Suchergebnisse

Essay in a symposium on international statesman Max van der Stoel and his important contribution to promoting security and human rights. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
In his libertarian manifesto, For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard [15] points to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an excellent model for what a private welfare program would look like in a free society. In analyzing this same organization, we can see that nearly 50 years later Rothbard's analysis is truer than ever. Unlike the public welfare programs in the U.S., the LDS church has successfully helped lift countless individuals out of poverty and off the welfare rolls by increasing their level of productivity – a point that Henry Hazlitt [7] made in his book, The Conquest of Poverty. Public welfare, on the other hand, has continuously failed to increase the standard of living or even lift those it ostensibly seeks to help out of poverty; on the contrary, it is a system that prevents economic independence. The analysis in the present paper seeks to revive, amplify and bring up to date Rothbard's observation and provide further insight on key factors that other private organizations can take from the Church's model. Ultimately, it reveals that the successful journey out of poverty is not a public but rather a private endeavor.

AbstractSocial services in the United States are supplied by both the public and private sectors. Previous political science research has focused on public transfers or Medicaid; I study "Other Public Welfare" programs that include contracts and grants to private social services providers, focusing on the relationship between the two sectors. My results imply that an increase in either Other Public Welfare spending or private individual and family services employees leads to an increase in the other sector. I find weaker evidence of similar relationships involving private residential care or day care services, and private social services employment is generally independent of public spending on transfers and Medicaid. My results have implications for the full effects of changes in public welfare spending, including the effects on the private sector, as well as the effects of organized interests on public welfare spending.

One of the few avenues open to citizens to dispute mistakes in the administration of public welfare programs is administrative hearings ("fair hearings"). However, recipients rarely use them. This has important implications for social equity, as government is obligated to ensure its process for distributing benefits is fair and equitable. Drawing on data from 28 qualitative interviews with recipients who were sanctioned for violating the work rules, this study explores why recipients appealed, or did not appeal, their work sanctions. The findings indicate that nearly all of the recipients believed they were wrongfully sanctioned and were aware of their right to appeal. For recipients who did not appeal, the fair hearing system was indistinguishable from the rest of the agency, which they viewed as inflexible and intractable. In contrast, those who appealed viewed fair hearings more favorably, and unlike the nonappealers, had been encouraged to appeal by social networks.