Suchergebnisse

There are three types of public pension systems popular throughout the world: Pay-As-You-Go (defined benefit), Funded (defined contribution), & Mixed. The latter two systems were largely adopted in the 1990s after Chile successfully built its Funded system. In this paper we analyze the choice of these types of pension system, identifying factors that affect countries' choice. Several measures of freedom -- economic & political -- are associated with these choices. The estimated effects of the two freedoms on pension choice & percent elderly are quite interesting & intuitive. 4 Tables, 4 Appendixes, 44 References. Adapted from the source document.

Does intergovernmental structure have a systematic effect on the impacts of local governments' fiscal policy responses? Using empirical data from more than 800 local governments in five countries, the article concludes that intergovernmental structure is associated with the impact attributed to various fiscal management strategies. Such strategies have generally had greater impact in local governments in federal systems than those in unitary state systems.There are similarities between federal and unitary local governments regarding the fiscal management strategies that have least impact, and both types stress the importance of productivity gains via technology. But the differences in relative importance and level of impact are more striking than the similarities. In particular, fiscal management strategies involving the relations of the local government with other governments, such as obtaining intergovernmental revenue and shifting service provision to other governments, have greater impact in significantly more federal systems than in unitary state systems. These federal local governments also experience greater impacts from increasing user charges and raising local taxes. In contrast, local governments in unitary state systems place greater reliance on the more politically expeditious strategy of across–the–board expenditure reductions and on reductions of capital spending.These findings suggest that local governments in more decentralized systems have greater flexibility to manipulate relations with other governments in order to enhance their own fiscal situation. The data also suggest that the government's level of fiscal stress is not systematically associated with the level of impact from most fiscal management strategies, especially in the unitary state systems.

The ranking list of the best countries in the world published in Newsweek (August 23 & 30, 2010) caused debate on the factors that have helped some countries create better living conditions for people than many other countries, but there was hardly any discussion of the basic causes of the persistence of enormous disparities in human conditions in the world. The purpose of this paper is to compare various indexes measuring human wellbeing from different perspectives and to seek an explanation for their similarities and for the persistence of great disparities. The central argument is that clear differences in the average intelligence of nations (national IQ) explain a main part of the national differences in living conditions measured by various indexes. Adapted from the source document.

In comparing Switzerland & Japan with respect to intergovernmental relations, differences are more obvious than similarities. Switzerland is a strongly federalist country. In contrast, Japan was clearly centralist in the past, & despite continuing decentralization reforms, it is usually still considered to be so today. The influence of the lower levels of government on the national legislative process remains comparatively low in Japan. Its centralized political structure seems to fit Japan's homogeneous culture, while on the other hand Swiss federalism has proven to be apt for the integration of minorities & for respect of cultural diversity. In spite of obvious basic differences, intergovernmental relations in these two countries face similar challenges: the concentration of human & economic resources in urban areas, the weakening of subnational parliaments, & financial strain. 6 Tables, 41 References. Adapted from the source document.

The articles in this issue report on a variety of young people's behaviors & attitudes, drawn from a wide range of countries. An obvious challenge to which these findings give rise is to explain the differences between countries in these attitudes & behaviors. In this article, we look to institutional variation to supply an answer. Institutions establish a set of opportunities & constraints to which young people respond, but they also reflect, & help to establish, normatively appropriate ways of behaving. We conceptualize institutional variation in terms of welfare regime types, labor market regulation, & educational systems, & we try to sketch some of the ways in which variations in these might explain some national differences in some aspects of the position of young people & the transition from youth to adulthood. 1 Table, 26 References. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications, Inc.]

After the unification of Italy, laws were passed establishing the uniformity of local institutions over the whole national territory. In pre-Nazi Germany, on the contrary, those institutions were regulated by norms that allowed -- in accordance with the will of the citizens -- a great variety of forms of government. Another difference between the two cases lies in the important role given in Germany to the burgomaster: a personality with great technical abilities & political balance. The Italian communes were instead governed along factional or party lines, & this necessitated strong forms of control on the part of the central government. The two cases are therefore embodiments of two different traditions: the unitary & centralist one, in Italy, & the federal & autonomist one, in Germany. The differences came near to disappearing only during the authoritarian regimes, which saw the end, in both countries, of local autonomy & the dominance, in municipal government, of party personalities appointed by the center. Adapted from the source document.

This paper picks up the themes addressed in the individual papers of this journal volume & seeks to highlight the emerging differences & similarities in the different states. It will ask whether harmonization under the new regimes that have been discussed in these papers continues to mean convergence toward a lowest common denominator & it will explore some of the constraints on policy formulation in this area. The purpose of the paper is to link the various themes raised throughout this volume, asking in particular whether the political shifts that have been discussed have resulted in changes in policy & practice at both national & European levels & to what extent national policy is dictated by the EU & its most powerful members. 1 Table, 18 References. Adapted from the source document.