¹ Wilensky, Harold L. and Lebeaux, Charles N., Industrial Society and Social Welfare, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1958.Google Scholar

² On the social organization of the welfare services, see Titmuss, Richard M., ‘The Social Division of Welfare’, in Richard M. Titmuss, Essays on the Welfare State, Allen and Unwin, London, 1958.Google Scholar

³ Shlakman, Vera, ‘The Safety Net Function in Public Assistance: A Cross National Exploration’, Social Service Review, 46:2 (1972), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ The ideology of Zionism and Labor Zionism is discussed in Eisenstadt, S. N., Israeli Society, Basic Books, New York, 1967Google Scholar; and Elon, Amos, The Israelis: Founders and Sons, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1971.Google Scholar

⁵ Not even in the biblical sense of ‘For the poor shall never cease out of the land’ – Deuteronomy, 15:11.

⁶ Ministry of Welfare, Budget Proposal for the Fiscal Year 1975, submitted to the Eighth Knesset, Jerusalem, February 1975, p. 82 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁷ On this issue, see Falk, Zeev, ‘Local or National Assistance?’, SAAD, 4:1 (1960), 10–11 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar; and Neipris, Joseph, ‘Social Services in Israel: A Review of Programmes and Policies’, Journal of Jewish Communal Services, 47:4 (1971), 289–315.Google Scholar

⁸ de Schweinitz, Karl, England's Road to Social Security, Perpetua Edition, Barnes and Company, New York, 1961.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid. p. 239.

¹⁰ Rosenheim, Margaret K., ‘Social Welfare and its Implications for Family Living’, in Shanas, Ethel and Streib, Gordon F. (eds), Social Structure and the Family: Generational Relations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965, pp. 218–19.Google Scholar

¹¹ On the character of local government in Israel, see Weiss, S., Local Government in Israel: The Legal and Socio-Politicol Background, Am Oved, Tel-Aviv, 1972 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar; and Kramer, Ralph M., Community Development in Israel and the Netherlands, Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1970, pp. 37–44.Google Scholar

¹² The special character of the indirect right to assistance was defined in the first decade of this century by the German sociologist, Georg Simmel, in the following way – ‘The right which corresponds to the obligation of the State to provide assistance is not the right of the poor, but rather the right of every citizen that the taxes he pays for the poor be of such size and applied in such manner that the public goals of assistance to the poor be truly attained’ – Simmel, Georg, ‘The Poor’, Social Problems, 13:2 (1965), 118–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Social Welfare Regulations (Treatment Procedures for Persons in Need), Section 2, 1960.

¹⁴ The appeal committees have been found to be rather ineffective in their structure and functions. On this, see Doron, Abraham and Shnitt, Dan, Appeal Boards in the Israeli Welfare Services, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and the Institute for Legislative Research and Comparative Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Ministry of Welfare, TAAS (Social Services Provision Rules), Assistance Eligibility Rules, September 1975.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Welfare Services Act, 1958, paras 3, 4 and 5.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ministry of Welfare, TAAS, Enforcing Support from Liable Relatives, February 1963Google Scholar; and Assistance Eligibility Rules, September 1975.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The Family Law Amendment (Maintenance) Act, 1959, para. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid. para. 5.

²⁰ Doron, Abraham and Rosenthal, Rami, Relatives' Responsibility in the Israeli Welfare System, Publication Series in Social Welfare and Social Work no. 5, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1971 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

²¹ On this issue, see for example Schorr, Alvin, Explorations in Social Policy, Basic Books, New York, 1968, pp. 101–31.Google Scholar

²² This phenomenon has also been emphasized recently in France. See Grandjeat, Pierre, ‘The Collective and Individual Responsibilities for the Provision of Social Services’, in Report of Seminar on Problems of Policy, Administration and Financing of the Social Services, Killarney, Ireland, 18–28 05 1975Google Scholar, United Nations, New York, 1975.

²⁸ Silver, Harold, Public Assistance in Israel, Report to the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, Detroit, Michigan, 1972.Google Scholar

²⁴ Roter, R. and Shamai, N., ‘Patterns of Poverty in Israel’, Bitachon Sotziali (Social Security), 1 (1971), 17–28 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

²⁵ Doron, Abraham, ‘Incentives to Work in the Israeli Welfare System’, The Economic Quarterly, 18:69–70 (1971), 55–60 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘The Sated Person's View of the Poor’, Hatzofeh, 12 April 1970.Google Scholar

²⁷ Walinsky, Adam, ‘Keeping the Poor in their Place: Notes on the Importance of Being One-Up’, in Shostak, Arthur B. and Gomberg, William (eds), New Perspectives on Poverty, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965.Google Scholar

²⁸ Miller, S. M. and Rein, Martin, ‘Can Income Redistribution Work?’, Social Policy, 6:1 (1975). 3–18.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Weiss, op. cit.

³⁰ Concerning the standing of these rules, see Shnitt, Dan, ‘The Right to Assistance in Israel’, unpublished LL.D. dissertation, submitted to the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974, PD. 61–74 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

³¹ These principles were already established in the 1930s by the Social Services Department of the General Council (Vaad Leumi) of the Jewish Community in Palestine. In a circular published in 1939, ‘Principles and Foundation of Social Work in the Jewish Community’, it stated that ‘In modern social work, extending material help is not its only function. At its basis is the social investigation which results in diagnosis and a determination of ways of treating the client with the goal of making him productive and useful to himself and society.’

³² Bums, Eveline M., ‘What's Wrong with Public Welfare?’, Social Service Review, 36:2 (1962), 111–22.Google Scholar

³³ On the concept of countervailing power, see Galbraith, J. K., American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1963.Google Scholar

³⁴ See for example Assaf, S. S., ‘Inside the Hausner Committee Room’, The Jerusalem Post, 30 11 1975, p. 8.Google Scholar

³⁵ Roter and Shamai, op. cit. p. 24.

³⁶ Pinker, Robert, Social Theory and Social Policy, Heinemann, London, 1971, p. 175.Google Scholar

³⁷ Rosenfeld, Jona M., ‘Strangeness Between Helper and Client: A Possible Explanation of Non-Use of Available Professional Help’, Social Service Review, 38:1 (1964), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Rimlinger, Gaston V., Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America and Russia, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1971.Google Scholar

³⁹ Doron, Abraham and Kramer, Ralph M., ‘Ideology, Programme and Organizational Factors in Public Assistance: The Case of Israel’, Journal of Social Policy, 5:2 (1976), 131–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar