictions lifted” (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.02) (0.03) 2007 expansion 0.04 –0.01 0.03 0.01 0.11*** “restrictions lifted” (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (0.03) (0.03) 2013 expansion 0.13* 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 “restrictions lifted” (0.07) (0.03) (0.03) (0.02) (0.06) Constant 4.96 –3.07 14.79** 19.45*** 25.27*** (6.53) (4.38) (6.29) (3.48) (8.68) Country fixed effects YES YES YES YES YES N 162 121 162 162 162 adj. R2 0.73 0.73 0.54 0.36 0.76 RMSE 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.12 Standard errors in parentheses * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01 The ECM models for replacement rates also show similar results to our previous model specification in Table 8. Table 4.11 shows that the lagged variable for CEE labour migration is positive, albeit weakly statistically significant for the change in the unemployment replacement rate and positive, and strongly statistically significant for the change in the social assistance replacement rate. A key change is a weak, negative association between WE labour migration and the social assistance replacement rate. This demonstrates that it is indeed possible that depending on the type of migration under study, the effects on the welfare state may vary.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw