Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACT**:  Privatization of electricity has been extensive both in the developed and the developing world. Failures in various areas have led to the emergence of a new consensus which regards competitive pressures and regulation as crucial for utility privatizations to work. This review paper presents a critical evaluation of this newly found wisdom with reference to the developing economies. The experience in the developed world, especially in the USA and the UK, has been used to draw conclusions for the developing economies. Overall, the paper highlights the problems associated with the 'competitive model' both in the developed and developing world and points to the potential instability in private competitive power supply systems. It also examines the degree to which regulation can be a panacea for market failures and structural problems under private provision.

ABSTRACTThis article focuses on the commercialization of urban water services in Zambia. It aims to demonstrate the tension between cost recovery and service extension when water sector reforms combine investment cuts with price increases. It is argued that in low‐income economies where infrastructure limitations are serious and poverty is widespread, heavy reliance on 'tariff rationalization' with low levels of investment can lead to reduced access to water and render water charges unaffordable. Reforms to public services can prove futile in the absence of upfront resources for investment in the restoration and extension of the existing infrastructure. In many ways, Zambia typifies other low‐income economies; this study thus offers useful lessons for them.

AbstractPrivatization programmes in the developing world have often been assessed on the grounds of efficiency. In recent years a more critical literature with a focus on the distributional and poverty impact of privatization has emerged. This article contributes to that literature in two ways. First, it presents a broad framework of empirical analysis of the relationship between privatization and poverty. Second, it applies this framework to the case of Sudan in as much as the existing data and information permit. The results do not lend much support for the arguments that privatization contributes to the efforts of poverty alleviation through various channels such as efficiency, employment creation and revenue generation for government. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Recent development literature has placed priority on poverty reduction, and on possible growth enhancement from a more equal distribution of assets and income. At the same time, empirical work consistently shows that economic growth is no more than distribution neutral. In that context, this paper explores the relationship among growth, inequality and poverty, and demonstrates the following general conclusions: 1) a redistributive growth path is always likely to be superior to a distribution neutral path ('trickle down') for reducing poverty; 2) a redistributive growth path is always superior if a country's per capita income and inequality are relatively high; and 3) a static redistribution from the rich to the poor is superior to a redistributive growth path in its effect on poverty for most countries, but not for all. The paper then considers policy that might be used to make growth more equitable. – poverty ; inequality ; growth ; redistribution

In the late 1990s the bilateral and multilateral development agencies placed increasing emphasis on poverty reduction in developing countries. This led to the establishment by the United Nations of the 'International Development Targets' for poverty reduction. The target of poverty reduction might be achieved through faster economic growth alone, through redistribution, or through a combination of the two. This article presents an analytical framework to assess the effectiveness of growth and redistribution for poverty reduction. It concludes that redistribution, either of current income or the growth increment of income, is more effective in reducing poverty for a majority of countries than growth alone.

This article aims to contribute to the theoretical development of the social resilience approach. Recognising the interface between resilience and poverty studies, it proposes a distinct role for resilience research from a critical perspective to understand the dynamics of hardship in exceptional times, such as times of socio-economic crises, rather than explaining the long-term trajectories of poverty. It then provides a conceptual framework on the structural foundations of social resilience, highlighting three components: rules, resources and power relations. The article uses the 2008 crisis and the ensuing period of austerity as a microcosm to place the discussion within a contemporary context.

Since 2008, Europe has been shaken by an ongoing crisis. If relevant parts of populations are exposed to socioeconomic risks, it is a distinctive characteristic of European political ethics that they must not be left alone, but should be subject to support and solidarity by budget support policy, economic development policies and social policy at different levels. But, in analogy with medical and psychological findings, some parts of the vulnerable population, although experiencing the same living conditions as others, are developing resilience, which in our context means that they perform social, economic and cultural practices and habits which protect them from suffer and harm and support sustainable patterns of coping and adaption. This resilience to socioeconomic crises at household levels is the focus of the project. It can consist of identity patterns, knowledge, family or community relations, cultural and social as well as economic practices, be they formal or informal. Welfare states, labour markets and economic policies at both macro or meso level form the context or 'environment' of those resilience patterns. For reasons of coping with the crisis without leaving the common ground of the implicit European social model (or the unwritten confession to the welfare state) under extremely bad monetary conditions in many countries, and for reasons of maintaining quality of life and improving social policy, it is a highly interesting perspective to learn from emergent processes of resilience development and their preconditions. Thus, the main questions are directed at understanding patterns and dimensions of resilience at micro-/household level in different types of European member and neighbour states accounting for regional varieties, relevant internal and external conditions and resources as well as influences on these patterns by social, economic or labour market policy as well as legal regulations. ; Seit 2008 sieht sich Europa mit einer andauernden Wirtschaftskrise konfrontiert. Grundsätzlich ist es ein Charakteristikum der politischen Ethik in Europa, unterstützend und solidarisch einzugreifen, wenn relevante Teile der europäischen Bevölkerung vermehrt sozioökonomischen Risiken ausgesetzt sind. Maßnahmen im Rahmen von Haushaltspolitik, Sozialpolitik und Wirtschaftsförderung auf verschiedenen Ebenen sollen Teilhabe sichern und bedrohte Gruppen vor dem sozialen Abstieg bewahren. Dies geschieht in unterschiedlichem Ausmaß, mit unterschiedlichen Strategien und mit unterschiedlichem Erfolg - und hier ist festzuhalten, dass es den vielzitierten "Paradigmenwechseln" in der Sozialpolitik bislang nicht gelungen ist, das Ausmaß an Armut und Vulnerabilität in Europa in großem Umfange zu verringern. Auf der anderen Seite kann - anlehnend an Erkenntnisse aus Medizin und Psychologie - festgestellt werden, dass innerhalb gefährdeter Personengruppen, die in vergleichbaren Lebensverhältnissen leben, kritische Lebensereignisse höchst unterschiedlich verarbeitet werden. So gelingt es manchen Haushalten und Familien, trotz erschwerter Rahmenbedingungen soziale, ökonomische und kulturelle Praktiken und Gewohnheiten auszubilden, die sie vor tieferen Leiden und Schaden schützen und ihnen eine nachhaltige Bewältigung und Anpassung an gegebene Herausforderungen ermöglichen. Die Erforschung solcher Praktiken der Resilienz in Privathaushalten als Antwort auf die Erfahrung sozioökonomischen Krisensituationen ist Gegenstand des Forschungsprojektes. Dabei werden sowohl Identitätsmuster, Wissensstrukturen, familiale oder kommunale Beziehungsnetzwerke, kulturelle und soziale wie auch ökonomische Praktiken in die Analyse mit einbezogen, seien sie formeller oder informeller Art. Wohlfahrtsstaaten, Arbeitsmärkte und Wirtschaftspolitiken sowohl auf der Makro- wie auch auf der Mikroebene bilden den Rahmen oder die "Umwelt" für derartige Muster von Resilienz. Das Forschungsprojekt ermöglicht die Analyse dieser Rahmenbedingungen sowie die Beantwortung der Frage, warum bestimmte Personen resiliente Verhaltensmuster in Krisenzeiten entwickeln können, anderen Haushalten dies jedoch nicht gelingt. Im Rahmen dessen wird sowohl auf die schwierige monetäre Situation einer Vielzahl europäischer Länder, als auch auf die Aufrechterhaltung der Lebensqualität und die Weiterentwicklung der Sozialpolitik Bezug genommen, ohne hierbei den gemeinsamen Ausgangspunkt eines impliziten europäischen Sozialstaatsmodells (oder das ungeschriebene Bekenntnis zum Sozialstaat) zu ignorieren. Die zentralen Fragestellungen beziehen sich daher auf ein tieferes Verständnis der Strukturen und Ausprägungen von Resilienz auf der Haushalts- bzw. Mikroebene verschiedener Typen von EU-Mitglieds- und Nachbarstaaten, die darüber hinaus regionale Besonderheiten aufweisen. Darüber hinaus werden interne und externe Bedingungen und Ressourcen von Resilienz ebenso untersucht wie Einflüsse der Sozial-, Wirtschafts- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik und der gesetzlichen Grundlagen.

Since 2008, Europe has been shaken by an ongoing crisis. If relevant parts of populations are exposed to socioeconomic risks, it is a distinctive characteristic of European political ethics that they must not be left alone, but should be subject to support and solidarity by budget support policy, economic development policies and social policy at different levels. But, in analogy with medical and psychological findings, some parts of the vulnerable population, although experiencing the same living conditions as others, are developing resilience, which in our context means that they perform social, economic and cultural practices and habits which protect them from suffer and harm and support sustainable patterns of coping and adaption. This resilience to socioeconomic crises at household levels is the focus of the project. It can consist of identity patterns, knowledge, family or community relations, cultural and social as well as economic practices, be they formal or informal. Welfare states, labour markets and economic policies at both macro or meso level form the context or 'environment' of those resilience patterns. For reasons of coping with the crisis without leaving the common ground of the implicit European social model (or the unwritten confession to the welfare state) under extremely bad monetary conditions in many countries, and for reasons of maintaining quality of life and improving social policy, it is a highly interesting perspective to learn from emergent processes of resilience development and their preconditions. Thus, the main questions are directed at understanding patterns and dimensions of resilience at micro-/household level in different types of European member and neighbour states accounting for regional varieties, relevant internal and external conditions and resources as well as influences on these patterns by social, economic or labour market policy as well as legal regulations