Suchergebnisse

Qin, Shuang. ; Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. ; Abstracts also in Chinese.

第三次民主化浪潮及其所代表的世界性民主化转型使得许多人相信民主不仅具有其本身的价值,而且有助于提高大众的福利水平。不少学者曾研究过民主制度与社会福利产出之间的关系。然而,在解释两者关系时并未得到一致性的结论。在很多情况下,民主制国家在改善人类发展指标和提高福利水平方面并没得到社会所期待的结果,而且经常被非民主制国家所超越。政治制度如何影响社会福利表现?民主化和社会福利发展之间是否存在取舍矛盾?如果这种取舍矛盾存在,如何将民主化的社会代价减到最小? ; 本研究试图加深我们对政治制度性质与社会福利产出水平之间关系的理解。为此,本文以维度路径分析政治制度的不同维度如何影响政府采取不同类型的政策选择。本文的核心问题是:民主制的哪些方面有利于/不利于哪种公共政策的实现?民主的不同维度能够促进/抑制哪些政策?竞争性选举和公众参与形成本研究的两个自变量维度。本研究应变量的两个维度是两种政府回应性:政府对公民基本需求(basic needs)的回应,即代表了社会福利表现的改进,以及政府对公民要求(wants and demands)的回应,即代表了满足群体所呼吁的而非客观上对其有利的政策福利。两者在概念上有所不同。本文首先在理论上分析自变量和应变量不同维度之间的关系,继而引用实证科学的定量和定性基本方法来检验所建立的理论关系。 ; 本研究证明,并非所有的导致回应要求(wants)的民主属性也有助于使政府回应基本需求(basic needs)。公众要求和公众客观需求作为公共政策所回应的目标具有不同的特征。从委托-代理理论框架来看,回应公众基本需求的政策需要政府采取不同于在回应主观要求时所采取的措施。由于这些不同点,在两个民主维度(政治竞争和公众参与)当中,只有后者对基本需求有积极影响,而前者往往会阻碍以回应基本需求为目的的政策。在政治竞争压力之下,追求选票最大化的政治家更倾向于采取回应社会现有要求的短期措施,且往往以忽视客观需求为代价。因此,为了避免民主化的高成本,需要促进民主的参与维度,且同时要缓解其竞争维度的激烈性。 ; The shift towards democracy globally under the "third wave" of democratization has stirred the conviction that democracy is not only a good thing in itself but also a promoter of general welfare. A considerable amount of research has been conducted to explore the effects of democracy on social outcomes. However, unequivocal conclusions regarding democracy's impact on health, education, life expectancy and other aspects of human well-being have not been achieved. Many democracies do not perform as good as they are expected to and are often outperformed by non-democratic regimes. Questions appear: How does political regime affect social performance? Is there a trade-off between democratization, on the one hand, and social development, on the other? If there is, how should democratization be carried out so as not to inhibit human well-being? ; This dissertation attempts to enhance our understanding of the impact of political regime on social outcomes by applying a dimensional approach. Instead of asking whether democracy is good or bad, it asks: which dimensions of political regime are good for which kinds of outcomes? What kinds of policies are promoted and what ...

It is generally acknowledged that Europe will not be a super power in the sense of a political-military ensemble on an equal footing with the United States or China. Europeans reject this possibility across the board. Moreover, even if they wanted to go that route, wouldn't it expose them to reproducing on a European scale what they have struggled to combat amongst themselves: the idea of becoming a great power with all the attributes of force and supremacy that such a project implies?So if Europe will not be a super power, how can it be a power at all? Probably by reinforcing what remains its major political resource: its capacity to produce and set up at the global level a system of norms as broad-sweeping as possible that can organize the world, discipline the interplay of its actors, introduce predictability in their behavior, develop among them a sense of collective responsibility, and offer those who engage on this path, particularly the weakest, at least the partial possibility to use these norms as an argument/force* against all, including the world's most powerful.The task may seem colossal, even outrageous. It probably is, but does Europe have any other choice but to assume its responsibility as a normative power? Probably not.[publisher's website]

It is generally acknowledged that Europe will not be a super power in the sense of a political-military ensemble on an equal footing with the United States or China. Europeans reject this possibility across the board. Moreover, even if they wanted to go that route, wouldn't it expose them to reproducing on a European scale what they have struggled to combat amongst themselves: the idea of becoming a great power with all the attributes of force and supremacy that such a project implies?So if Europe will not be a super power, how can it be a power at all? Probably by reinforcing what remains its major political resource: its capacity to produce and set up at the global level a system of norms as broad-sweeping as possible that can organize the world, discipline the interplay of its actors, introduce predictability in their behavior, develop among them a sense of collective responsibility, and offer those who engage on this path, particularly the weakest, at least the partial possibility to use these norms as an argument/force* against all, including the world's most powerful.The task may seem colossal, even outrageous. It probably is, but does Europe have any other choice but to assume its responsibility as a normative power? Probably not.[publisher's website]

by Wu Wai Man. ; Thesis submitted in: December 1997. ; Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1998. ; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 146-150). ; Abstract also in Chinese. ; Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 ; Chapter Chapter 2 --- Theoretical Framework --- p.12 ; Chapter Chapter 3 --- Operationalization of the Theoretical Framework --- p.27 ; Chapter Chapter 4 --- General Configurations of the Collective Action Events Concerning Issues of Public Housing Estates --- p.38 ; Chapter Chapter 5 --- The Hong Kong Government's Propensity of Repression --- p.49 ; Chapter Chapter 6 --- Formal and Informal Access for Participants of the Public Housing Movement --- p.69 ; Chapter Chapter 7 --- Policy and Strategic Orientation of the Grass-Root Oriented Political Parties --- p.99 ; Chapter Chapter 8 --- Changes in the Political Alignment: the Protrusions of Pro-China Resident Organizations --- p.125 ; Chapter Chapter 9 --- Conclusion --- p.133 ; Appendix Background Information of the Interviewees --- p.145 ; Bibliography --- p.146

本論文從兩個方面研究了1996年美國福利制度改革對單身母親的影響。首先,本文研究了在SSI和AFDC/TANF兩個政府福利計劃之間是否存在替代效應。其次,本文研究了福利制度改革是否令到更多的單身母親變得邊緣化(沒有參與工作亦沒有領取政府福利),以及研究她們的長期生活情況。利用美國三個具代表性的調查數據庫, difference-in-difference分析以及logistic回歸分析方法,本文有以下四點結論:(一)SSI和AFDC計劃之間並不存在替代效應;(二)對AFDC/TANF計劃實行五年的領取期限令到部分單身母親變得邊緣化;(三)在年福利改革之後,被邊緣化的單身母親在食物消費上並沒有發生太大的變化;(四)被邊緣化的單身母親傾向將她們多餘的時間分配在個人娛樂方面而不是在家務和照顧小孩上面。雖然年的福利改革成功地減少了領取/計劃的人數,但政策制定者仍需注意改革令到更多的單身母親變得邊緣化,同時應制定相關政策來幫助她們。 ; This paper studies the effect of the 1996 welfare reform on single mothers, focusing on two important aspects. First, it examines the existence of programme substitution between SSI and former AFDC/TANF recipients after the reform. Second, it examines the prevalence of single mothers who were disconnected from government assistance and the job market since the reform and evaluates their long-term well-being. Using three major nationally representative surveys, difference-in-difference analysis, and logistic regression models, I arrive at four main findings. First, I find no evidence of a programme substitution effect between AFDC/TANF and SSI. Second, the five-year time limit policy is suggested as being responsible for part of the increase in the disconnected rate among single mothers. Third, disconnected single mothers did not face a food insecurity problem after welfare reform. Fourth, disconnected single mothers allocate much more time to personal entertainment than to productive activities such as housework and child care. While the 1996 welfare reform has succeeded in reducing AFDC/TANF caseloads, policy makers should pay attention to its effects on the disconnectedness of single mothers and help such women leave their disconnected status. ; Detailed summary in vernacular field only. ; Hoi, Kam Un. ; Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2012. ; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 59-62). ; Abstracts also in Chinese. ; Abstract --- p.ii ; 摘要 --- p.iii ; Acknowledgements --- p.iv ; Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 ; Chapter 2 --- The AFDC Programme and the 1996 Welfare ...

In Managing Frontiers in Qing China , historians and anthropologists explore China's imperial expansion in Inner Asia, focusing on early Qing empire-building in Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and beyond - Central Asian perspectives and comparisons to Russia's Asian empire are included. Taking an institutional-historical and historical-anthropological approach, the essays engage with two Qing agencies well-known for their governance of non-Han groups: the Lifanyuan and Libu . This volume offers a comprehensive overview of the Lifanyuan and Libu , revising and assessing the state of affairs in the under-researched field of these two institutions. The contributors explore the imperial policies towards and the shifting classifications of minority groups in the Qing Empire, explicitly pairing and comparing the Lifanyuan and Libu as in some sense cognate agencies. This text offers insight into how China's past has continued to inform its modern policies, as well as the geopolitical make-up of East Asia and beyond. Contributors include: Uradyn E. Bulag, Chia Ning, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Nicola DiCosmo, Dorothea Heuschert-Laage, Laura Hostetler, Fabienne Jagou, Mei-hua Lan, Dittmar Schorkowitz, Song Tong, Michael Weiers,Ye Baichuan, Yuan Jian, Zhang Yongjiang