Suchergebnisse

The Intergenerational Justice Review (www.igjr.org) is a peer-reviewed English language journal, reflecting the current state of research on intergenerational justice. The IGJR publishes articles from humanities, social sciences, and international law. The journal is released biannually and employs a double-blind peer review process. Its editorial board consists of about 50 internationally renowned experts from ten different countries. IGJR is indexed under Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The topic of issue 1/2020 (which is planned to be the first part of a double issue) will be"Housing crisis: How can we improve the situation for young people?" We welcome submissions to the issue 1/2020 that analyse the housing situation of the young generation. Topic outlineIn many European countries, and especially in large cities and university towns, affordable housing is a pressing and sometimes explosive issue. In the debate about such questions as home ownership or rent increase caps (Mietpreisbremse – German: rent brakes), the intergenerational perspective is often forgotten. But different generations are affected in noticeably different ways. Rising rent and purchase prices and the failure of housing construction programmes make it ever more difficult for young people to access the housing market. The quality of housing is a key factor in living standards and wellbeing, as well as an integral element of social integration, yet in 2014 a total of 7.8% of young people in the European Union (aged between 15 and 29) were in severe housing need, 25.7% of the young people in the EU lived in overcrowded households, and 13.6% lived in households that spent 40% or more of their equivalised disposable income on housing (Eurostat 2016).In response to the 2008/9 financial crisis, government programmes for public and social housing aimed at the poorer parts of the population were cut back, leading to diminishing access to affordable housing, especially in urbanised areas. For young people, this means that they have to pay higher rents. Today, therefore, they often live longer in their parental homes, or in the private rental sector, than previous generations (Ronald/Lennartz 2018).What is often referred to as a "housing crisis" can certainly be seen as a question of intergenerational justice, because the baby boomers had easier access to housing or to the means to finance it. Today, the baby boomer generation benefits from housing inequality in two ways: through property values and rental income. At the same time, with pension systems under pressure because of ageing populations, the ownership of residential property has become an important component of old-age provision (Helbrecht/ Geisenkauser 2012).Younger generations, on the other hand, are disadvantaged in two respects: today's increased demand leads to further pressure on the housing market in the low-price segment, which in turn leads to an increase in the rent burden for lower and middle income groups, and also makes the purchase of residential property more difficult. In many parts of Europe, such as the Southeast of the UK, in the 1980s the average cost of a first home was three to four times the annual average salary; today it can be ten or twelve times the annual average salary.From this perspective, it can certainly be argued that the housing market situation is not intergenerationally fair. And in many European countries, ownership of real estate has become a much greater source of wealth inequality between generations than salary differentials.This gloomy picture of housing and home ownership is, however, by no means universal. Statistics point to significant differences between countries, and international comparisons show that successful housing policies are possible. An EU comparison shows that the percentage of households managed by a person aged 18–29 who spends 40% or more of their disposable income on housing costs ranges from 1.3% (in Malta) to 45.4% (in Greece) (Leach et al. 2016). It is clear that some countries perform significantly better than others in providing affordable housing for the next generation.Articles could approach the topic through a broad range of questions, including:How did the housing crisis come to be and how can housing inequality for young people be improved?Why are some countries better than others at providing affordable housing for the next generation? What are the similarities and differences? What lessons can be drawn from cross-country comparisons?What political levers, such as subsidies, could be introduced to help the younger generation achieve more affordable and long-term housing security? Is the German Mietpreisbremse a successful instrument for this and how does it affect the young generation?Planet vs. people: It is often suggested that the solution to the housing crisis is to build more homes, but this raises the question of encroaching on green spaces and the environmental impact that this implies. How can that tension be resolved? How can urbanisation and the housing market become more environmentally friendly?Another solution is to use existing housing stock more efficiently. Can government policy help to bring this about, for example by incentivising the fuller occupation of large houses with unused spare bedrooms, or by discouraging the ownership of second homes through higher taxation? What is the potential of new forms of housing, such as shared housing, multi-generational housing, homeshare (housing for help)?How does homelessness affect young people in particular and how can it be combated?How can those who work in the media be encouraged to address this topic?Submission RequirementsSubmissions will be accepted until 31 December 2019.Articles may be submitted electronically through the IGJR homepage (see "Submissions").Articles should be no more than 30,000 characters in length (including spaces but excluding bibliography, figures, photographs and tables). For details, see the author guidelines: http://www.igjr.org/ojs/igjr_doc/Author_Guidelines.pdfDemography PrizeNote that this topic is closely related to the subject of the next Demography Prize promoted by the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG) and the Intergenerational Foundation (IF). The prize is endowed with 10,000€ and has 1 December 2019 as its deadline. Young researchers may also wish to participate in this essay competition, and it is hoped that this edition of the IGJR will contain a selection of the best prize submissions in English. More information is available on www.if.org.uk under Research Prizes and on www.intergenerationaljustice.org under Academic Awards Demography Prize.ReferencesEurostat (2016): Young people – housing conditions. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/46039.pdf. Viewed 27 September 2018.Ronald, Richard / Lennartz, Christian (2018): Housing careers, intergenerational support and family relations. In: Housing Studies, 33 (2), 147-159.Helbrecht, Ilse / Geilenheuser, Tim (2012): Demographischer Wandel, Generationeneffekte und Wohnungsmarktentwicklung: Wohneigentum als Altersvorsorge? In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 70 (5), 425–436. Recommended literatureDorling, Danny (2015): All That is Solid: How the Great Housing Disaster Defines Our Times, and What We Can Do About It. London: Allen Lane.Dustmann, Christian / Fitzenberger, Bernd / Zimmerman, Markus (2018): Housing Expenditures and Income Inequality, Cream Discussion Paper 16/18, London: Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, URL: http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_16_18.pdf. Viewed 24 October 2018.Eurostat (2016): Young people – housing conditions, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/46039.pdf. Viewed 27 September 2018.Eurostat (2015): Housing cost overburden rate. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_lvho07alang=en. Viewed 27 September 2018.Helbrecht, Ilse / Geilenheuser, Tim (2012): Demographischer Wandel, Generationeneffekte und Wohnungsmarktentwicklung: Wohneigentum als Altersvorsorge? In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 70 (5), 425–436.Hills, John / Cunliffe, Jack / Obolenskaya, Polina / Karagiannaki, Eleni (2015): Falling behind, getting ahead: the changing structure of inequality in the UK, 2007-2013. Social Policy in Cold Climate. London: LSE.Leach, Jeremy / Broeks, Miriam / Østenvik, Kristin / Kingman, David (2016): European Intergenerational Fairness Index: A Crisis for the Young. London: Intergenerational Foundation: http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/European-Intergenerational-Fairness-Index_Final-2016.pdf. Viewed 27 September 2018.Lennartz, Christian / Helbrecht, Ilse (2018): The housing careers of younger adults and intergenerational support in Germany's 'society of renters'. In: Housing Studies, 33 (2), 317-336.Morton, Alex (2013): Housing and Intergenerational Fairness. London: Policy Exchange.National Housing Federation (2014): Broken Market, Broken Dreams. London: NHF.Ronald, Richard / Lennartz, Christian (2018): Housing careers, intergenerational support and family relations. In: Housing Studies, 33 (2), 147-159.Rugg, Julie J. / Quilgars, Deborah (2015): Young People and Housing: A Review of the Present Policy and Practice Landscape. In: Youth and Policy. Issue 114.Shaw, Randy (2018): Generation Priced Out. Who Gets to Live in the New Urban America, Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Shelter (2010): The Human Cost: How the Lack of Affordable Housing Impacts on All Aspects of Life. London: Shelter.

The Stuttgart-based Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG) and the London-based Intergenerational Foundation (IF) jointly award the biennial Demography Prize, endowed with EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in total prize-money, to essay-writers who address political and demographic issues pertaining to the field of intergenerational justice. The prize was initiated and is funded by the Stiftung Apfelbaum.Through the prize, the FRFG and IF seek to promote discussion about intergenerational justice in society, and, by providing a scholarly basis to the debate, establish new perspectives for decision-makers. The invitation to enter the competition is extended especially to young academics from all disciplines. Collaborative submissions are also welcome.For the 2016/2017 prize, the FRFG and IF call for papers on the following topic:"Measuring Intergenerational Justice" Submission RequirementsSubmissions will be accepted until 1 July 2017. Entries should be 5,000 to 8,000 words in length (excluding figures and tables). All documents required for a submission, including the full call for papers and formal entry requirements, are available upon request by email to Antony Mason at antony(at)if.org.uk. For future reference, and because we may be organising a symposium around the Prize, we kindly ask you to also send us a short biography (one paragraph) when requesting formal entry requirements. Submissions for the essay competition will also be considered for publication in the Intergenerational Justice Review (www.igjr.org).Topic AbstractIn recent years, there has been a rising interest in measuring and comparing intergenerational justice and the well-being of young people, both across different countries (spatially) as well as over time (temporally). While the results of these indices have been found to vary in the details, they all point in a similar direction: most industrialised countries are imposing increasing burdens on younger and future generations, as is evidenced, for example, by their high sovereign debts, youth unemployment and poverty, and perennial ecological crises.In a 2013 study published by the Bertelsmann Foundation, and led by Pieter Vanhuysse of the UN's European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, a total of 29 OECD states were compared on the basis of four indicators: public debt per child; the ecological footprint created by all generations currently alive; the ratio of child- to elderly-poverty; and the distribution of social spending among generations ("elderly-bias indicator of social spending", EBiSS). These measures were then aggregated into the "Intergenerational Justice Index" – the first of its kind.A similar attempt to capture the wellbeing of young people is the "Youthonomics Global Index". Published in 2015 by a France-based think tank of the same name, it analyses the situation of young people in 64 Western and non-Western countries by means of no less than 59 different social, economic and political indicators.The most recent in line is the "European Index of Intergenerational Fairness", launched in early 2016 by the Intergenerational Foundation (IF). Designed as a quantitative measurement of how the position of young people has changed across the EU, its 13 indicators include housing costs, government debt, spending on pensions and education, participation in democracy, and access to tertiary education. The index's findings indicate that the prospects of young people across the EU have deteriorated to a ten-year low.Entries to the competition could approach the topic through a broad range of questions, including:What are the methodological pitfalls of measuring intergenerational justice, and how can they be avoided? Are the existing models internally valid, and to what extent do they allow for generalisation? What are the potential sources of selection bias and measurement error?Are the respective indicators by which they measure intergenerational justice sufficient and appropriate, or should they be supplemented? If so, how exactly? Are they conceptually sound and well operationalised? Do they allow for replication?In a cross-sectional or time-series comparison, how well do "ageing societies" such as Germany, Sweden or Finland respond to the challenges of intergenerational justice? In particular, how – if at all – do they succeed in balancing the welfare spending between the young and the old, and what measures ought they be taking in this regard?With regard to the country rankings, is intergenerational justice, as measured by the different indices, a function of some other set of variables – i.e., how do they correlate with alternative rankings, socio-economic or other, and what might this teach us?What promising policy options are there for reducing existing injustices between the young and the old? How might they be implemented?What measures of institutional design could be taken in order to prevent the marginalisation of young people and future generations in political decision-making? For example, should suffrage be extended or even universalised to include the currently disenfranchised, and what would be the prospective effects of such a move?Note that these are non-binding suggestions: participants are strongly encouraged to come up with their own essay questions or research puzzles, as long as they pertain to the overall topic of this call for papers in a sufficiently clear way. Submissions are welcome from all fields of social science, including (but not limited to) political science, sociology, economics, and legal studies. Philosophers and/or ethicists are invited to contribute applied normative research.ReferencesLeach, Jeremy / Broeks, Miriam / Østensvik, Kristin S. / Kingman, David (2016): European Intergenerational Fairness Index: A Crisis for the Young. London: Intergenerational Foundation. http://www.if.org.uk/archives/7658/the-if-european-intergenerational-unfairness-index-2016.Vanhuysse, Pieter (2013): Intergenerational Justice in Aging Societies: A Cross-National Comparison of 29 OECD countries. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann-Stiftung. https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/afu/Intergenerational_Justice_OECD.pdf.Youthonomics (ed.). (2015). Youthonomics global index 2015: Putting the young at the top of the global agenda. Paris. www.youthonomics.com/youthonomics-index.

The Intergenerational Justice Review (IGJR) has been published by the Stuttgart-based think tank Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG) since 2002. The 2012 edition was published in cooperation with the London-based Intergenerational Foundation (IF), and likewise the 2015 edition. For the latter as well as for the 2016 editions, the FRFG and IF have been joined by the University of Tübingen. The 2016 (2) edition will have the additional help of Professor Bruce Auerbach of Albright College, Reading PA, who will be serving as a guest editor.Founded in 1997, the FRFG has played a leading role in gathering and supporting research in intergenerational issues at the academic level – research that usually falls within the compass of university departments of law, politics and philosophy. The Intergenerational Justice Review reflects this academic focus. Articles, submitted by senior academics and researchers in the field, are peer-reviewed and published only on the recommendation of two reviewers.From 2016, there will be two editions of the IGJR annually. The topic of the second 2016 edition will be: "Constitutions and Intergenerational Justice" We welcome submissions for this issue of the Intergenerational Justice Review that address the tension between constitutions and intergenerational justice, and how that tension can be resolved. How can constitutions be written to protect the rights and/or interests of future generations without at the same time becoming a barrier to future generations exercising full political sovereignty in the future?We also welcome submissions that address creatively constitutions and intergenerational justice from other points of view, and from the perspective of other cultural and political traditions; and that test the feasibility of new ideas, such as a 'permanent constitutional convention', that reassess the current constitution every five years or so.In addition to the above, other related questions include the following:How could a permanent constitutional convention (see above) be organised? What powers should it possess, and what should be its limitations? On the one hand such limitations should prevent a constitutional convention from being too dominant, while on the other its powers should be sufficient to ensure that it is more than merely symbolic.How can the legitimacy problems of such a constitutional convention be resolved? For example, parliaments, which usually propose constitutional amendments, are legitimised through elections.Are there any examples of countries where constitutions are regularly reviewed and amended? If so, how has this practice worked?What role should constitutional courts play? Are they the guardians of earlier regulations and therefore opponents of constitutional change?Are eternity clauses (clauses which prohibit changes to certain or all provisions of a constitution) generationally fair? To what extent do such guarantees take away from future generations the possibility to determine their own future?Where and how are young people actively engaged in debates about the constitution in force in their country? What lessons can be learnt from their experience? Background: By their very nature, constitutions are intergenerational documents. With rare exceptions, they are meant to endure for many generations. They establish the basic institutions of government, enshrine the fundamental values of a people, and place certain questions beyond the reach of simple majorities. Constitutions, especially written ones, are often on purpose difficult to modify.The question of constitutions and future generations has at least two different aspects. On the one hand, constitutions provide the opportunity to guarantee consideration of the rights of future generations, and may serve to protect future generations against the actions of current electoral majorities. On the other hand, the provisions of a constitution may become outmoded, restricting the ability of majorities in the future to respond to the real problems in ways they see as necessary and proper. We want constitutions to provide firm guarantees of fundamental rights, including those of future generations. But we do not want those same guarantees to become fetters on future generations, preventing them from exercising the same rights of sovereignty we enjoy.Ideally, constitutions strike a balance between seeking to protect and perpetuate those values and rights the present generation understands to be fundamental, while ensuring the right of future generations to define for themselves the values and rights they see as essential, and to modify the institutions they have inherited in light of their own experience.This tension between durability and flexibility finds expression in Edmund Burke's concept of a constitution as an intergenerational covenant. It also informs the discussion among Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), James Madison (1751–1836) and Thomas Paine (1737–1809) in the course of founding the United States of America. Jefferson represented the position that every law and therefore every constitution should lose its validity after 19 years, so that every generation can organise itself, with a freedom comparable to the preceding one. Madison disagreed and referred to the uncertainty that would emerge from such an arrangement. Thomas Paine sided with Jefferson and formulated the following famous sentence: 'Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the ages and generations which preceded it.' This statement, written in 1795, defended the right to engage in revolution. This right was even enshrined in the French Constitution of 1793. Article 28 stated: 'Un peuple a toujours le droit de revoir, de réformer et de changer sa Constitution. Une génération ne peut pas assujettir à ses lois les générations futures.' ('A people always has the right to review, reform, and amend its constitution. One generation may not subject future generations to its laws.')The preservation of the same number of options and opportunities for action is also regarded as the one of most important elements of intergenerationally just behaviour in modern generational ethics. Edith Brown Weiss, for example, made such arguments, as have Gregory Kavka in 'The Futurity Problem', and Brian Barry in 'Circumstances of Justice and Future Generations'. Size limit of each submission: Up to 30,000 characters (including spaces, annotation etc.) For questions about style and presentation, please visit our website at www.igjr.org for our guidelines for authors.Deadline for submissions: 1 August 2016Proposed date of publication of IGJR 2016 (2): November 2016Articles may be submitted electronically to: editors@igjr.orgIntergenerational Justice Prize 2015/16: Note that this topic is also be the subject of the Intergenerational Justice Prize 2015/16, promoted by the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG) and the Intergenerational Foundation (IF). Young researchers may also wish to participate in this essay competition, and it is hoped that this edition of the IGJR will contain a selection of the best prize submissions in English. For more information, see www.if.org.uk/prizes. Recommended literatureAuerbach, Bruce / Reinhart, Michelle (2012): Antonin Scalia's constitutional textualism: The problem of justice to posterity. In: Intergenerational Justice Review, 17-22.Barry, Brian (1978): Circumstances of intergenerational justice. In: Sikora, Richard / Barry, Brian (eds.): Obligations to future generations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 204-248.Beckman, Ludvig (2013): Democracy and future generations. Should the unborn have a voice? In: Merle, Jean-Christophe (ed.): Spheres of global justice. Volume 2: Fair distribution – global economic, social and intergenerational justice. Dordrecht: Springer, 775-788.Brown-Weiss, Edith (2002): Intergenerational fairness and rights of future generations. In: Intergenerational Justice, vol. 2 (3/2002), 1-5.Brown-Weiss, Edith (1989): In fairness to future generations. Tokyo/New York: United Nations University/Transnational Publishers.Gosseries, Axel (2008): Constitutions and future generations. www.uclouvain.beGosseries, Axel / Meyer, Lukas H. (eds.) (2009): Intergenerational justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kavka, Gregory (1978): The futurity problem. In: Sikora, Richard / Barry, Brian (eds.): Obligations to future generations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 286-203.Kley, Andreas (2003): Die Verantwortung gegenüber künftigen Generationen – ein staatsphilosophisches Postulat von Thomas Jefferson. In: Hänni, Peter (ed.): Mensch und Staat. Festgabe der rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Freiburg für Thomas Fleiner zum 65. Geburtstag. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 505-523. http://www.rwi.uzh.ch/lehreforschung/alphabetisch/kley/container/jefferson_pages_505_523.pdf.Tremmel, Jörg (2009): A theory of intergenerational justice. London: Earthscan.Tremmel, Jörg (2015): Parliaments and future generations: The four-power model. In: Birnbacher, Dieter / Thorseth, May (eds.): The Politics of sustainability: Philosophical perspectives. London: Routledge, 212-233.Tremmel, Jörg / Wilhelm, James (2015): Democracy or epistocracy? Age as a criterion of voter eligibility. In: Tremmel, Jörg / Mason, Antony / Dimitrijoski, Igor / Godli, Petter (eds.): Youth quotas and other efficient forms of youth participation in ageing societies. Dordrecht, NL: Springer, 125-148.Wolf, Clark (2008): Justice and intergenerational debt. In: Intergenerational Justice Review, 13-17.

The Stuttgart-based Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG) and the London-based Intergenerational Foundation (IF) jointly award the biennial Intergenerational Justice Prize, endowed with EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in total prize-money, to essay-writers who address political and demographic issues pertaining to the field of intergenerational justice. The prize was initiated and is funded by the Apfelbaum Foundation. For the 2020 prize, the FRFG and IF call for papers on the following topic:Intergenerational wealth transfers through inheritance and giftsTopic abstractWealth transfers across generations combine justice between past, present and future generations (intergenerational justice) with justice within the present generation (intragenerational justice) as a major reason for the increasing inequality in a society is the accumulation of wealth within families over time. Inheritance taxes deprive the testator of the opportunity to pass on their assets to their direct descendants. Instead, the state distributes them to all citizens. On the one hand, there is the view that the acceptance of private property implies that it should also be allowed in family relationships: wealth may accumulate along family lines, instead of being redistributed to society as a whole at every change of generation. Conversely, it is maintained that the birth lottery (the question of being born into a poor or rich family) should not affect the life chances of the youngest generation. Undoubtedly, intergenerational transfers of wealth by inheritance and gifts (and related issues of inheritance and gift tax) are a complex issue that has been the subject of many political and philosophical discussions.In this Call for Papers we invite contributions that consider and analyse the topic from various perspectives of intergenerational justice.For instance:Is it legitimate for wealth to remain within families, generation after generation? Or should the wealth be taxedby the state, for greater redistribution? Which philosophical arguments speak in favour of the dynastic approach, which ones support the societal approach?To what extent do inheritance (and gift) tax systems differ in terms of tax rates and allowances according to degree of kinship in OECD countries or beyond? What percentage of the population is liable to these taxes? How are business assets handled?How does inheritance tax relate to the welfare state? Does a higher inheritance tax empirically actually lead to less inequality?How (un)popular are (high) inheritance and gift taxes among voters? Can this topic be used to win elections? Are there different opinions depending on age/generation?Which relevant narratives and argumentation strategies can be identified in politics, business, society and the media, and where do they converge?FormalitiesThe Intergenerational Justice Prize is endowed with EUR 10,000. The prize money will be distributed proportionally among the best submissions, which can be more or less than the top three submissions. Winning submissions will be considered for publication by the editorial team of the Intergenerational Justice Review(IGJR; www.igjr.org) for the summer issue 2021.For full entry requirements (details of required formatting, addresses for submissions etc, and an official entry form) email Maria Lenk (kontakt@srzg.de) or Antony Mason (awards@if.org.uk).Closing date for prize submissions: 1 July 2020, 23:59 (GMT+1)