Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe preamble of 1945 Constitution have declared Indonesia as a welfare state. Post-amendment of the 1945 Constitution, the rights of Indonesian citizen to welfare is regulated in Article 28 H sections (1), (2), (3), and Article 34 sections (2) and (3), which then is subsequented by Law number 40 of 2004 on National Social Security System, followed by Law number 24 of 2011 on Social Security Agency (BPJS). However, both regulations instead created new problems: the government is monopolizing the business of security insurance, and the existence of double burden to the citizens in paying taxes as an obligation and paying insurance premium as contribution fee to get social security. This study will further elaborate: First, the concept of the welfare state of Indonesia; and Second, the consistency of social security regulations towards the effort to manifestation of Indonesia as a welfare state.IntisariPembukaan UUD NRI Tahun 1945 telah mendeklarasikan Indonesia sebagai negara kesejahteraan (welfare state). Pasca amandemen UUD NRI Tahun 1945 hak warga negara dalam kesejahteraan diatur dalam Pasal 28 H ayat (1), (2), (3) dan Pasal 34 ayat (2) dan (3), yang kemudian diejawantahkan dalam UU No. 40 Tahun 2004 tentang Sistem Jaminan Sosial Nasional yang ditindaklanjuti dengan UU No. 24 Tahun 2011 tentang Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial (BPJS). Namun kedua pengaturan tersebut justru menimbulkan permasalahan baru: pemerintah membuat monopoli dalam bisnis asuransi jaminan, dan ada beban ganda bagi warga negara dalam membayar pajak sebagai kewajiban membayar premi asuransi sebagai kontribusi untuk mendapatkan pertanggungan dari jaminan sosial. Penelitian ini akan mengkaji: Pertama, bagaimana konsepsi negara kesejahteraan Indonesia; dan Kedua, bagaimana konsistensi pengaturan jaminan sosial terhadap upaya mewujudkan konsepsi negara kesejahteraan Indonesia.

The German welfare state in gendered welfare state analyses is widely recognized as a strong male breadwinner model: its institutions sup port the traditional division of labour and low female labour force participation. This article seeks to show that due to diminishing political support this model is eroding. The article starts from the assumption that the welfare state is a mediator between dy namic social and economic requirements. Therefore social policy regulations need to be adjusted continuously. This need has intensi fied over the last decade because of growing global economic competition and the collapse of the East German economy. The way social policymakers reacted to this pressure for reform shows no active support for the poli cies that help to maintain women's economic dependency on 'breadwinners'. This will be demonstrated by an analysis of the positions of the political actors involved in two major pension reforms, one in 1989 and one in 1997. According to their public statements these actors were motivated by three factors: firstly, they agreed that retrenchment measures were necessary; secondly, the intention to secure generational reproduction by improving carers' independent rights was dominant; thirdly, reforms were motivated by the inten tion to make the pension system more just. The direction of the reforms is to reduce the economic attractiveness of marriage and to create stronger incentives to be employed.

Sociology Reference Guide: Systems of Government -- Contents -- Introduction -- Government Systems: Authoritarianism -- Government Systems: Religious Governments -- Government Systems: Democracy -- Democracy: The Pluralist Perspective -- Democracy: The Elitist Perspective -- Citizenship Rights -- The Welfare State -- Democratization of Transforming Nations -- Global Politics: Causes of War -- Global Politics: International Terrorism -- National Security -- The Nation-State -- Nationalism & -- the Modern State.

""Sociology Reference Guide: Systems of Government""; ""Contents""; ""Introduction""; ""Government Systems: Authoritarianism""; ""Government Systems: Religious Governments""; ""Government Systems: Democracy""; ""Democracy: The Pluralist Perspective""; ""Democracy: The Elitist Perspective""; ""Citizenship Rights""; ""The Welfare State""; ""Democratization of Transforming Nations""; ""Global Politics: Causes of War""; ""Global Politics: International Terrorism""; ""National Security""; ""The Nation-State""; ""Nationalism & the Modern State""

The large number of Thai transgender women (Kathoey) in Thailand and their visible roles in society often lead casual visitors to believe that Thailand is open and accepting of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) culture. Hence, it is common to hear Thailand described as gender tolerant and culturally sensitive. However, transgender women themselves beg to differ. They explain that the accumulated injustices of the Thai state on transgender rights – such as same sex marriage, social welfare, change of gender on identification card and structural employment discrimination - are the main push factor for Thai transgender women migration to Europe. This research presents state and street discrimination in Thailand and Europe. It also presents the visions of Europe that are commonly held by transgender women, visions that motivate some of them to migrate, and argues that these fantasies are romanticizing productions of western colonial influence. In Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and The UK, where the governments support equal rights of transgender people, Kathoeys find that they are allowed to legally marry, revel in professional progress, access social welfare and receive transgender legal protections. However compared to Thailand, Kathoeys experience more severe discrimination and transprejudice on street (social) level in Europe. This research studies the phenomenon of Thai transgender women migration to Europe and their perception before migrating and reality of living in Europe. It compares the levels of discrimination in Thailand and Europe and presents empirical data regarding street discrimination towards Kathoeys in Europe, despite state protection. The gap between European legal protections and the negative attitudes toward Kathoeys that continues to exist on the street demonstrates the power of universal and essentialist binary opposition: as hetero-normativity and cis-gender bodies are constructed to comprise normalcy and natural, Kathoeys and their transgendered bodies equate with deviancy and ...

What does the growth of faith-based organisations (FBOs) in social welfare mean for women's rights and gender equality, especially within advocacy services for women experiencing domestic violence? Through empirical research within a Catholic-based organisation providing welfare services to abused women in São Paulo, Brazil, this article argues that FBOs can negatively impact the provision of women's rights when conservative and patriarchal views towards gender and women's roles in society are maintained. A heavily matrifocal perspective, where women's identity and subjectivity are mediated through their normative roles as wives, mothers and carers of the family, appears to offer little possibility of change for abused women, who are encouraged to forgive violent husbands and question their own behaviour. Mediation between couples is promoted, undermining women's rights upheld through Brazil's domestic violence law (Lei Maria da Penha no 11.340). Furthermore, the focus of family preservation, supported by a patriarchal state, means that violence against women (VAW) appears to be subordinated to a focus on family violence and violence against children. In this case, faith-based involvement in social welfare rejects the feminist analysis of VAW as a gender-based problem, viewing it as a personal issue rather than a collective or political issue, making women responsible for the violence in their lives.

The idea of a basic or citizens' income rests on the principle that everyone is entitled to the resources which make possible at least a minimum standard of subsistence. This principle is well-established in those countries, particularly in Europe, with a developed welfare state tradition, although its implementation, even in those countries, is surrounded by qualifications centered on the obligation of able-bodied citizens to work and the restriction of public assistance to those who can prove their need for support, which are monitored by an enormous inhuman and incompetent bureaucratic apparatus of inspection, regulation and control. Moreover, the solidaristic welfare tradition is being eroded by individualistic approaches to welfare provision based on compulsory or voluntary, state or private insurance principles.

Front Matter -- From Effectiveness to Efficiency? An Introduction to Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics / Miranda Mugford, Ian Shemilt, Luke Vale, Kevin Marsh, Cam Donaldson, Jacqueline Mallender -- The Role of Review and Synthesis Methods in Decision Models / Kevin Marsh -- The Role of Economic Perspectives and Evidence in Systematic Review / Rob Anderson, Ian Shemilt -- The Role of Economic Evidence in Formulation of Public Policy and Practice / Sarah Byford, Barbara Barrett, Richard Dubourg, Jennifer Francis, Jane Sisk -- Generalisability, Transferability, Complexity and Relevance / Damian G Walker, Yot Teerawattananon, Rob Anderson, Gerry Richardson -- Equity, Efficiency and Research Synthesis / David McDaid, Franco Sassi -- Searching for Evidence for Cost-Effectiveness Decisions / Julie Glanville, Suzy Paisley -- Identifying and Reviewing Health State Utility Values for Populating Decision Models / John Brazier, Diana Papaioannou, Anna Cantrell, Suzy Paisley, Kirsten Herrmann -- Use of Evidence in Decision Models / Doug Coyle, Karen M Lee, Nicola J Cooper -- Grading Economic Evidence / Massimo Brunetti, Francis Ruiz, Joanne Lord, Silvia Pregno, Andrew D Oxman -- Meta-Regression Models of Economics and Medical Research / T D Stanley -- From Evidence-Based Economics to Economics-Based Evidence: Using Systematic Review to Inform the Design of Future Research / Ed Wilson, Keith Abrams -- Complex Problems or Simple Solutions? Enhancing Evidence-Based Economics to Reflect Reality / Chantale Lessard, Stephen Birch -- Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics: Lessons for Practice / Luke Vale -- Evidence-Based Decisions and Economics: An Agenda for Research / Michael Drummond -- Glossary of Terms / Asmaa Abdelhamid, Ian Shemilt -- Index.

ABSTRACTThe global shift towards the market in the provision of social security is typically associated with the values of the New Right, but we take issue with this view. An examination of the main welfare ideologies that have influenced the development of contemporary social security systems suggests that the market and individualism have a role to play in a range of approaches to reform. Whilst some approaches unreservedly endorse the market – in a way which accords with the ideas of the New Right – other approaches adopt a pragmatic orientation based on a recognition of two public policy dilemmas, "market failure" and "state failure." This attempt to define a middle way typifies many of the recent social security reform initiatives. Drawing upon Esping‐Andersen's recent work on de‐commodification, we construct a typology of normative approaches to the provision of social security which may be used to contextualise market‐oriented social security reform initiatives. This we argue is necessary to avoid the over‐simplified dichotomy between individualism and collectivism which is typical of so much recent work on social security reform.

The article emphasizes that accounts of European social policy generally present a minimalist interpretation of European Union involvement. The sovereign nation-state allows no relevant role for the EU in social policy. The Union's sphere is market building, leaving social policy to citizenfocused, national welfare state, its sovereignty formally untouched though perhaps endangered indirectly by growing economic interdependency. Three welfare state models (liberal, social-democratic, conservative) are discussed in the article. The author highlights that the welfare states are national states. The article defines and discusses European social model as a set of European Community and member-state legal regulations, but also as a range of practices aimed at promoting a comprehensive social policy in the European Union. The European social model has developed alongside the different steps taken towards European integration, that confirms how this model is related to EU economic and political integration. The common values, that includes European social model, such as democracy, individual rights, free collective bargaining, equality of opportunity for all, and social welfare and solidarity are discussed in the article. The article gives the set of different elements of the European social model major of them labour law on worker's rights, employment, equal opportunities, antidiscrimination, etc., that can be characterized as "European society". The progress of European social model depends on the growth of European economies, the development of knowledge societies, and the modernization of work organization that requires constant adaptation. ; Straipsnio tikslas – nustatyti pagrindinius Europos socialinio modelio bruožus ir elementus, aptarti svarbiausias vertybines nuostatas, atskleisti šio modelio problemiškumą ir santykinumą Europos Sąjungoje. Tuo tikslu analizuojama socialinės politikos raida nuo Europos Bendrijos sukūrimo iki paskutiniosios Europos Sąjungos plėtros Vidurio ir Rytų Europos link, atskleidžiamas jos vaidmuo integraciniuose procesuose ir transformacija nuo ekonominės politikos priedėlio į savarankišką politiką. Straipsnyje aptariama gerovės valstybės samprata ir modeliai, pabrėžiamas jos nacionalinis pobūdis. Išryškinant valstybės narės nacionalinės socialinės politikos ir ES socialinės politikos skirtumus, pabrėžiami pastarosios socialinio reguliavimo uždaviniai.

In recent years, the European Public Health Systems have been mired in the worst financial crisis in its history, pointing to the welfare state as the main responsible for it. The objective of this work has been to analyze the extent to which the economic crisis that began in 2008 has affected the social policies and inequalities in health, specifying the effects of this on the health of the population. To properly analyze the current situation, it is important to know to what extent the economic crisis has affected the health of populations and in particular, certain vulnerable groups (children, elderly, women, others). Contrary to the recent UN resolution urging governments to provide universal access and quality of health services, the tendency has been to prioritize the reduction in the deficit through austerity measures focused on health and education. The effects of this health crisis depends on the social protection policies undertaken, and its extension of services to the most vulnerable groups, as these crises have been associated with an increase in most diseases, mainly mental, as well as an increase in suicide mortality. ; En estos últimos años los Sistemas Públicos de Salud europeos se han visto sumidos en la peor crisis financiera de su historia, señalándose al Estado de Bienestar como principal responsable de la misma. El objetivo de este trabajo ha sido analizar en qué medida ha afectado la crisis económica iniciada en 2008, a las políticas sociales y a las desigualdades en salud, concretando los efectos de la misma sobre la salud de la población.Para analizar correctamente la actual situación habría que conocer en qué medida influyen las crisis económicas en la salud de las poblaciones y más aún sobre ciertos grupos vulnerables (niños, ancianos, mujeres,…). En contra de la reciente resolución de la ONU instando a los gobiernos hacia un acceso universal y de calidad de sus servicios sanitarios, se ha priorizado la reducción del déficit mediante programas de austeridad en sanidad y educación principalmente. Los efectos de esta crisis sobre la salud van a depender fundamentalmente de las políticas de protección social, y de su extensión a los grupos más vulnerables, ya que estas crisis se han asociado a un aumento de la mayoría de las enfermedades, fundamentalmente mentales, además, de un incremento de la mortalidad por suicidio.

Purpose: This article aims to focus on deaths by suicide in relation to UK welfare reform as a case study to question one of suicidology's most dominant theories – the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (Joiner, 2005) and its influential ideas on "perceived burdensomeness" – as well as wider ideologies on suicide and mental health reflected in this approach. Design/methodology/approach: This article draws on evidence from disabled people's campaigning groups (primary sources) and research literature (secondary sources), which shows the negative psychological impact of burden discourse and how this shows up in people's accounts of feeling suicidal, in suicide notes and in family accounts of those who have died by suicide. It uses this evidence to problematise the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (Joiner, 2005), specifically its ideas about "burden" as an individual misperception, and the assumption that suicide is always the outcome of mental health problems. Findings: The findings highlight the systemic, intersectional and cumulative production of suicidality by governmental "welfare reform" in the UK, through positioning welfare claimants as "burdens" on society. They show that by locating the problem of burdensomeness in individual "misperceptions", the Interpersonal Theory allows the government's role in crafting stigmatisation and conditions of suicidality to be overlooked and to be reproduced. Originality/value: The article raises urgent ethical questions about the application of approaches, such as the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, to benefits-related suicides and calls for approaches to benefits-related harm and suicide to be rooted in social and disability justice.