Suchergebnisse

The question of Turkey's membership in the EU has been the subject of debates about the cosmopolitan future of Europe. Using the concept of cosmopolitanism as developed by Beck, Habermas, and Delanty, this article argues that the possibility of an antiontological and multicultural cosmopolitan European community will largely depend on how Europe answers the question of whether Turkey should be granted membership in the EU. Turkey forces a debate on three crucial areas that are directly related to the cosmopolitan future of Europe: (a) Europe's geopolitical place in the global world, (b) postnational forms of a European public sphere, and (c) European identity. The potential for a multicultural and pluralistic cosmopolitanism is a two-way street, and while Turkey's membership will have a transformative impact on the EU, the membership process will also have a similar impact on Turkish democracy and modernity.

In the wake of the Iraq war of 2003, and in response to the European reaction to the war, a number of prominent European intellectuals launched a new debate on Europe's identity, and in particular the extent to which it differed from American identity. The debate was sparked by a newspaper article by Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, which was circulated to several other intellectuals for comment. The Europe-wide debate which ensued — in which several Americans joined — provides a revealing snap-shot of European opinion on the question of Europe's identity. It illustrates in particular the dangers as well as the seductions of seeing that identity mainly in terms of a contrast with America, putatively to the advantage of the Europeans. This article argues that such a contrast fuels an anti-Americanism that is disabling to Europe and conceals many significant — and less selfflattering — aspects of the European inheritance.

Abstract Current policy‐making assumes people perceive and respond to financial risk in a uniform and rational way. This research sought to investigate whether social and cultural differences along the dimensions of disability, sexuality, faith and ethnicity influence attitudes to money and approaches to planning for possible financial risk eventualities. Eighty in‐depth interviews with individuals committed to different faiths (Muslim and Christian), disabled people, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and members of black and minority ethnic groups (black and Asian) were conducted in 2005/2006. Mainstream cultural reference points were dominant in respondents' accounts; however, difference was also found to be more determining in some areas than has previously been documented. The article explores the impact of these relationships on financial planning and draws out the policy implications of the different elements of difference on financial planning. The study argues that socio‐cultural approaches to risk need to be better understood at the policy‐making level.

Abstract'Convergence theorists' suggest that domestic and/or global challenges and pressures are rendering welfare states broadly similar across national boundaries. 'Resilience theorists', in contrast, argue that a range of socio‐political factors have allowed states to respond differentially to these pressures and maintain their distinct national social policy approaches. However, both research streams have addressed the 'welfare state' writ large in a multitude of nations and typically relied upon narrow, quantitative budgetary indicators. This study examines qualitative changes to key income security and social service programmes in one central social policy domain – labour market policy – in three nations, the United States, Canada and Sweden. It suggests that there is evidence of some degree of 'convergence' in the broadest sense of the term across these three nations. However, while both the USA and Canada have readily embraced genuinely neo‐liberal restructuring, and become increasingly similar over the past two decades in this policy area, Sweden has managed to retain its distinctive social policy approach so far, despite notable changes, developments and trends. It also suggests that the character and direction of change may vary across and within policy domains in a single nation. The conclusion provides a discussion of universality, equality and solidarity, concepts that are commonly employed in accounts of welfare state change.