Suchergebnisse

Interest in the subject of privatisation in Australia has increased markedly over recent years, although references to it have been made in the literature intermittently over a longer period. The original purpose of this bibliography was to record items dealing with the privatisation of welfare services. However, as work on collecting material for the entries proceeded, it became obvious that it is extremely difficult to separate privatisation of welfare services from the effects on welfare of the privatisation of enterprises not directly concerned with those services. Privatisation of enterprises such as the water supply and communication services, has direct or indirect effects on the well-being of the population. It introduces the question of 'community service obligations' (CSOs), or the non-commercial objectives of government business organisations, which are often lost when these organisations are privatised. This bibliography has therefore widened its scope to include works which refer to the effects on the well-being of the population of the privatisation of enterprises not directly in the welfare area. Another issue which has affected the choice of entries has been that of what constitutes privatisation. A number of works cited here are concerned with definition and with detailing the nature of the changes which are entailed in different forms of privatisation: deregulation, the introduction of user-pays practices, asset sales etc. Among these may be included an expanded role for the voluntary or non-profit sector in the provision of community and welfare services. These entries are found under the keyword 'Forms'.

Abstract. The article draws upon the main results of the Report on Welfare State 2019 edited by the Author. The first part analyses occupational welfare which involves the following aspects: the historical context of the most comprehensive state-market relations in which it developed; the reasons and the economic and social effects of the spread of occupational welfare; the areas of intervention and the dimensions it has assumed in various countries and in Italy; the connections with the welfare state; the links with employer-trade union relationships, productivity trends, decentralized wage bargaining and wage trends; and the effects on inequalities in access to social goods and services. The following two sections examine the social and economic policies implemented in Europe and Italy, and the quantitative and qualitative dynamics of expenditure. In particular, we explore: trends and policies regarding: the labor market; demographic and migration trends; education and healthcare; social safety networks; inequalities; the policies aimed at reducing poverty; and the basic guaranteed citizens' income (reddito di cittadinanza) a measure recently introduced in Italy. Finally, the analysis focuses on the measures adopted by the Italian Government in relation to the pension system, as well as the forecasts, problems and recommendations concerning public and private systems.

The article draws upon the main results of the Report on Welfare State 2019 edited by the Author. The first part analyses occupational welfare which involves the following aspects: the historical context of the most comprehensive state-market relations in which it developed; the reasons and the economic and social effects of the spread of occupational welfare; the areas of intervention and the dimensions it has assumed in various countries and in Italy; the connections with the welfare state; the links with employer-trade union relationships, productivity trends, decentralized wage bargaining and wage trends; and the effects on inequalities in access to social goods and services. The following two sections examine the social and economic policies implemented in Europe and Italy, and the quantitative and qualitative dynamics of expenditure. In particular, we explore: trends and policies regarding: the labor market; demographic and migration trends; education and healthcare; social safety networks; inequalities; the policies aimed at reducing poverty; and the basic guaranteed citizens' income (reddito di cittadinanza) a measure recently introduced in Italy. Finally, the analysis focuses on the measures adopted by the Italian Government in relation to the pension system, as well as the forecasts, problems and recommendations concerning public and private systems.

This conceptual article and special issue introduction argues for the importance of studying three policy paradigms surrounding welfare policy opposition. The first is welfare populism, the opposition to welfare policies that do not benefit the 'common people'. The second is welfare chauvinism, the opposition to welfare policies for non-natives within a nation-state. The third is welfare Euroscepticism, the opposition to welfare policies at the European Union level. These paradigms have distinct causes and consequences that should be studied in more detail across different political actors. And while welfare policy opposition may not lead to a complete farewell to welfare, they have been shaping and will continue to shape welfare state recalibration. This article offers summaries of the special issue contributions with empirical snapshots of welfare policy opposition and concludes with avenues for future research.

Based on papers presented at a Workshop on the Politics of the Welfare State, sponsored jointly by Government and Opposition and the Department of Government, University of Manchester, held in Manchester, England, Sept. 13-14, 1984.

In a neoliberal, market-oriented society where traditional welfare is minimized, looked down upon and seen as obsolete, it is no surprise that political entrepreneurs, market-actors, corporations, ad-gurus and brands are playing energetic roles as the new welfare creators and welfare experts and are generating unexplored linkages between brands and welfare. In order to feed off the world of welfare and still maintain legitimacy and grow in popularity, brands need this to be an utterly cool thing – that's why brands need welfare-cool.

The welfare state in the UK & elsewhere is currently caught up in a number of crises. The slowing of economic growth has reduced the resources available for its support & has consequently exposed it to theoretical challenges. In particular, it has been criticized as seeking to fulfill needs that are in fact illimitable. In addition, market & liberation theorists have suggested that the welfare state is hostile to individual autonomy & responsibility, & serves the interests of welfare professionals more than those of the poor. It appears, however, that fundamental changes in policy are less likely than incremental readjustments. The issues raised by this crisis concern the basic nature of the relation of society to state, & of both to the individual. W. H. Stoddard

Abstract
In his libertarian manifesto, For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard [15] points to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an excellent model for what a private welfare program would look like in a free society. In analyzing this same organization, we can see that nearly 50 years later Rothbard's analysis is truer than ever. Unlike the public welfare programs in the U.S., the LDS church has successfully helped lift countless individuals out of poverty and off the welfare rolls by increasing their level of productivity – a point that Henry Hazlitt [7] made in his book, The Conquest of Poverty. Public welfare, on the other hand, has continuously failed to increase the standard of living or even lift those it ostensibly seeks to help out of poverty; on the contrary, it is a system that prevents economic independence. The analysis in the present paper seeks to revive, amplify and bring up to date Rothbard's observation and provide further insight on key factors that other private organizations can take from the Church's model. Ultimately, it reveals that the successful journey out of poverty is not a public but rather a private endeavor.

Feminists' engagement with contemporary US welfare reform is investigated. Although the Personal Responsibility Act is interpreted as an aggressive affront to women's rights, it is asserted that US feminists offer little resistance to the welfare reform policy. Rather than advocate women's choice to work either inside or outside the home, feminists are delineated as only supporting wage-earning employment for women. It is contended that feminists' attention to welfare reform emphasizes female recipients' personal deficiencies rather than problems with the welfare system. Moreover, emphasis on female recipients' decision making supports the dominant position that individuals who require financial support are morally deficient. Even though the termination of welfare is viewed as a positive objective, it is stated that poor women's input in ending welfare is needed. Therefore, women's domestic caregiving should be recognized as a legitimate form of work, & women's participation in the labor market must be rendered a more meaningful experience. 8 References. J. W. Parker

'CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?', THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER was reported to have replied to a question concerning the alleged crisis in sterling. In the case of the welfare state it might seem that the appropriate response would be 'Which crisis? ' since there are several on the menu - fiscal crisis, legitimacy crisis, crisis of ungovernability . Left, Right and Centre have become convinced that there is a crisis. This is after a period of history which had seen an unprecedented rise in the standard of living of the vast majority of the population living in what are normally regarded as welfare states.