Doing Good and Selling Goods

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations - This paper explores a network of organizations and their perspectives on the social enterprise commodity. Based on...     

The Welfare State as Safety Net in Migration Preferences: Empirical Evidence from an Experiment Among Dutch Master Students

Population Research and Policy Review - The welfare state can be perceived as a safety net which helps individuals adjust to situations of risk or transition. Starting from this idea of the welfare...     

Does a universal non-contributory social pension make sense for rural China?

China’s pension reform during the past three decades has allowed a majority of China’s population to be covered by a pension scheme. Of particular note has been the New Rural Pension Scheme (NRPS), a voluntary programme introduced starting in 2009. One goal of our analysis is to assess that pension scheme, using a variety of sources of information including data drawn from recent (2013 and 2015) nationwide China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Surveys (CHARLS). Our analysis involves an exploration of differences between the generosity and structure of the NRPS and other pension schemes currently in place. We also explore the feasibility of reforming the current “quasi-social pension” component of the NRPS by substituting a universal non-contributory social pension pillar. In connection with our assessment of the NRPS, we note the unusually low benefit levels for rural China.     

Reviews

Abstract

Michelle DeMars reviews The Indispensable Academic Librarian: Teaching and Collaborating for Change; Norma Durian reviews The Library Outreach Casebook; Trina Boykin Nolen reviews Licensing Digital Content: A Practical Guide for Librarians, Third Edition.     

A majorization comparison of apportionment methods in proportional representation

From the inception of the proportional representation movement it has been an issue whether larger parties are favored at the expense of smaller parties in one apportionment of seats as compared to another apportionment. A number of methods have been proposed and are used in countries with a proportional representation system. These apportionment methods exhibit a regularity of order, as discussed in the present paper, that captures the preferential treatment of larger versus smaller parties. This order, namely majorization, permits the comparison of seat allocations in two apportionments. For divisor methods, we show that one method is majorized by another method if and only if their signpost ratios are increasing. This criterion is satisfied for the divisor methods with power-mean rounding, and for the divisor methods with stationary rounding. Majorization places the five traditional apportionment methods in the order as they are known to favor larger parties over smaller parties: Adams, Dean, Hill, Webster, and Jefferson. Received: 5 August 2000/Accepted: 24 October 2001     

The minimum wage and poverty among full-time workers

V. Conclusions The empirical evidence is strong that minimum wages have had little or no effect on poverty in the U.S. Indeed, the evidence is stronger that minimum wages occasionally increase poverty. It also suggests that the minimum wage does not even lower poverty for the one group that, almost by definition, one would expect to be helped: full-time, year-round workers. While the empirical results suggest minimum wages do not achieve what is ostensibly their primary goal — relieving poverty among the working poor — minimum wages do seem to impose a real cost on society in terms of lost income and output. The empirical evidence on work hours suggests that a $1 increase in the minimum wage, far from being almost costless, could conceivably impose income losses to American workers in the $12-15 billion range per year — an amount equal to the “income deficit” of millions of persons counted as poor by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.     

Territorial Modernity and Public Space: Lessons from the Politics of Water Conflict Along the US/Canadian Border

Conflict over water resources is a major problem throughout the world. This essay describes the long-standing and often successful effort to insulate decisions on how to allot water among contending users, and how to reduce water pollution along a 5000-mile international border. The effort has been fraught with political and scientific complexity. Yet, after more than 90 years of experience, it provides a model that other nations are beginning to examine as relevant to their own efforts to find solutions.