Suchergebnisse

This paper investigates how European countries have responded to the issue of irregular migrant labor in recent decades. The European Union has declared that jobs in shadow economies are a major pull for undocumented migrants, and since the 1990s, a number of individual states and the EU have ramped up efforts to combat irregular migrant work. This paper charts and characterizes trends in these policy initiatives over time, and across countries, in an effort to un-derstand both how states concretely go about trying to control irregular migration, and to shed light on the political economy of labor migration. I argue that European integration and asylum crises help explain the common trend toward hardening labor market controls, as well as the growing EU emphasis on the issue. Cross-national differences remain, however, in the level of effort expended on rooting out and repressing irregular migrant work; these differences reflect varying political dynamics over shadow economies and the institutionalized power of economic interest groups.

This paper investigates how European countries have responded to the issue of irregular migrant labor in recent decades. The European Union has declared that jobs in shadow economies are a major pull for undocumented migrants, and since the 1990s, a number of individual states and the EU have ramped up efforts to combat irregular migrant work. This paper charts and characterizes trends in these policy initiatives over time, and across countries, in an effort to un-derstand both how states concretely go about trying to control irregular migration, and to shed light on the political economy of labor migration. I argue that European integration and asylum crises help explain the common trend toward hardening labor market controls, as well as the growing EU emphasis on the issue. Cross-national differences remain, however, in the level of effort expended on rooting out and repressing irregular migrant work; these differences reflect varying political dynamics over shadow economies and the institutionalized power of economic interest groups.

The effects of national financial & employment crises on France's child care system are studied; in addition, the impact of the crisis concerning the legitimacy of France's welfare system on child care provisions are explored. An overview of the child care system within the context of the French welfare system is presented, emphasizing the extent of women's labor participation & families' use of preschool care. It is contended that France's economic problems throughout the 1980s severely affected all social services & that the public's acceptance of certain child care services decelerated. It is claimed that the nation's unemployment problems have encouraged the French state to advocate at-home child care rather than parents' use of public child care facilities. Moreover, it is revealed that questions concerning the welfare state's legitimacy have increased local governments' role in child care policymaking. Additional attention is directed toward examining whether "free choice" policies have actually provided parents with multiple child care choices & reduced persistent gender inequalities. 2 Tables, 3 Figures, 23 References. J. W. Parker

The effects of national financial & employment crises on France's child care system are studied; in addition, the impact of the crisis concerning the legitimacy of France's welfare system on child care provisions are explored. An overview of the child care system within the context of the French welfare system is presented, emphasizing the extent of women's labor participation & families' use of preschool care. It is contended that France's economic problems throughout the 1980s severely affected all social services & that the public's acceptance of certain child care services decelerated. It is claimed that the nation's unemployment problems have encouraged the French state to advocate at-home child care rather than parents' use of public child care facilities. Moreover, it is revealed that questions concerning the welfare state's legitimacy have increased local governments' role in child care policymaking. Additional attention is directed toward examining whether "free choice" policies have actually provided parents with multiple child care choices & reduced persistent gender inequalities. 2 Tables, 3 Figures, 23 References. J. W. Parker

A review essay on books by (1) Kees van Kersbergen, Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State (London: Routledge, 1995); (2) Suzanne Mettler, Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell U Press, 1998); (3) Julia O'Connor, Ann Shola Orloff, & Sheila Shaver, States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 1999); (4) Susan Pedersen, Family, Dependence, and the Origins of the Welfare State (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 1993); & (5) Diane Sainsbury, Gender, Equality and Welfare States Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U Press, 1996). Feminist research on the welfare state has improved our understanding of the nature, origins, & consequences of social policy regimes. Efforts to evaluate welfare states through the lens of gender have pinned down how social policy regimes affect men & women differently, usually to the disadvantage of women. Class relations, religion, & political institutions are three variables that help explain differences in the gender dimensions of welfare states. While gender should be a factor in any analysis of social policy, this research agenda is weakened by larger unresolved debates among feminists over what forms of social policy best address the needs & preferences of women. Adapted from the source document.

In 1971, a coalition of legislators and advocates put together a bill to establish the foundations of a public, universally available day-care system in the United States. Backed by Democrats, Republicans, and a highly mobilized set of interest organizations, the bill's middle-class appeal made it seem like a political sure bet in the months preceding the 1972 election season. Over the course of 1971, however, support for the bill eroded, and by December most House Republicans had jumped ship. On December 9, President Nixon vetoed the legislation, criticizing its "fiscal irresponsibility, administrative unworkability [sic], and family-weakening implications." Such direct federal provision of day-care services, he claimed, "would commit the vast moral authority of the National Government to the side of communal approaches to child-rearing over the family-centered approach." The day after the veto, however, Nixon signed the 1971 Revenue Act, which included tax breaks for families who use private day-care services. In late 1972, Congress passed legislation to reauthorize Head Start, a program providing early childhood education and health services for disadvantaged, preschool-aged children. Nixon's own welfare-reform proposal included day care for poor women. Clearly, only the middle class was at risk from "communal approaches" in federally supported child care; poor families, and particularly women on welfare, could use public day care while the middle class would be subsidized to solve their child-care problems through the private sector.