| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
190409
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As part of a broader direction of welfare and governance reforms, China has launched a policy to contract welfare services out to social organizations. Scholars have explored the implementation of the policy in a few socioeconomically advanced cities such as Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Shanghai. In this article, we examine how local governments lacking nongovernmental services suppliers or resources for contracting respond to the policy. We developed a framework of multiple logics to analyse services contracting in a county-level city in eastern China. We found that local officials follow three logics in implementing the policy: to meet the central state's targets, to balance policy outcomes and risks, and to stimulate a more participatory society. This generates a mix of policy behaviour, including entrepreneurialism, welfarism, innovation, risk-sharing and collaboration. We thus argue the interplay of the logics determines the local policy process of services contracting in China.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
141756
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Introduced in the late 1990s, tax credits grew under successive Labour governments to become a cornerstone of UK social policy. Distinguished from traditional welfare policies by their target group and their mode of administration, and with goals that appeared capable of commanding support across the ideological spectrum, tax credits until recently seemed to hold the key to tackling poverty in a politically popular manner. But since 2010 the tax credit system has been systematically dismantled, initially qualitatively and latterly also quantitatively. This paper discusses the multiple factors that help to explain the rapid fall from grace in the UK of this liberal approach to supporting the incomes of poor working households.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
111018
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Eva Bertram analyzes the effects of welfare reform initiatives undertaken by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. She argues that liberalizing reforms of the 1960s created opportunities for conservative Democratic lawmakers to seize the policy agenda, laying the groundwork for a turn toward workfare that would culminate in the 1990s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
095003
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
140682
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Kalyani Publishers, 1980.
|
| Description |
xxxix, 868p.hbk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 026775 | 973/DUI 026775 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
138277
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Parties in coalition governments must address the ‘unity/distinctiveness’ dilemma: how to maintain governing cohesion, while sustaining individual identities. Within the Cameron–Clegg government this is a challenge for both parties, but it is more so for the Liberal Democrats as the junior partner. This paper considers how the Liberal Democrats negotiated this dilemma in relation to ministerial portfolio allocations. While the Liberal Democrat strategy of placing ministers in almost all departments has served the Coalition well in terms of governing unity, it has limited the extent to which they have been able to assert their distinctive contribution to Coalition policy-making. This is demonstrated through an examination of the Liberal Democrats' influence on Coalition welfare policy. A lack of clear policy contributions is potentially highly damaging to the Liberal Democrats electorally, as it suggests that they have made little substantive contribution to the Coalition beyond propping up their Conservative partners. Accordingly, the paper reflects on lessons for junior partners in future UK coalition governments, suggesting that concentrating ministers within one or two departments may provide a more viable means of carving out a distinctive governing legacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
105430
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The stakes of political conflict involve contending values and issue definitions as well as policy. Welfare reform was the most important change in American domestic policy since civil rights. Its significance hinges crucially on how participants understood the issue, but existing research fails to resolve what their perceptions were. Most accounts suggest that welfare reform was an ideological contest concerning the proper scope of government, but there are other views. This study gauges the welfare agenda rigorously by coding speakers in congressional hearings on the basis of how they framed the issue and the position they took on it during the six chief episodes of welfare reform that occurred between 1962 and 1996. The reform efforts aroused four distinct divisions. Over time, positions moved rightward, but more important, the dominant issue changed: The ideological debate about government was overtaken by a more practical debate about how to manage welfare. This is the first study to track the substantive meaning of any issue in Congress over an extended period of time using hearing witnesses and a preset analytic scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|