Suchergebnisse

"In Constructing Policy Change, Linda A. White examines the expansion of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies and programs in liberal welfare states, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In the first part of the book, the author investigates the sources of policy ideas that triggered ECEC changes in various national contexts. This is followed by a close analysis of cross-national variation in the implementation of ECEC policy in Canada and the USA. White argues that the primary mechanisms for policy change are grounded in policy investment logics as well as cultural logics: that is, shifts in public sentiments and government beliefs about the value of ECEC policies and programs are rooted in both evidence-based arguments and in principled beliefs about the policy. A rich, nuanced examination of the reasons motivating ECEC policy expansion and adoption in different countries, Constructing Policy Change is a corrective to the comparative welfare state literature that focuses on political interest alone."--

This article examines the impact of federalism on reproductive and sexuality rights in Canada. It highlights an important problem in rights implementation triggered by the particular division of jurisdiction in these policy areas. Despite favorable Supreme Court rulings recognizing the essential validity of these actions (namely access to abortion and contraception, and marriage between same-sex partners), cooperation by another level of government is necessary in order to implement access. Huge variation exists in the extent to which provincial and territorial governments have implemented access in law and policy. The article points to an important research agenda on rights implementation that moves beyond analysis of formal responses postjudicial review to consider the impact of divided jurisdiction. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract.This article examines whether current shifts in government spending on early childhood education and care (ECEC) and maternal employment-promoting policies such as maternity and parental leave reveal a paradigm shift toward a social investment strategy in liberal welfare states. It finds that while governments in liberal welfare states increasingly adhere to the rhetoric of social investment focused on lifelong learning and labour activation, their policies and programs exhibit so much variation in goals, instruments and settings related to the family, maternal employment and the child that it is difficult to claim that any new policy approach has taken hold that is indicative of a social investment "paradigm." Instead, liberal welfare states appear to be becoming even more liberal—in terms of reliance on markets for delivery of social investment goals—at the same time as spending is increasing.Résumé.Cet article examine si les changements actuels des dépenses de gouvernement sur la première éducation d'enfance et le soin (ECEC) et les politiques promouvant emploi maternelles comme la maternité et le congé parental révèlent un changement de paradigme vers une stratégie sociale d'investissement dans les Etats-providences libéraux. Il constate que pendant que les gouvernements dans les Etats-providences libéraux adhèrent de plus en plus à la rhétorique d'investissement social s'est concentré sur l'apprentissage de toute une vie et l'activation de la main-d'œuvre, leurs politiques et programmes exposent tant de variation dans les buts, les instruments et les cadres rattachés à la famille, l'emploi maternel et l'enfant qu'il est difficile de réclamer que n'importe quelle nouvelle approche de politique a attrapé qui est indicatif "d'un paradigme" social d'investissement. Au lieu de cela les Etats-providences libéraux ont l'air de devenir encore plus libéraux – du point de vue de la dépendance aux marchés pour la livraison de buts sociaux d'investissement – en même temps comme les dépenses augmentent.

This article investigates the extent to which early childhood education and care (ECEC) issues have been internationalized to become the focus of attention of a number of international organizations (IOs). Through an examination of policy statements and other primary documents, the article explores how these IOs frame the ECEC policy debate. While a great deal of those IOs' recommendations are increasingly cast in human capital development terms, multiple and competing frames are in evidence: one that rests on more social pedagogic norms that promote a concern for the well-being of the "whole child"; another that focuses on children's rights to services and countries' obligations to deliver services; and another that focuses on parental employment concerns and the connection between ECEC policies and programs and women's employment. The article examines each of the frames in evidence and evaluates their ability to address concerns of both gender justice and child well-being. Adapted from the source document.

This article provides an answer to the question of why government support for child care policies and programs in the United States remains weak, despite increasing levels of women's labor market participation and a relatively strong women's movement, but strong in France, a country that has had lower levels of women's labor market participation as well as a much weaker women's movement. While those differences can be explained in part by economic and political interests and institutional and broad cultural differences, a theoretically richer understanding emerges when one examines how the three kinds of ideas underpinning these policy choices — norms, frames, and programmatic ideas — helped shape policies that emerged within specific actor, institutional, and cultural contexts.

The Politics of the Welfare State: Canada, Sweden, and the United
States, Gregg M. Olsen, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. vi, 258This book presents a familiar puzzle in comparative politics: how are
we to understand variation in the design and scope of social programs and
substantive outcomes for citizens in the three welfare states under
scrutiny. As Olsen argues, all three cases are "advanced,
industrialized, and highly affluent capitalist nations…. and all
three nations enjoy average per capita incomes and standards of living
that are among the highest in the world" (10). Yet we find great
variation on a number of social indicators such as poverty levels, and
income and wealth disparities. All three have also "experienced
marked increases in inequality and welfare state retrenchment in recent
years" (11) but yet "they continue to differ along these
dimensions, even in the face of similar domestic strains and other
exogenous pressures related to global integration" (11). The
question is how do we account for the variation in the use of social
policy to assuage inequalities and respond to these exogenous
pressures.