Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this paper is twofold, partly exploratory; to determine the degree to which Rowntree's poverty cycles are still apparent among the most advanced industrial nations, and partly analytical; to examine how successful different sociopolitical strategies have been in eliminating poverty over the life-cycle. The paper seeks to make a contribution in relation to earlier studies by both examining changes within singular countries and by comparing trends cross-nationally provisions.

What is the use of research in public debates and policy-making on immigration and integration? Why are there such large gaps between migration debates and migration realities, and how can they be reduced? Bridging the Gaps: Linking Research to Public Debates and Policy-making on Migration and Integration provides a unique set of testimonies and analyses of these questions by researchers and policy experts who have been deeply involved in attempts to link social science research to public policies. Bridging the Gap argues that we must go beyond the prevailing focus on the research–policy nexus by considering how the media, public opinion, and other dimensions of public debates can interact with research and policy processes. The chapters provide theoretical analyses and personal assessments of the successes and failures of past efforts to link research to public debates and policy-making on migration and integration in six different countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States—as well as in European and global governance debates. Contrary to common public perceptions and political demands, Bridging the Gaps argues that all actors contributing to research, public debates, and policy-making should recognize that migration, integration, and related decision-making are highly complex issues, and that there are no quick fixes to what are often enduring policy dilemmas. When the different actors understand and appreciate each other's primary aims and constraints, such common understandings can pave the way for improved policy-making processes and better public policies that deal more effectively with the real challenges of migration and integration.

What is the use of research in public debates and policy-making on immigration and integration? Why are there such large gaps between migration debates and migration realities? This book provides a unique set of testimonies and analyses of these questions by researchers and public policy experts.

What is the use of research in public debates and policy-making on immigration and integration? Why are there such large gaps between migration debates and migration realities, and how can they be reduced? Bridging the Gaps: Linking Research to Public Debates and Policy-making on Migration and Integration provides a unique set of testimonies and analyses of these questions by researchers and policy experts who have been deeply involved in attempts to link social science research to public policies. Bridging the Gap argues that we must go beyond the prevailing focus on the research–policy nexus by considering how the media, public opinion, and other dimensions of public debates can interact with research and policy processes. The chapters provide theoretical analyses and personal assessments of the successes and failures of past efforts to link research to public debates and policy-making on migration and integration in six different countries—Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States—as well as in European and global governance debates. Contrary to common public perceptions and political demands, Bridging the Gaps argues that all actors contributing to research, public debates, and policy-making should recognize that migration, integration, and related decision-making are highly complex issues, and that there are no quick fixes to what are often enduring policy dilemmas. When the different actors understand and appreciate each other's primary aims and constraints, such common understandings can pave the way for improved policy-making processes and better public policies that deal more effectively with the real challenges of migration and integration.

This edited volume questions whether the recently promoted European 'social investment' strategy is able to regenerate the welfare state, promote social inclusion, create more and better jobs, and help address the challenges posed by the economic crisis, globalisation, ageing and climate change.

Strong claims have been made about the incompatibility between large-scale migration and advanced welfare states. The free movement of workers within the European Union (EU) offers an interesting case for the study of the fiscal effects of unrestricted labor migration in different types of welfare states This article therefore investigates the alleged tension between advanced welfare states and liberal migration policies by analyzing how the fiscal effects of EU migrants vary across European welfare state regimes. In contrast to arguments commonly made in public debates, we argue and explain why theoretical reasoning should lead us to expect limited differences in fiscal effects of EU migrants in different welfare states. The empirical analysis, covering twenty-nine countries during 2004–15, shows that the net fiscal impact of EU migrants in the different welfare state regimes of West European countries is positive, and we find no major differences in the fiscal impacts of EU migrants across Western regimes. These results from the EU case cast doubts on the claim that advanced welfare states are incompatible with large-scale immigration because of adverse fiscal effects, and on the idea that broad institutional characteristics of welfare states have substantial consequences for the fiscal impact of migration.

This paper analyses whether and how the fiscal effects of EU migrants vary across European countries with different institutional regimes. In public debates on free movement, it is often claimed that different national institutions, especially welfare states and labour market regulations, lead to variations in the fiscal impacts of EU migrants across European countries. There are also some theoretical reasons why one might expect this to be the case, although the multidimensionality of national institutional configurations makes it difficult to formulate strong theoretical expectations. This paper is, to the best of our knowledge, the first cross-country empirical analysis of these issues. Distinguishing between five different institutional regimes covering 29 countries, our analysis of the links between national institutions and the fiscal effects of EU migrants is made possible by a unique new data set on the fiscal effects of EU migrants across almost all EEA countries (Nyman and Ahlskog 2018). ; The REMINDER project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research & innovation programme under grant agreement no 727072.

This paper analyses how national welfare institutions and normative attitudes to welfare vary across EU/EFTA countries, and how national welfare institutions are linked to welfare attitudes, a long-standing question of comparative welfare state research. Our focus in this paper is on the concept of 'reciprocity' in welfare institutions and welfare attitudes, an important, and, we argue, under-researched issue that has been at the heart of recent debates about common EU policy-making, especially about whether and how to reform the current rules for free movement of workers in the EU. More specifically, the paper uses data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and a newly-constructed dataset of the characteristics of welfare institutions in 24 EU countries to address three questions: How do social protection programmes in EU member states differ with regard to reciprocity? How do normative attitudes to reciprocity in welfare programmes vary across EU member states? And finally, how are these normative attitudes linked to the actual design of welfare state programmes? We find substantial cross-country differences in social protection programmes in relation to the concept of reciprocity, considerable variation in normative attitudes to reciprocity, and that there is a clear correlation between the two. That national institutions matter for normative attitudes around core welfare state programmes may have significant consequences for views about free movement among European populations, with potentially important repercussions for the politics around free movement in the EU. ; The REMINDER project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727072.

AbstractThis study addresses the relationship between children's participation and the protection and provision offered to them by social services in Sweden. It applies a theoretical framework for analysing child welfare that is anchored in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. How child participation may affect child protection and provision is examined empirically using case documentation from 2 municipalities. The main finding is that when children are not given voice or opportunity to influence the framing of what "the problem" is, the design of protection and care tends to be poorly matched to the actual problems documented in the child investigation and vice versa; when children can influence framing, this is associated with well‐matched protection and care. This suggests that traditional child welfare ethos, to the effect that protection should be of such overriding concern that children even should be protected from participation, is misguided. The study further illustrates the intrinsic problems with the family orientation of Swedish social services and its reliance on partnership with parents, which makes it difficult to live up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Incorporating child participation into existing service models can transform Swedish social services to an augmented child‐focused system that by ensuring participation also promotes protection and provision.

"In welchem Zustand befindet sich der schwedische Wohlfahrtsstaat im Anschluss an die massiven Sparmaßnahmen der 1990er Jahre? Da das Modell untrennbar mit dem Konzept der Chancengleichheit verbunden ist, muss eine Bewertung seiner Entwicklung auch die Veränderungen bezüglich der Gleichheit der Lebensbedingungen der schwedischen Bevölkerung berücksichtigen. Zudem weist in analytischer Hinsicht insbesondere die schwedische Wohlfahrtsstaatsforschung darauf hin, dass zwischen den wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Institutionen als solchen und den Ressourcen unterschieden werden muss, die es dem Einzelnen ermöglichen, sein eigenes Leben selbst zu bestimmen. Letztere beeinflussen die persönliche Wohlfahrt entscheidend. Der Beitrag fragt daher: Wie hat sich - nach einem Jahrzehnt des Wirtschaftswachstums oberhalb des europäischen Durchschnitts - die Ungleichheit in Schweden zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts verändert? Und worin bestehen in Bezug auf politische Reformen und im Hinblick auf die Lebensbedingungen der Menschen die zukünftigen Herausforderungen?" (Autorenreferat)