Welfare deservingness opinions from heuristic to measurable concept: The CARIN deservingness principles scale

A steadily growing number of studies investigate how popular support for social policies targeting particular groups is rooted in citizens’ deservingness opinions. According to theory, people fall back on five criteria – Control, Attitude, Reciprocity, Identity and Need (CARIN) – to distinguish the deserving from the undeserving. Deservingness opinions are assumed to be important predictors of support for particular welfare arrangements. A striking feature of this emerging research, however, is that there is no agreed-upon strategy to measure deservingness. Most previous studies rely on proxy-variables rather than measuring the actual deservingness criteria. Deservingness functions as a heuristic rather than as a measured concept, which leads to conceptual confusion. To remedy this shortcoming, this contribution proposes and validates a new instrument –the CARIN deservingness principles scale- that captures the five basic deservingness principles. We analyse data from the Belgian National Election Study by means of structural equation modelling (SEM) to (1) test the dimensionality, validity and reliability of the scale, and (2) verify to what extent the five deservingness principles predict specific policy preferences (as a test of construct validity). Our analyses confirm that the five deservingness principles are distinct dimensions that are differently related to social structural variables and have divergent consequences for policy preferences. The finding of theoretically meaningful patterns of differentiated effects illustrates that the CARIN criteria represent distinct logics of social justice, and corroborates that our measurement instrument is capable of tapping into the essence of these criteria.     

Between “Families in Trouble” and “Children at Risk”: Historicising “Troubled Family” Policy in England since 1945

The launch of the Troubled Families Programme in 2011 has thrown into sharp relief how governments develop policies and practices to intervene in the lives of so‐called ‘troubled families’. Commentators were quick to make comparisons with historic efforts to rehabilitate ‘problem families’ in the post‐war period. However, beyond discursive similarities, there are also marked continuities in how family policies have been developed and implemented. This review narrates the rise, fall and rise of concern about ‘problem’ and ‘troubled’ families in England in the context of anxieties about child and family welfare, and the appropriate response of the state.     

The performance of the Australian welfare system in a time of neoliberal economic reform

“Neoliberalism”, both as a body of theory and as a set of policies and practices, is commonly seen as unsympathetic, even antagonistic, to the welfare state. In the period from the mid‐1980s to the global financial crisis of 2007–08, Australia underwent very considerable “neoliberal” economic policy reform. What happened to the Australian welfare system and to Australia's socioeconomic egalitarianism in this period? To shed light on that question three kinds of trend are tracked. The first is household taxes and social expenditure in both cash and kind, using fiscal incidence analysis where the main metric is “net benefits”. The second is economic inequality, as measured by the distribution of incomes and wealth. The third is the performance of the labor market, as measured by earned incomes and unemployment rates. The article concludes with an attempt to integrate the evidence collected from these three sources. The general conclusion is that the Australian welfare system did not follow the pessimists' predictions. The welfare system grew in size and redistributive quantum. Wage levels rose strongly, while unemployment rates fell. Overall, income inequality increased to a small extent, though mainly before the full economic reform process was in place, while wealth inequality changed little.     

Beyond the Nation State: Social Policy in an Age of Globalization

The paper proceeds from the assumption that globalization has placed significant constraints on the autonomy of nation states in the making of social policy. It argues that the post-World War II welfare state represented a social system highly successful in combining economic efficiency and dynamism with equity and solidarity. This historic achievement at the nation-state level is being undermined by economic globalization. It is both necessary and feasible to recreate and institutionalize this mixed system globally. The paper argues that the concept of social rights, which has served as the basic underpinning of the welfare state, has many weaknesses—logical as well as empirical. While the principles of civil and political rights are being consolidated and extended worldwide the principle of social rights is in decay. The paper presents the case for replacing social rights by social standards as the major concept for buttressing systems of social protection. To be applicable globally a social standard must be conceptualized as a level of social development which corresponds to an appropriate level of economic development. Finally, the paper considers the problems and prospects of developing social standards transnationally. It reviews, briefly, the nature and extent of transnational social policy-making by inter-governmental organizations and concludes that despite difficulties of global action advances towards global social standards remain possible.     

Civil criticism and the welfare state

This article is a report on a Finnish survey on criticism of the welfare state. The research questions are: 1) How commonly do people see the negative sides of the welfare state? 2) What background variables correlate with critical attitudes? Data for the study were gathered in a representative Finnish mail survey (N=2, 949). The main results show that criticism against the welfare state is rather widespread in Finland. The most critical people are those who support the Rightist parties. However, different socio-economic groups express diverging forms of criticism. People with a lower position in stratification hierarchies are critical of the alleged bureaucracy of the welfare state. The middle classes are more critical about the redistributive effects of the welfare state. However, the widespread criticism cannot be interpreted as a sign of a legitimation crisis. People both support and criticize the welfare state at the same time.     

革命·国民·本土--左翼戏剧大众化理论的再思考

大众化是中国左翼戏剧运动中所提出的最重要,讨论也最广泛的理论问题.它在戏剧与大众关系的向度上,有着独特的精神动力、主体诉求和现实归趋,并在其极端化倡导和原创性实践中显露出先锋姿态.     

贵州少数民族传统体育现状及发展对策

贵州少数民族传统体育内容丰富、形式多样,是中华民族灿烂文化的重要组成部分。如不对这些宝贵的文化遗产加以挖掘、继承和发扬,它们将濒临失传,前景实为堪忧。本研究采用文献资料、走访观察等方法,对贵州少数民族传统体育现状进行调查与分析,提出开发和挖掘贵州少数民族传统体育的必要性,并积极探寻贵州少数传统民族体育发展的思路与对策。     

赛前400m跑训练的探讨

本文依据训练学理论结合学生的生理特点,根据多年的训练实践,使运动员能在赛前达到超量恢复,处于最佳的赛前竞技状态。     

关于古典文明命运问题的再思考

对于中西古代文明研究中的诸多问题,刘家和认为,中国古代虽有夷夏之别,但夷与夏可以互相转化,这种夷夏互转的过程,就是华夏化发展的过程。在中国古代,以中原为中心的对流活动有效地推进了以华夏族为主体的多民族共同体的形成。晁福林认为,从远古到夏商时期,人们的历史观念的主干是对于氏族传承关系的记忆。周代的历史观念与史书体裁依然没有越出氏族史、宗族史的藩蓠,真正意义上的具有完备体例的国家史在秦汉帝国时代才得以出现。杨共乐对国家起源问题进行了再思考,认为恩格斯所说的"经济利益相互冲突的阶级"、"不可调和的对立面"并非是指奴隶主和奴隶,在国家起源的原因问题方面,恩格斯虽然更多地强调了阶级斗争的作用,但其从未断言这是国家产生的唯一根源。蒋重跃认为,周代封国与希腊城邦间的相似之处表现有四,即古代中国的"国"字与古希腊文的"城邦"一词在含义上有相通之处;殖民活动;小国寡民与独立性。二者间的不同之处有二,即两重性与单一性之不同及发展前景不同。易宁以秦汉帝国与罗马帝国为代表,对古代帝国形成过程的 "异"中之"同"与"同"中之"异"进行了探讨,认为统一与征服是区分古代帝国性质的重要依据。刘林海对罗马帝国的命运问题进行了重新思考,认为无论是从历史层面还是从认识层面上,罗马帝国的命运都是既断又续,断续并存(转型)的。     

中国"大一统制度"与国有经济

中国自秦统一以来所形成的高度中央集权制度,是在传统农业文明条件下维持一个大国统一所必须的制度保障,其在经济方面的国家直接经营部分带有垄断性或高利润的工商业,具有控制国民经济和增加财政收入的双重目的, 尤其是后者,更是一个多民族的、各地政治、经济发展很不平衡条件下维持国家统一的重要条件。鸦片战争以后,国家面临着被列强侵略和瓜分的危险。在这种情况下,中国要在转型期继续维护国家统一,就必须解决国家控制国民经济的能力和保证统一的财力。因此,我们对国营经济作用的分析,不仅要看到其本身的经济效益如何,还要看到其在特定历史条件下的外部效益,即在维护中国这样一个历史悠久、延续至今的大国统一中的历史作用。