Suchergebnisse

Discusses, under the rubric of 'new welfare economics', the value judgments seemingly inherent in state intervention in the redistribution of wealth through social welfare. The question is raised of whether state economic intervention based on value judgments is justified. The theses of such theorists as Nicholas Kaldor, John Hicks, & Vilfredo Pareto are drawn to examine this question, before going on to another, which must be addressed mathematically,"Can the state enhance economic efficiency -- or what is the same, increase society's income -- without a value judgment that favors some & harms others?" It is concluded that there is a way to resolve these questions: postulate a "social welfare function" indicating a society's preferences. Figures, References. J. Stanton

Professor Friedmann, who had already made a notable contribution to jurisprudence in his Legal Theory, now in its second edition, has now made a second and perhaps even more notable contribution toward understanding the role and presaging the future of the common law system in the society of today. His purpose is a reassessment of the function of law and of legal institutions in England a half century after Dicey's Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century, comparing the economic function of law and how the common law was adapted to it in the nineteenth century with its function in the "vastly changed social pattern of contemporary England" (p. 3) in the twentieth century after half of that century has gone by. He seeks to coordinate recent developments with respect to the relation of the judicial function and judicial process to social problems, the role of legislation and the interpretation of statutes, the growth of standard contracts and collective bargaining, and the change in the structure and function of the law of property and to appraise the "interrelation of law and social change in present-day British society." (p. 3).

The Public Expenditure/GDP ratio is one of the most significant metrics that measure the state's share of the economy. It can be said that there is an interventionist state type in countries where this rate is high, or it can be argued that the share of the public sector in the economy is low in countries where this rate is low. It is also possible to argue that the countries' economic, sociological, and political factors play an essential role in determining this ratio. Regulations, which are the most important tools of the welfare state, may arise through economic controls as well as through social policies. This study aims to find an answer to the question of whether this situation is possible for a developing country such as Turkey while Nordic countries, which determine a system different from other welfare models, succeed in raising social welfare without giving up the principles such as equality and justice that they have despite the globalization effect. The data obtained by various methods were subjected to comparison using the Data Envelopment Analysis method in order to achieve this purpose. Article visualizations:

The welfare state—as a term of abuse or approval, depending on the point of view—is a phrase which has only recently come into common use, although contrasts between the so-called "negative" and "positive" state have been frequently drawn during the past two decades. The idea that the primary function of government is to make a good life possible, is, however, as old as Aristotle, and political theorists in democratic countries have long been agreed that the state exists for the well-being of its citizens, and not vice versa, although their views of what constitutes the welfare of the people have been markedly divergent. The expansion of government activities, which is conveniently summarized under the term "social welfare state," in this country as in others is usually considered a twentieth-century phenomenon. Its origins in Canada, however, may be traced to the first thirty years after Confederation, when the proper function of government was a matter of general concern and wide debate. During this early period public opinion as to what the state ought to do for the social well-being of its citizens developed rapidly, and underwent a marked transformation.Present-day critics of the British North America Act are given to pointing out that, as a nineteenth-century document drawn up when laissez-faire theories were at their height, it has become increasingly ill-adapted to further social welfare by state action. Yet contemporary historians have shown that in both Great Britain and the United States, during the past century, the classical doctrine of laissez-faire, interpreted as government abstention from interference with individual or group action, was more honoured in theory than in practice. This contention is supported by illustrations of early factory, mines, public health, and education acts in England, and of such American intervention in economic affairs as tariffs and grants to individual industries. There is much evidence that similar developments took place in Canada, which lends support to similar conclusions concerning the mythical nature of laissez-faire.

Why does the welfare state develop so unevenly across countries, regions, and localities? What accounts for the exclusions and disciplinary features of social programs? How are elite and popular conceptions of social reality related to welfare policies? George Steinmetz approaches these and other issues by exploring the complex origins and development of local and national social policies in nineteenth-century Germany. Generally regarded as the birthplace of the modern welfare state, Germany experimented with a wide variety of social programs before 1914, including the national social insuran

"Der Beitrag untersucht die Diskriminierung von Migrantinnen und Migranten im Sozialstaat. Dazu werden im ersten Schritt die rechtlichen Bestimmungen des Sozialleistungsbezugs im deutschen Sozialstaat daraufhin untersucht, an welchen Stellen der nationale Wohlfahrtsstaat mit seinen Institutionen eher zur Diskriminierung oder zur Inklusion von Migrantinnen und Migranten beiträgt. Im zweiten Schritt wird die Perspektive auf den häufig gegenüber Migrantinnen und Migranten geäußerten Vorwurf des Missbrauchs von Sozialleistungen gerichtet. Eine exemplarische Deutungsmusteranalyse wird zeigen, worin dieser die MigrantInnen stigmatisierende Missbrauchverdacht eigentlich besteht. Im Zeitverlauf lässt sich eine konjunkturelle Wiederkehr dieses Missbrauchverdachts empirisch aufzeigen. Es wird in theoretischer Hinsicht diskutiert, welche Funktion dieser kontrafaktisch immer wieder behauptete Missbrauchverdacht in der sozialstaatlichen und migrationspolitischen Reformdebatte einnimmt. Schließlich werden politische und kulturelle Maßnahmen gegen die Diskriminierung von Migrantinnen und Migranten im Sozialstaat diskutiert." (Autorenreferat)