In this article we evaluate to what extent between-country differences in the probability of being "multidimensional" poor can be explained by a range of "domain-specific" indicators of welfare regime arrangements. To this end, a so-called micro-macro model is estimated, testing the "independent" effect of institutions, as opposed to alternative explanations such as between-country differences in population composition and economic affluence. Although we conclude that institutional arrangements do influence the risk of multidimensional poverty in the expected direction, we also find that bringing the "economy" back into the analyses has a non-trivial impact. Our results point at several avenues for further discussion and research. First, although the more elaborate welfare regimes generally do a better job in preventing poverty, the level of transfers is not always "proportional" to the general standard of living in these countries. Second, we only find partial confirmation for the often cited "negative" impact of labour market flexibility and the related "equality-jobs trade-off." While stricter employment regulations do reduce the poverty risk (be it only after controlling for economic affluence), flexibility in terms of the availability of fixed-term labour seems to be preferable to unemployment, even if at the individual level, labour market flexibility increases the likelihood of being poor quite severely.