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.
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.
Aboriginal lawyer, activist and social commentator Noel Pearson has recently argued that the current mode of delivery of welfare services to Aboriginal people is deeply antithetical to their interests and wellbeing. Central to his scheme for policy change and improved welfare outcomes are two core propositions. The first is that the 'passive welfare' policies instituted in Aboriginal communities over the past three decades, with no demands for reciprocity and responsibility on the part of welfare recipients, have promoted detrimental relations of passivity and dependence which are now deeply embedded within Aboriginal societies. Pearson's second key proposition is that addressing the dysfunctional consequences of the welfare system for Aboriginal people will require structural change. In particular, new institutions for Aboriginal governance, both formal and informal, will need to be developed. It is through reform of the existing institutional arrangements between government and Aboriginal communities, and through these formal and informal Aboriginal institutions, Pearson argues, that the principles of reciprocity and individual responsibility necessary to leach the 'poison' from welfare resources can be instituted and implemented. Pearson's arguments should be seen as a welcome and politically innovative contribution to a policy debate of fundamental importance. The status quo in welfare policy, at least for remote Aboriginal Australia, is not sustainable. However, on the basis of ethnographic evidence from Cape York and other north Queensland Aboriginal communities-the region on which Pearson's policy proposals are centred-this Discussion Paper suggests that certain of Pearson's underlying assumptions need careful re-examination and further development, and that the evidence poses certain difficulties for the practical implementation of his proposals. In particular, the ethnography from Cape York and elsewhere suggests that certain widespread Aboriginal values and practices may be inimical to the kinds of social and attitudinal changes which Pearson is advocating and, further, that these values and practices have not simply arisen as the consequence of the experience of colonialism or the introduction of welfare. This then raises the question of the sources of the moral suasion and authority necessary to demand and implement social change in Aboriginal societies. Pearson proposes that these lie variously within 'families' and other local groups and 'communities'. This view is challenged here, with the argument that such contemporary groupings do not have the requisite moral and political authority over individuals. If this is the case, it creates a dilemma for Pearson's scheme, for if social and attitudinal changes are necessary, whence can they be driven? The answer may lie in the new forms of Indigenous governance and leadership which Pearson proposes. However, these would involve significant changes within the Indigenous polity, which may be beyond the capacity of Indigenous groups themselves to institute. Facilitation and support from external sources, including government, may be required. However, the involvement of government in social change would carry its own risks, since despite rhetorical support for Indigenous self-determination, government is inherently incapable of moving beyond its own dominating rationale.
The welfare state refers to a concept of a state that focuses on ensuring that a broad range of social rights is provided for all citizens by acting on the social mechanisms and consequences of the market economy. In such a state government plays a vital role in balancing social inequalities by providing or subsidizing social benefits and services. This activity is called social policy. Individual countries are characterized by different welfare state models, goals, values, and groups of beneficiaries. Such a state usually supports a recovery from the difficult situation of the population, which is not, itself, able to take care of their basic needs.
The welfare state refers to a concept of a state that focuses on ensuring that a broad range of social rights is provided for all citizens by acting on the social mechanisms and consequences of the market economy. In such a state government plays a vital role in balancing social inequalities by providing or subsidizing social benefits and services. This activity is called social policy. Individual countries are characterized by different welfare state models, goals, values, and groups of beneficiaries. Such a state usually supports a recovery from the difficult situation of the population, which is not, itself, able to take care of their basic needs.
This book makes the case for the welfare state. Nearly every government in the developed world offers some form of social protection, and measures to improve the social and economic well-being of its citizens. However, the provision of welfare is under attack. The critics argue that welfare states are illegitimate, that things are best left to the market, and that welfare has bad effects on the people who receive it. If we need to be reminded why we ought to have welfare, it is because so many people have come think that we should not. This chapter presents 26 reasons for the provision of welfare. The file for this record represents only a sample chapter from the whole work, which is available for purchase from the publisher.
There is no consensus on how to measure interpersonally comparable, cardinal utility. Despite of this, people repeatedly make welfare evaluations in their everyday lives. However, people do not always agree on such evaluations, and this is one important reason for political disagreements. Thus, to keep in control of the normative premises, decision makers may prefer information which can be used as input in an arbitrary social welfare function to information which is the output from a social welfare function specified by the analyst. In this paper we try to identify sufficient welfare indicators; information which enable decision makers to arrive at welfare evaluations of social states or projects, according to their own ethical beliefs. Our conclusion is that providing factual information about different population groups; their social state, size, and characteristics, may be better for this purpose than the more traditional approach of focusing on ordinal utility information.
The essay analyzes the occupational welfare which, thanks to its virtuous capacities, has been supported by the state in recent times through redistributive fiscal policies. Through an analysis of the positive effects and the evolutionary tensions of occupational welfare, the essay intends to demonstrate how such a public policy entails the occurrence of a twofold effect: a) Indirectly attributing a delegation of social protection function to collective agreements, inducing trade unions and companies to include in the object of collective agreements the protection of general and public interests, that are expression of fundamental rights such as education, health, pension plans; b) Further developing the process of institutionalization of collective autonomy which, as early as the 1980s, was delegated the normative tasks of regulating the labour market and employment. The essay argues that collective autonomy, on its own, without a legal framework, is unsuitable to protect general and public interests such as those that since 2016 constitute the new object of collective bargaining and therefore needs to be regulated, also in function of a possible extension of the subjective scope of employment welfare. ; Este artículo aborda el estudio del welfare laboral que, por su capacidad virtuosa, ha sido apoyada por el Estado en los últimos años mediante políticas fiscales de carácter redistributivo. A través del análisis de los efectos positivos y de las tensiones evolutivas del welfare laboral, el artículo pretende demostrar cómo dicha política pública lleva a la conclusion de un doble efecto: a) Atribuir indirectamente una delegación de la función de protección social al convenio colectivo, incluiendo en el objeto del convenio colectivo la protección de los intereses generales, públicos, la expresión de derechos fundamentales como la educación, la salud, seguridad social); b) Desarrollar aún más el proceso de institucionalización de la autonomía colectiva a la que, ya desde los años 80, se le han delegado las normativas reguladoras del mercado de trabajo y del empleo. La tesis que se asume presenta es que la autonomía colectiva, por sí misma, sin marco legal, es inadecuada para proteger intereses generales y públicos como los que desde 2016 constituyen el nuevo objeto de la negociación colectiva y, por tanto, necesitan ser regulados, también en función de una posible ampliación del ámbito subjetivo del welfare laboral. ; L'articolo ha ad oggetto lo studio del welfare occupazionale, che in considerazione delle sue capacità virtuose, negli ultimi è stato sostenuto dallo Stato attraverso politiche fiscali di stampo redistributivo. Attraverso un'analisi di effetti positivi e delle tensioni evolutive del welfare occupazionale, il saggio intende dimostrare come siffatta policy pubblica comporti il verificarsi di un duplice effetto: a) Attribuire indirettamente una delega della funzione di protezione sociale al contratto collettivo, inducendo le parti sociali ad includere nell'oggetto del contratto collettivo la tutela di interessi generali, pubblici, espressione di diritti fondamentali quali istruzione, salute, previdenza); b) Sviluppare ulteriormente il processo di istituzionalizzazione dell'autonomia collettiva che, già a partire dagli anni Ottanta, veniva delegata di compiti normativi di regolazione del mercato del lavoro e dell'occupazione. La tesi che si intende sostenere è che l'autonomia collettiva, da sola, senza una cornice legale, sia inidonea a tutelare interessi generali e pubblici come quelli che dal 2016 costituiscono il nuovo oggetto della contrattazione collettiva e pertanto necessiti di essere regolata, anche in funzione di un possibile ampliamento dell'ambito di applicazione soggettiva del welfare occupazionale.
This article is devoted to the principle of sustainability in the development of companies and countries. The article touches various important points on the sustainability on the public policy, financial issues, customer happiness, environment, industrial development, international trade, ethics, and corporate governance. The author recalls the definition of sustainability and its importance to the economy and politics in the modern world. Then the author has identified five main areas of sustainability: sustainable approaches in public and fiscal policy, financial facilities, fair income distribution, improved international trade, and environment. All of them were studied in this article. The author has developed recommendations for businesses in Turkey and the country's leadership that are also in the article.
The primary purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the papers within the economics literature that have examined the questions of immigrant welfare use and the responsiveness of immigrants to the incentives created by welfare systems. While our focus is largely on papers looking at the European case, we also draw on studies from the United States, in particular on issues where the European literature is thin. One set of papers asks whether immigrants who are more likely to use welfare are attracted to more generous welfare states. The results from these papers are not clear-cut. Another set of papers asks if immigrants use welfare more intensively than natives and if they assimilate out of or into welfare participation. In most cases, the unadjusted data shows higher use of welfare by immigrants although for some countries, for example Germany, this difference can be explained by differences in characteristics. Yet another set of papers finds that the rate of welfare use by existing migrants can influence the welfare use of newly arrived co-nationals. We illustrate some of these issues by looking at immigrant welfare use in Ireland and the UK. Immigrants in the UK appear to use welfare more intensively than natives but the opposite appears to be the case in Ireland.
This chapter focuses on the inner rationale and consequences of four different archetypal positions regarding how ethical and political values are tackled in welfare economics. Welfare economics is standardly associated with the welfarist framework, for which social welfare is based on individual utility only. Beyond this, we distinguish the value-neutrality claimfor which ethical values should be and are out of the scope of welfare economics-, the value confinement idealfor which ethical values are acceptable if they are minimal and consensual-, the transparency requirementfor which any ethical values may be acceptable in the welfare economics framework if explicit and formalized-, and the entanglement claimwhich challenges the very possibility of demarcation between facts and values.
This chapter focuses on the inner rationale and consequences of four different archetypal positions regarding how ethical and political values are tackled in welfare economics. Welfare economics is standardly associated with the welfarist framework, for which social welfare is based on individual utility only. Beyond this, we distinguish the value-neutrality claimfor which ethical values should be and are out of the scope of welfare economics-, the value confinement idealfor which ethical values are acceptable if they are minimal and consensual-, the transparency requirementfor which any ethical values may be acceptable in the welfare economics framework if explicit and formalized-, and the entanglement claimwhich challenges the very possibility of demarcation between facts and values.
This chapter focuses on the inner rationale and consequences of four different archetypal positions regarding how ethical and political values are tackled in welfare economics. Welfare economics is standardly associated with the welfarist framework, for which social welfare is based on individual utility only. Beyond this, we distinguish the value-neutrality claimfor which ethical values should be and are out of the scope of welfare economics-, the value confinement idealfor which ethical values are acceptable if they are minimal and consensual-, the transparency requirementfor which any ethical values may be acceptable in the welfare economics framework if explicit and formalized-, and the entanglement claimwhich challenges the very possibility of demarcation between facts and values.
